I agree that this is something that will behave as other news stories do. I expect that it will be something that is important enough to some people to bring up when they meet. I do not think that there is the opposition to by-standers helping people during non-medical emergencies, or helping with non-medical care.

I have not suggested that the drunk and stoned, as I have consistently described Torti, be immune from liability. I have consistently stated that I agree with the minority dissent – they did not find that there was reason to believe that she acted reasonably, therefore they did not see the Good Samaritan law protecting her actions. Her particular behavior is not to be encouraged.

I think that there are a lot of people who would stop and help others. This is something that would discourage some of them.

Odds?

Why complicate things? I am not an odds maker. I do not make a lot of predictions, because there are many things that influence the future. Many of these influences are unpredictable. Giving odds suggests that I have the ability to predict a lot of these things. I am working on a post about bad prediction.

I do think that there will be enough interest in this, if only from people in charitable organizations, that it will be addressed. While there may not be any money behind this, who wants to receive publicity for voting no on a Good Samaritan law?

And it will pass by the end of the week as the news cycle wears on. But hey, we’ll see when the CA legislature gets in session. Given the massive financial shortfall the state faces, I’m betting that allowing drunks more leeway to “help” people who don’t actually need it won’t be real high on the list.

Odds?

One of your comments appeared in my email last night, but was not in the comments a little after 10 PM, your time. It was listed as coming from the comments to California gets even more screwed up: predictably, Good Samaritans (Decent People) hardest hit.

Bad boy list? Were your comments not appearing?

Matt,

I’m not claiming that medical bloggers are having a dramatic influence. This is something that has attracted a lot of attention from all types of bloggers, the evening news, and casual conversation.

I think that this is something that matters to the public. Even if people do not see themselves helping someone else, for whatever reason, they do not like the idea of nobody helping them, or their friend, or their parent, or their child.

Because of this, I expect that there will be pressure to do something in the next legislative session. While there is no clear constituency, and no money behind it, people will not want to be seen as against Good Samaritans.

I think that the blogging about this indicates a lot of interest. Interest may equal a constituency. Only one way to find out. Wait and see. :-)

Discussions in blogs doesn’t equal a constituency (that overstates the importance of blogs and understate the legislative process). A constituency that is going to get legislation passed needs: (lots of) money and an organizational structure. To get any immunity through the Legislature you will have the most well funded opposition imaginable: trial lawyers. So again, you have zero chance on this! Remember this has been the law for 28 year! Nothing new, only the sensationalism of the media and the defense counsel’s trial tactics. This will go back to trial in the lower court for a determination of negligence by the jury.

The EMS Commission is not involved with inter-agency protocol variances.