Today’s correspondent reports that her:

…  husband recently collapsed on the side walk in South Australia and a very drunk stranger took over the scene claiming to be a paramedic on holiday from interstate. His actions were actually very dangerous and it’s pure luck my husband didn’t come to further harm.

One assumes there was no malice involved, but my husband could have died, or come to serious further harm. We are very lucky he did not. 

We don’t especially want to press charges but would like someone to have a word with him about the dangers of his actions. I was of the impression it is illegal to claim to be a paramedic when you aren’t, but SAPOL say it’s only illegal to impersonate a police officer, not a paramedic and the only option would be civil action if there was damages.

The advice from SAPOL is wrong.  The Health Practitioner Regulation National Law cl 113(1) (as set out in Schedule 2 to the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010 (SA)) says:

A person must not knowingly or recklessly—

(a)        take or use a title in the Table to this section, in a way that could be reasonably expected to induce a belief the person is registered under this Law in the health profession listed beside the title in the Table, unless the person is registered in the profession; …

Maximum penalty:

(a) in the case of an individual—$60 000 or 3 years imprisonment or both…

‘Paramedic’ is a protected title.

Accordingly, if this person claimed to be a paramedic, but was not a paramedic, then he has committed an offence.  It is, however, not surprising that SAPOL don’t know that as this offence is generally prosecuted by AHPRA – the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, rather than state police.  We don’t know from the facts given, why it’s thought the person was not a paramedic. Just because they were drunk and dangerous does not mean they were not a paramedic.

A civil action would only be relevant if it could be shown that the patient had in fact suffered harm as a result of this person’s conduct.  In that event there would no doubt be argument whether the Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA) s 74 (ie the ‘good Samaritan’ provisions) apply. That section says that a person who ‘acting without expectation of payment or other consideration, comes to the aid of a person who is apparently in need of emergency assistance’ is not liable for acts done ‘in good faith and without recklessness’.   Being intoxicated defeats those provisions in NSW and the ACT but not in SA.  Just because a person is intoxicated does not necessarily mean they are not acting in good faith or recklessly, they may be the most qualified person there and trying their best, even if their best isn’t very good.  These acts are designed to encourage assistance so even incompetent assistance may be protected (see American Good Samaritan protected by Ohio Statute (May 20, 2015)).

This blog is made possible with generous financial support from the Australasian College of Paramedicine, the Australian Paramedics Association (NSW), Natural Hazards Research Australia, NSW Rural Fire Service Association and the NSW SES Volunteers Association. I am responsible for the content in this post including any errors or omissions. Any opinions expressed are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or understanding of the donors.