Paudge Connolly (Cavan-Monaghan, Independent)

I heartily welcome and endorse the Good Samaritan Bill 2005, which seeks to give some protection from litigation to those who intervene to assist in cases of accidents or emergencies. I assure those who question the need for this legislation on the basis that no claims have been made to date that it is a matter of time before such claims are made. I assume that Deputy Kirk's reference to the need to protect ambulance staff was inspired by the recent case of an ambulance driver whose decision on whether to take a patient to Louth County Hospital in Dundalk was a matter of life or death. The life of the patient in question was saved as a result of the decision that was made by the emergency medical technician, but what would have been the consequences if the life had been lost? People who make decisions in such circumstances should be commended.

This legislation will protect members of the public and off-duty health care professionals who may witness an accident or come across an accident victim and intervene to give assistance. It will remove the liability of emergency medical staff, such as ambulance drivers, doctors and nurses, in any medical malpractice or personal injury actions which occur.

There are numerous instances of good samaritan legislation in the United States, protecting not only health care professionals but also volunteers who distribute food donations, for example. Such legislation ensures that citizens who volunteer their time and resources to feed hungry people are not placed at legal risk or liability arising from the nature, age, packaging or condition of the apparently wholesome food they distribute. It is hard to believe that such a case could be brought in the first instance. In such circumstances, citizens are protected from civil or criminal liability other than in cases of gross negligence, as is the case under section 2 of this Bill. Volunteers will be liable only if their actions are clearly unreasonable and aggravate the plight of sufferers.

It has already been mentioned that teachers in our schools are afraid to assist students, for example by taking children to hospital when it is obviously the correct thing to do. It is clearly wrong that people who wish to act in the best interests of children are not allowed to use common sense. It is ridiculous that legislation of this nature is needed in such circumstances, but that is how things have gone. Parents with certain religious beliefs may not want their children to be given blood transfusions, for example. Such a case was reported in the media last week.

The basic principle that should be followed should be that any person who renders emergency medical care or assistance in good faith to an injured person at the scene of an accident, or in the case of some other emergency, without expecting or intending to receive compensation from the injured person for providing such a service, should not be liable in civil damages for any act or omission not constituting gross negligence in the course of such care or assistance. That is how it should be. The case of a person who had a knife stuck in his chest, and then pulled the knife out and tried to attack those who came to his assistance, was highlighted by Joe Duffy on "Liveline" last week. Such events are taking place to an increasing extent. The US Congress had to pass the Katrina Volunteer Protection Act 2005, following the recent Hurricane Katrina disaster in that country, to ensure that volunteers and professionals were able to focus on providing aid to the victims of the hurricane, rather than worrying about the threat of litigation.

See this speech in context