Gaffer101
New Member
I'd imagine it is whether the medical advice is present in a professional capacity or whether it is just present as a happenstance by-stander. And no doctor acting without backup can bring to bear anything like the resources of an A&E department. Frankly, I'd expect ANY medical staff to play safe and refer to A&E in the event of a major incident - and unconsciousness is a major incident.
The life boat was not called, nor ambulances nor helicopters, rather the drivers of the 4 ribs chose continue the trip to the hostel and handed the girls over to the house mothers. The three house mums, 2 of whom by chance were also doctors (apparently a GP and a consultant but at least medically trained) decided a hospital trip was not called for (either by emergency ambulance or by other means).
The house mothers were exactly that ie mothers of some of the girls. They were not happenstance by-standers, nor acting in a professional capacity, nor medical staff of the club. They would have had the welfare of their own children and the other children who they were acting in loco-parentis for at the forefront of their minds.
The trial referred to in the title concerns the actions of the club and the chief instructor in (not) risk assesing the trip. The other trial concerened the actions of the rib drivers involved in the crash (who incidentally were given an unconditional discharge).
Then of course there is the trial by Internet where random forum members hand out summary judgements based on 1/2 fact and 1/2 wild extrapolation.
nuff said.