It happens. Can't recall the route I was on as it was maybe two years ago, but not one medically-trained person on board to respond. Purser asked three times. I chatted with her as we waited to deplane and she said it was the first time in her career that not one was on board.

Or there were, but they didn't dare to acknowledge it, for fear of being sued, at least in the States.

I am medically qualified, and responded to a inflight call once: on a UA transatlantic 777. Not holding a US licence, I did not reply to the first call, but as nobody else made themselves known, I responded. I refuse to believe that I was the only medically qualified on an overbooked June flight, but I guess that others held back due to litigation fears... (My Norwegian malpractise insurance covers this type of emergency, by the way!).

On the other hand flying transatlantic on SK this spring, 60 Scandinavian (mostly Swedish) physicians responded to a minor medical emergency....

Neither of the flights had to divert, BTW

I was on a WN flight where a woman suddenly slouched over and died. Don't know the cause of death, but she was quite elderly.

The WN FAs were surprisingly professional about it all--no commotion, no panic, no call for doctors.

She died, they moved everyone out of the area, and covered her with blankets. We landed 45 minutes later. Nobody spoke.

I'm pretty sure (though not 100%) this is correct:

In the U.S. there are what is known as "Good Samaritan" laws that protect anyone, whether medical professionals or not, from liability for services offered in emergency situations such as a heart attack on a flight. Any medical professional would certainly be familiar with the existence of these laws, so I doubt that fears of being sued would prevent a medical professional from self-identifying in this situation.

I didn't experience this myself, but a friend recently reported being on a NW commuter flight that diverted due to a heart attack enroute. Upon announcing the diversion, the pilot dove out of the sky at a dramatic angle, actually arriving at the bottom of the dive earler than necessary and maintaining an unusually low altitude at top speed to the airport. Upon touchdown my friend said he thought the roller-coaster part of the ride was over and had just begun to relax when it became apparent that the pilot was not slowing the plane as normal, but continued to race to the gate at maximum "taxi" speed, and ended by hitting the brakes hard in a way that pitched everyone forward in their seats. With good reason, of course.

Ultimately, the man was able to walk off the plane, with assistance, so we all hope he is doing well.

I was on a DL redeye from LAX/ATL a few years ago, had just finished the in-flight meal ( yeah...they used to serve meals on airplanes ) and was starting to drift off to sleep when I felt the plan start to descend. I looked out the window and could see the lights of a large city but didn't really know where we were at the time.
The pilot came on the PA and said we were diverting to ABQ for a medical emergency. We landed, the paramedics came on board and took some poor dude off in a stretcher. I thought we'd take off right away again but the pilot explained that because we had to land with a heavy load of fuel, mechanics needed to check the plane and make sure nothing was damaged by landing heavier than planned.
We sat on the ground for three hours or so until they could roust a few mechanics out of bed and get them to the airport to check out the plane.

I know it possibly felt different to normal, maybe feeling vibration from speed brakes being deployed, but I can assure you that two professional pilots up front would not descend the aircraft at anything other than an acceptable rate. Furthermore they would not then go on at low altitude at top speed, as airliners are restricted to typically 250 knots below 10,000 feet at that's the height below which it is possible to hit a bird, and windshields are only stressed against birdstrikes up to that speed.

..if they were so inclined.

That sounds more likely to me. And I wouldn't be surprised if my friend's recollection of a dramatic flight was distorted by the activities on board.

I'm sorry, no comment on your friend, but this just illustrates the value or otherwise of eye-witness reports on aviation matters.

Not just restricted to amateurs. At a Boeing conference one of the presenters took a company aircraft and flew it aerobatically in front of a delegates fishing trip up at a Washington lake on an intervening Sunday. The following morning in his presentation he invited the fishers up to the front and invited these very aviation-qualified professionals to describe what he had flown. An amazingly divergent range of reports. He made his point.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...de/3359149.stm

Personaly the only thing that scares me more then have a medical problem on a plane with no doctors is having one a plane with more then one....

In the 90's a relative of mine who is a doctor answered a call for a medical emergency on a LH transcon. Diabetic going into insulin shock. Attended to him in the F cabin for the remainder of the flight. He said the pilot was always checking for the next available airport to set down in, although the flight (and patient) made it to FRA. LH offered him a bottle of wine as a show of thanks. He thought an upgrade to C for him and his family on the return would be better compensation for having to be away from his family for most of the flight. LH resisted, but finally gave two out of the family of four upgrades to C.

Does a bottle of wine seem like minimal compensation for a person who is interrupting their vacation or business trip to essentiall help out the airline and save them many $$$ by not having the flight be forced to land early?

Urban mythology strikes again.

The "good samaritan" doctrine would most likely shield the volunteer provider from liability. Even if that doctrine didn't apply, the volunteer's conduct would be judged by the standards of their own profession for other similarly-qualified providers acting under the same (emergency) circumstances with the same limitations as to available medications, equipment, etc. And their malpractice insurance almost assuredly would (1) retain and pay for their defense attorney, and (2) indemnify them against losses in the extremely unlikely event of an adverse verdict.

Unless there was clear evidence of seriously negligent error on the part of the volunteer, accompanied by clear proof that the negligence was the cause of a serious injury or death that wouldn't have happened otherwise, no competent lawyer would be stupid enough to file such a case in the first place. Plaintiffs' lawyers get paid only if and when they win. They don't like to work for free.

Oh ye of too much faith!