From a news report - Filming an emergency? Know your rights

[SSCBD]

How would you react on a dirt aircraft strip if something happened?

 

Just took this section out

 

 

 

No duty to rescue

 

Under Australian law, you have no duty to help a stranger involved in an emergency or accident.

 

Michael Eburn, an associate law professor at ANU and emergency law blogger, said this meant if you decided not to rush in to help you were not at fault.

 

"That changes if you have some relationship with them or caused the accident or it's someone who you have responsibility for," he said.

 

"But if you just see an event happening and have no other contact with it, you're under no obligation to go and assist."

 

As for switching on your camera and capturing what you see, the rule is clear — you can film anything you like in a public place.

 

"People should be jumping in to help instead of filming, but, from a legal point of view, what the law says is there's no property in a spectacle," Dr Eburn said.

 

"If something is happening in a public space, and you're not going on a private property or anything, you can film it."

 

 

[old man emu]

Another example of the Aussie Spirit being corrupted by America's Rule No 1: Make money for yourself before you do anything for anyone else.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

I've noticed a recent trend, thankfully, on social media to sound out people for filming and not helping.

 

 

[Butch]

No duty to rescueUnder Australian law, you have no duty to help a stranger involved in an emergency or accident.

Michael Eburn, an associate law professor at ANU and emergency law blogger, said this meant if you decided not to rush in to help you were not at fault.

I would say you were un- Australian if you didn't jump in and help to the best of your ability without putting anybody in danger!

 

And as for filming when you should be helping !

 

 

[bexrbetter]

I would say you were un- Australian if you didn't jump in and help to the best of your ability without putting anybody in danger!

You don't know just how true that is until you have lived somewhere where they won't help.

 

 

[SDQDI]

I would say you were un- Australian if you didn't jump in and help to the best of your ability without putting anybody in danger!And as for filming when you should be helping !

While I do fully agree with you on this one Butch I also believe the law needs to stay the way it is in regards to not having a legal responsibility to do so.

I also don't agree with people filming instead of helping BUT I also think we should always have the right to legally film in a public place.

 

So while I think these things are morally wrong I think they should always be legal to do.

 

 

[Bernie Knight]

Mmmm goes back to the night of the late Princess Di and her accident in the French tunnel where Paparazzi filmed whilst some Paparazzi assisted the injured body guard and the Princess.

 

And more recently we saw numerous iPhone footage of the Melbourne car running pedestrians down in town and Police etc attending.

 

Guess it would have happened in the past when we only had our box brownie camera..

 

 

[APenNameAndThatA]

Another example of the Aussie Spirit being corrupted by America's Rule No 1: Make money for yourself before you do anything for anyone else.

It's actually based on British common law, and it was ever thus. And it's completely true. In fact, some argue that doctors don't have a legal duty to help in a medical emergency. The medical board might take a different view, but that is a different matter.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

It's actually based on British common law, and it was ever thus. And it's completely true. In fact, some argue that doctors don't have a legal duty to help in a medical emergency. The medical board might take a different view, but that is a different matter.

Yep. In fact doctors do have a legal duty to provide medical help. We got a recent AHPRA bulletin outlining that fact.

 

There is a Good Samaritan law which limits doctors liability for errors or bad outcomes when they do help provided it’s done in an emergency, with no expectation of reward but they are not allowed to not help - for medical issues. There is no requirement for a doctor to say embark on rescuing someone from a burning building or from a raging torrent etc. It’s just to provide medical help where medical help is needed.

 

 

[naremman]

Yep. In fact doctors do have a legal duty to provide medical help. We got a recent AHPRA bulletin outlining that fact.There is a Good Samaritan law which limits doctors liability for errors or bad outcomes when they do help provided it’s done in an emergency, with no expectation of reward but they are not allowed to not help - for medical issues. There is no requirement for a doctor to say embark on rescuing someone from a burning building or from a raging torrent etc. It’s just to provide medical help where medical help is needed.

When I did my Volunteer Ambulance Officers training with St John WA the provisions of the Good Samaritan law were well explained. It would normally be anticipated that in a trauma or medical incident a person would render assistance to the level of their training/qualifications. A person who has First Aid training would apply that training, as an ambulance officer it would be expected that I would use those skills, but I am not a qualified paramedic, nor a Doctor and certainly not a trauma physician and would not venture there.

