Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

alp227

(31,959 posts)
Tue May 6, 2014, 05:59 PM May 2014

California top court hears defibrillator case

Source: AP

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The California Supreme Court appeared reluctant Tuesday to require large retailers to keep a defibrillator in stores in case customers suffer cardiac arrest.

During arguments involving a lawsuit against Target in the death of a customer, Justice Marvin Baxter asked how a store clerk would know a customer was suffering cardiac arrest and whether the device could be inappropriately used and cause more harm to a shopper suffering another ailment.

"It may very well be that the good intentions could backfire and do more harm than good," Baxter said.

The six other justices on the court had similar concerns and tough questions for lawyers representing the family of 49-year-old Mary Ann Verdugo in a wrongful death lawsuit against Target.

Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/california-top-court-decide-defibrillator-issue

12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
California top court hears defibrillator case (Original Post) alp227 May 2014 OP
Right. NV Whino May 2014 #1
Not just that, but diagnosing your symptoms. Liberal Veteran May 2014 #2
Defibrillator's are designed to be almost idiot proof. bottomofthehill May 2014 #3
I don't think Target sell supplies... Thor_MN May 2014 #5
They actually sell Phillips Heart Start batteries bottomofthehill May 2014 #12
AEDs will only shock V-Tach or V-Fib. Thor_MN May 2014 #4
I agree Mz Pip May 2014 #6
I don't think AEDs shock asystole rhythm either Hawaii Hiker May 2014 #10
That is my understanding. There must be a rhythm detected, or it could shock incorrectly placed pads Thor_MN May 2014 #11
Why not sue your own home owners insurance because you don't have one at home. McCamy Taylor May 2014 #7
Why wasn't the girl carrying her own for that matter? McCamy Taylor May 2014 #8
State laws on cardiac arrest and defibulators... PoliticAverse May 2014 #9

bottomofthehill

(8,261 posts)
3. Defibrillator's are designed to be almost idiot proof.
Tue May 6, 2014, 07:01 PM
May 2014

It takes a minimum amount of training to use one as most ( I don't know of any actually) that will let you "shock" someone with a heart beat. They clearly do save lives. That said, Where do you draw the line of who would be required to have them. big box stores, CVS, grocery stores, mom and pop corner stores...? The odd thing is that I believe Target sells supplies for them, but will not put them in their store for the good of the public.

 

Thor_MN

(11,843 posts)
5. I don't think Target sell supplies...
Tue May 6, 2014, 07:20 PM
May 2014

The AEDs where I work, at least, have to go for professional service after being used. The battery has to checked/replaced/recharged. The pads and leads are disposable and the only other component other than the device itself. The pads/leads are replaced at the time of servicing, so there would be no demand for point of sale pads/leads.

bottomofthehill

(8,261 posts)
12. They actually sell Phillips Heart Start batteries
Tue May 6, 2014, 10:49 PM
May 2014

And test pads. They carried other supplies but looks like they discontinued them

 

Thor_MN

(11,843 posts)
4. AEDs will only shock V-Tach or V-Fib.
Tue May 6, 2014, 07:10 PM
May 2014

If it does not detect an arrhythmia that defibrillation can help, it will do nothing. If the pads are improperly placed, it will do nothing. To suggest that "they "could cause more harm to a shopper suffering another ailment." is to be totally ignorant of their purpose and design.

That said, it would be good for all public places to have them, but insane to think that all places must have them. I have sympathy for the family's loss, but think their suit should be tossed. According to the logic of the suit, every business should have a full suite of emergency medical equipment on hand and trained employees in case someone should suffer a medical condition while on their premises.



Mz Pip

(27,403 posts)
6. I agree
Tue May 6, 2014, 07:50 PM
May 2014

It's not just heart attacks that would need to be treated. Allergic reactions, diabetic seizures, choking come to mind. It's unreasonable to expect businesses to be able to deal with all the possible emergencies their customers might have.

Unless things have changed since I worked in retail, I doubt clerks are even required to have CPR training.

Hawaii Hiker

(3,165 posts)
10. I don't think AEDs shock asystole rhythm either
Tue May 6, 2014, 08:10 PM
May 2014

At that point, only CPR can bring someone back...Usually V-FIB is first, then asystole rhythm, but there are instances when victim can go directly into asystole ie; pulmonary infaraction, etc

 

Thor_MN

(11,843 posts)
11. That is my understanding. There must be a rhythm detected, or it could shock incorrectly placed pads
Tue May 6, 2014, 09:14 PM
May 2014

No rhythm. no shock. Fail towards a safe mode.

McCamy Taylor

(19,240 posts)
7. Why not sue your own home owners insurance because you don't have one at home.
Tue May 6, 2014, 07:51 PM
May 2014

Makes just as much sense. Sometimes people die and there is nothing you can do. What if she had a heart attack in the street? Who would they sue?

McCamy Taylor

(19,240 posts)
8. Why wasn't the girl carrying her own for that matter?
Tue May 6, 2014, 07:53 PM
May 2014

Does every nail salon need one? Does every coffee kiosk?

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»California top court hear...