Policy not to give a child a plaster. WTF ?

Feeona · 02-09-2010 08:19AM

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

It only takes an unfounded allegation to get a teacher suspended and investigated. People will never look at the teacher the same way even if they are cleared, "No smoke without fire" etc. etc.

My friend went through something like this. A girl in his class was a bit of a troublemaker. He used to take her outside the classroom to talk to her about her behaviour. She was from a troubled background where the parents didn't give her much attention, which resulted in her implying that my friend was saying inappropriate things to her (ie teacher often talks to me when I'm on my own, very ambigious stuff!). Parents rang the school wondering what was going on. Luckily my friend had himself covered (literally and figuratively speaking

) because he always left the classroom door open when speaking to her, and never spoke to her unless someone else was nearby.
Talk about a nasty piece of work, and as you were saying, teachers have to be so careful. Especially men unfortunately, the way things have gone. As evidenced by my friend covering himself 'just in case'!

Forest Master · 02-09-2010 08:46AM

crosstownk wrote: »

easyeason3 wrote:

Not sure how true this one is but...

What a dumbass, hyperreactive society we've become. Lunacy.

I agree - we base our outraged opinions on complete hearsay, then likely spread the hearsay further, thus making the problem worse.

drkpower · 02-09-2010 10:14AM

challengemaster wrote: »

This be Ireland - and there's no good samaritan act/law to protect anyone doing anything out of good will. You stop to help someone at a car accident - chance you'll get a lawsuit for something you didn't do. Try to save someones life if they're having a heart attack or some such - you could be sued for not doing enough, or some other crap. For example - CPR uses a lot of force, and there's a good chance of breaking ribs doing it...

Really? Is any of the above true? Of course not (see below). The irony is that the people who, like you (and many on this thread), overblow the risk of litigation (in a complete state of ignorance as to the actual state of the law) create the very atmosphere in which cowardly risk -averse risk managers & managers put in place non-sensical policies, like the one referred to in the OP. And then you moan about these policies being in place......:rolleyes:

In summmary there have been no cases taken against Good Samaritans in Ireland.

http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/rGoodSamaritan.pdf

Indeed, the Commission is not aware of any litigation taken against a Good Samaritan or volunteer in this State, and it concurs with the general view expressed in that memorandum, in particular having regard to the social utility of the conduct involved, which would form an important element of the application of the “just
and reasonable” element of the negligence principles currently applicable in Ireland.

RoryMurphyJnr · 02-09-2010 10:27AM

Jeez when did people become allergic to plasters?

When I was a kid everyone ate peanuts, no one was lactose intolerant, don't think anyone even had asthma

R

biko · 02-09-2010 10:31AM

It's the gene pool weakening.

pickarooney · 02-09-2010 11:09AM

Santos Defeated Stenographer wrote: »

I just finished up in secondary school... Pretty much every girl I know had at least the one pack of panadols in their bag at all times, because they couldn't get them in the medical room.

A few years back a fella fractured his shin bone or something similar whilst cycling into the school ground. To do so he had to go through a GAA car park for the local sports field. There was a thin layer of loose gravel for where the cars were meant to park. Yer man went across the gravel, lost traction and came flying off the bike and messed his leg up, there was a lawsuit against the GAA and school, who shared a joint payout of something like 9,000 euro. Pretty ****ing ridiculous.

I don't understand this. Surely all public buildings and their grounds (as well as the majority of private buildings) have public liability insurance for exactly this kind of thing and rather than 'sue the school' the injured party would have made an insurance claim?

Gyalist · 02-09-2010 11:17AM

pickarooney wrote: »

I don't understand this. Surely all public buildings and their grounds (as well as the majority of private buildings) have public liability insurance for exactly this kind of thing and rather than 'sue the school' the injured party would have made an insurance claim?

It still costs the school as the insurance company increases the premium in the following years.

pickarooney · 02-09-2010 11:23AM

Gyalist wrote: »

It still costs the school as the insurance company increases the premium in the following years.

I understand that, but this is clearly not the same things as the school forking out the cash from its own coffers. I'm almost certain that when I was at school each student had to be insured individually on top of public liablity. It was about £5 a year and would have covered incidents like the above as a first measure.

It could have been the case that this fee was a contribution to the general insurance policy; it's been a while and I don't think I was interested enough to ask at the time.

02-09-2010 11:24AM

This thread makes me angry - I hate the way we're becoming a sue culture. I would only ever dare sue someone else if I was involved in an accident and left in a condition where I couldn't possibly work. Accidents happen people, and the majority of the time it's our own damned faults!

prinz · 02-09-2010 11:40AM

pickarooney wrote: »

I don't understand this. Surely all public buildings and their grounds (as well as the majority of private buildings) have public liability insurance for exactly this kind of thing and rather than 'sue the school' the injured party would have made an insurance claim?

Even with insurance there may be acts which a teacher cannot do, which if performed would void their insurance, opening up teachers and Boards of Management to legal liability. Public Liability cover for schools is a fairly recent development too AFAIK. The act of putting a plaster intentionally on a pupil resulting in a reaction may void the insurance cover on 'accidents'.

prinz · 02-09-2010 11:46AM

drkpower wrote: »

In summmary there have been no cases taken against Good Samaritans in Ireland.