 

With the majority of small country towns in WA not having an ambulance service with paramedics, it is vollie ambulance officers that will mainly provide the pre-hospital service. A benefit for those communities is that these trained officers are embedded within our communities, so it is not unusual that we use our skills outside of the ambulance service. We are, never the less, very adept at covering our backsides.

 

As mentioned, Danger is a paramount consideration, and it is no accident that it heads the DRSABCD First Aid acronym.

 

Also prominent is the "S, send for help". With the inevitable initial scrambled brain occurence at an incident, the sooner a sound assessment is made of the scene, and communicated the better. It is a fair chance that it is the person with some training and understanding of the system that starts the process to achieve the best outcome.

 

Within the ambulance service any form of photography is an absolute no no. For those who are not procluded from the camera, I would hope that privacy and respect for those involved becomes the overriding concern. Those of us who give assistance might not be strongly enamored of either the captured images, or the person behind the camera either.

 

When just on one in five people hold current First Aid training, it would be great that in the great Australian tradition that the first responders are always providing the best possible care.

 

 

[APenNameAndThatA]

When I did my Volunteer Ambulance Officers training with St John WA the provisions of the Good Samaritan law were well explained. It would normally be anticipated that in a trauma or medical incident a person would render assistance to the level of their training/qualifications. A person who has First Aid training would apply that training, as an ambulance officer it would be expected that I would use those skills, but I am not a qualified paramedic, nor a Doctor and certainly not a trauma physician and would not venture there.With the majority of small country towns in WA not having an ambulance service with paramedics, it is vollie ambulance officers that will mainly provide the pre-hospital service. A benefit for those communities is that these trained officers are embedded within our communities, so it is not unusual that we use our skills outside of the ambulance service. We are, never the less, very adept at covering our backsides.

 

As mentioned, Danger is a paramount consideration, and it is no accident that it heads the DRSABCD First Aid acronym.

 

Also prominent is the "S, send for help". With the inevitable initial scrambled brain occurence at an incident, the sooner a sound assessment is made of the scene, and communicated the better. It is a fair chance that it is the person with some training and understanding of the system that starts the process to achieve the best outcome.

 

Within the ambulance service any form of photography is an absolute no no. For those who are not procluded from the camera, I would hope that privacy and respect for those involved becomes the overriding concern. Those of us who give assistance might not be strongly enamored of either the captured images, or the person behind the camera either.

 

When just on one in five people hold current First Aid training, it would be great that in the great Australian tradition that the first responders are always providing the best possible care.

I admire the work that volunteer ambulance officers do. I do not think that I would be capable of doing it, not just because I faint at the sight of blood, but because of the stress. I think that anybody who is obliged, at a moment's notice, to go a deal with nasty traffic accidents deserves to be well paid.

 

In Queensland, apparently, members of the local volunteer rural fire brigade are also the members of the volunteer ambulance service. I quite like fighting fires.

 

 

[KRviator]

Except in the NT...

 

Section 155 of the criminal code:

 

Any person who, being able to provide rescue, resuscitation, medical treatment, first aid or succour of any kind to a person urgently in need of it and whose life may be endangered if it is not provided, callously fails to do so is guilty of an offence and is liable to imprisonment for 7 years

[Yenn]

I used to have the highest volounteer first aid certificate available in Qld, way back when I was in the SES. Then they brought in fees to get that certificate and I declared that if I needed a certificate to be able to do volountary rescue work, then SES should pay for it. They agreed to do this and when we had a presentation for the certificates I was asked for $10 for the insurance.

 

I was told I couldn't have the certificate unless I was insured. When I asked why that stupid state of affairs existed I was told that having the certificate meant that I had expertise and could therefore be sued if I made a mistake. If I didn't have the certificate common law prevailed and so long as what I did what "the man on the Clapham bus" would consider correct I could not be found to be at fault. The SES paid for the insurance, but I never bothered to renew the certificate and dropped out of SES, because of that and other stupid requirements, such as having to comply with every WH&S rule until an emergency was declared, when it was whatever you thought was appropriate. A rule which meant that when you were most at risk you were working with untrained idiots.