When performing first aid, you must never leave a patient until you have passed them off to someone more qualified than yourself.
How did I get almost 40 years into my life before encountering these words?! Seems like they should be engraved on the box of every first aid kit ever. I spent a few years with the freaking Boy Scouts, for crying out loud, and nobody ever explicitly taught this!
The premise you may be missing is that it’s a necessary thing to teach. It could be that common sense works in a supermajority of cases. If it was a car accident, it’s likely an ambulance will be coming anyways. If they just have a cut finger, you disinfect, bandage and you’re done—no need to pass them off. The edge cases where somebody makes a wrong call are probably pretty rare, all things considered.
It’s definitely part of Red Cross CPR and first aid training courses. IIRC part of it is also related to the practical advice to make sure you or someone else has called the proper authorities before you start trying to help someone, because otherwise you’ll just be stuck there indefinitely with no one to relieve you and start providing more or better care than you can.
This isn’t a feature of military first aid either, though on reflection I can’t really conceive of a situation where it would be a relevant decision point given the procedures otherwise.
I think the norm only applies to patients who are in serious danger. If the patient is conscious and can basically look after themselves, it doesn’t apply. Also, it doesn’t necessarily apply if help is not coming / the rescuer is in danger themselves if they stay. (This aspect might be more controversial. But situations like that are pretty rare in civilization anyway.)
But in the situation where (1) more help is likely to arrive, (2) the patient is unconscious, or otherwise in serious danger if left alone, and (3) the rescuer is not in serious danger from staying, I think the norm applies.
(It’s definitely a bit Copenhagen Ethics, but I think there’s an embedded assumption that rescuers are unlikely to refrain from helping someone out of concern that the person will become their problem. This is especially true of licensed medical professionals, for whom the norm most applies, and I think may even be a condition of their license, or a legal duty, in some cases.)
I think Copenhagen Ethics is the correct perspective to apply in this situation because if you’re helping someone other people look at the patient and think “this patient has already been helped”. By providing assistance and then abandoning a patient you can do more harm than good by preventing others from helping.
How did I get almost 40 years into my life before encountering these words?! Seems like they should be engraved on the box of every first aid kit ever. I spent a few years with the freaking Boy Scouts, for crying out loud, and nobody ever explicitly taught this!
(I notice I am confused) … (and a little angry)
The premise you may be missing is that it’s a necessary thing to teach. It could be that common sense works in a supermajority of cases. If it was a car accident, it’s likely an ambulance will be coming anyways. If they just have a cut finger, you disinfect, bandage and you’re done—no need to pass them off. The edge cases where somebody makes a wrong call are probably pretty rare, all things considered.
For what it’s worth, I am an Eagle Scout and I didn’t learn this from Boy Scouts either. I learned it from a firefighter.
It’s definitely part of Red Cross CPR and first aid training courses. IIRC part of it is also related to the practical advice to make sure you or someone else has called the proper authorities before you start trying to help someone, because otherwise you’ll just be stuck there indefinitely with no one to relieve you and start providing more or better care than you can.
This isn’t a feature of military first aid either, though on reflection I can’t really conceive of a situation where it would be a relevant decision point given the procedures otherwise.
I am vaguely aware of this norm but don’t really understand it. It seems like it should depend on what sort of help your giving them.
I think the norm only applies to patients who are in serious danger. If the patient is conscious and can basically look after themselves, it doesn’t apply. Also, it doesn’t necessarily apply if help is not coming / the rescuer is in danger themselves if they stay. (This aspect might be more controversial. But situations like that are pretty rare in civilization anyway.)
But in the situation where (1) more help is likely to arrive, (2) the patient is unconscious, or otherwise in serious danger if left alone, and (3) the rescuer is not in serious danger from staying, I think the norm applies.
(It’s definitely a bit Copenhagen Ethics, but I think there’s an embedded assumption that rescuers are unlikely to refrain from helping someone out of concern that the person will become their problem. This is especially true of licensed medical professionals, for whom the norm most applies, and I think may even be a condition of their license, or a legal duty, in some cases.)
I did leave out some important qualifiers.
I think Copenhagen Ethics is the correct perspective to apply in this situation because if you’re helping someone other people look at the patient and think “this patient has already been helped”. By providing assistance and then abandoning a patient you can do more harm than good by preventing others from helping.