Dáil debates

Tuesday, 6 December 2005

Good Samaritan Bill 2005: Second Stage.

 

8:00 pm

Photo of Liz McManusLiz McManus (Wicklow, Labour)

I will share my time with Deputy Lynch. I pay tribute to Deputy Timmins, a fellow Deputy in my constituency. I am conscious that over recent years he has been deeply involved in the development of community services and the provision of defibrillators throughout a largely rural community that is not the most accessible in terms of health services. His contribution has been considerable in terms of both impact and effort and it is important that this is recorded in the House because much of it is behind the scenes. I noted that in his speech he did not talk about the extent of the important work in which he is involved.

This issue leads inevitably to questions being raised about litigation. The growth of litigation, especially in connection with the health services, is terrifying. If we look to the United States we can see the direction in which we are headed, but the Minister may not be uncomfortable with that. In health services across Europe there has been a development over recent times of alternatives to litigation and we could learn much from these. The advantage of litigation is that people stay on their toes and standards are maintained. However, many people, especially lawyers, make huge profits as a consequence of litigation being so central in our lives, especially when the health service cannot provide, people make mistakes or there is deliberate negligence.

The issue of what happens to the good samaritan came up in the negotiations for the State indemnity scheme. The matter was raised by doctors because they felt the scheme would prevent them from going to the scene of an accident because of having no previous contact with the patient. They were concerned about the risk in which they would be putting themselves by doing so. The matter was resolved. I was not party to the negotiations, but know it was an issue.

It is unfair of the Minister to state that this Bill somehow creates a new differential. It is different if a doctor goes to see his or her patient because they have established a relationship. Even if it is a crisis a general practitioner is called to, he or she knows the patient. On the other hand, a person driving along who sees somebody lying unconscious on the road has no prior connection with that person. It is a fact of life that this is a different relationship and it is important to recognise that. We cannot say the two experiences are the same. A health professional dealing with one of his or her patients has a different relationship, but this does not mean he or she will never be negligent in that situation.

I agree the Bill is flawed, but I had hoped there would be a more positive critique from the Minister. However, he did make amends somewhat at the end of his speech. I welcome the fact that he overcame his natural arrogance——

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.