Originally Posted by
jimbo99
One doctor told me that some airlines were asking him to sign a form before treating pax. He always refused - he believed it to be some kind of indemnity form saying that he understood that were willing to do an emergency landing and were reliant on his advice as to whether to do so. He believed it was to provide a defence should the pax try and sue the airline for not doing an emergency landing - they could claim that they were acting on the advice of a doctor.
I once helped out when a passenger developed flank pain. I was quite certain it was a kidney stone but not 100%. (I'm very specialized in a far different area of medicine.) I was willing to examine the person and entertain a diagnosis. When the crew asked me if we needed to divert, I replied that I have absolutely no training in deciding if an airplane needs to divert. I was then asked to speak with the airline's "consulting physician" on the ground via radio. I relayed the information, and this consulting physician, hired specifically to make these sorts of calls, decided that the plane did not need to divert.
I can't imagine not helping if someone was having a real medical emergency. I would never, however, go out on a limb. It is important to be conservative and remain within your comfort zone.
I also strongly prefer to approach a situation on my own terms. I remember several years ago being livid when a traveling companion "volunteered" me to help when the call went for a doctor on board. When I offer to help, I make my offer on my own terms and with the understanding that I am a specialist who may or may not have anything to offer.
In terms of liability, I already feel like I live my life with a big bullseye on my back. I never make a move without thinking about the possibility of getting sued, and in my experience, the lawsuits never come from where you expect them anyway. While the fear of a lawsuit may limit what I am willing to do on an airplane, it probably won't prevent me from getting involved at all. IMO, any physician (perhaps excluding psychiatrists, pure researchers, and the like) who refuses this sort of thing on principle should probably be in another line of work.