Which of course does not mean that no such cases could potentially be taken.

Bobby42 · 02-09-2010 11:51AM

Its completely backwards logic. So the main reason for teachers not putting a plaster on a child's cut or scrape is the worry that the plaster could cause an allergic reaction and the parents could sue. But what is much more likely to happen is an infection setting into the wound because it hasn't had a dressing applied. Why do we insist that we all have to live in a state of paranoia 24/7? This type of stuff does my head in.

Bobby42 · 02-09-2010 11:54AM

prinz wrote: »

Which of course does not mean that no such cases could potentially be taken.

A case could only be taken if there was negligence.

Cuddlesworth · 02-09-2010 11:55AM

pickarooney wrote: »

I don't understand this. Surely all public buildings and their grounds (as well as the majority of private buildings) have public liability insurance for exactly this kind of thing and rather than 'sue the school' the injured party would have made an insurance claim?

The problem isn't being sued, its the risk of being sued. One huge court settlement, the insurance company will look for any reason to claim back the money from the school as well as increasing the premium and creating new systems to avoid the situation. So the school or company in my case looks to make sure they have all their bases covered so the final cost can't be laid on them. A person here working in the kitchen chopped off part of their finger on a piece of equipment. As far as I understand, she is being offered a settlement, the kitchen is being inspected for bad work practices, a engineer is coming out to examine the suspect equipment, the insurance company is sending out somebody to assess the damage to the finger and check the "equipment". She has now been out on paid leave for a week, looking to be another two or three before she will come back. This is to stop her being able to take photos of change or modify the "equipment" before it being inspected by the necessary people. She's a nice polish girl, and would like to go back to work.

Sexual allegations are a whole different story and in a world where five year old's know what sex is and what saying "Mr Smith" touched me can do, but lacking the understanding of the implications of such words makes working with kids a scary prospect. As said early on in this thread, Pedophiles are the new witch-hunt.

CrazyRabbit · 02-09-2010 12:21PM

amdublin wrote: »

Eh as a crampy 16 year old why would you not bring your own Anadin into school (even keep some spare in your schoolbag)

Why would you expect your teacher to provide/give you some

She'd probably get expelled for bring drugs onto school premises...

kylith · 02-09-2010 12:27PM

Bobby42 wrote: »

Its completely backwards logic. So the main reason for teachers not putting a plaster on a child's cut or scrape is the worry that the plaster could cause an allergic reaction and the parents could sue. But what is much more likely to happen is an infection setting into the wound because it hasn't had a dressing applied. Why do we insist that we all have to live in a state of paranoia 24/7? This type of stuff does my head in.

It's crazy, but there you go. Where I work if a child needs a plaster then the parent has to take it out of the wrapper and apply it, I have no idea what the childcare dept. does since the parent wouldn't be on the premises. I'd imagine that they have to sign some sort of waiver.

I know one place that was sued because the scissors used to cut the plaster off the roll hadn't been sterilised.

prinz · 02-09-2010 12:30PM

Bobby42 wrote: »

A case could only be taken if there was negligence.

Indeed but then you are into a minefield of what constitutes negligence, particularly in cases of attempting to assist at the scene of an accident.

drkpower · 02-09-2010 12:31PM

prinz wrote: »

Which of course does not mean that no such cases could potentially be taken.

Well, duh.....;)

Any case could be taken; I could take a landmark case to the High Court claiming damages for you hurting my feelings with that post; but I'd lose.....

The point is that people have been doing Good Samartian Acts for centuries; yet no case has been taken (in Ireland anyway). Yet we so often see people (like on this thread) suggesting these types of claims are rife - which is complete and utter nonsense and only serves to encourage the climate within which these non-sensical policies are devised and implemented.

pickarooney · 02-09-2010 12:32PM

kylith wrote: »

I know one place that was sued because the scissors used to cut the plaster off the roll hadn't been sterilised.

With what result? This sounds like nonsense without any more relevant detail.

Cookie_Monster · 02-09-2010 01:32PM

Overheal wrote: »

No they're allowed to clean the wound, just not dress it.

I guess nobody has heard of cotton.

so if it gets infected you can sue then for doing it wrong, right?
:P

Blazer · 02-09-2010 01:38PM

Similiar policy to where we play astro soccer..
We used to use the dressing rooms to change beforehand and somedays the kids (secondary school) would be coming in from rugby training etc...
apparently one of the parents complained that we shouldn't be in the same area as their kids, so since they had only 1 shower/changing area for the boys we weren't allowed to use it.
At least they were apologetic about it...we were quite welcome to use it on days no after school training was on..

It's lunacy....us normal people have to suffer through this sort of crap with government bureaucracy etc while the people they should be cracking down on hard are paedos and rapists etc.. typical..the criminal gets more help from the government than normal people.

Bobby42 · 02-09-2010 01:52PM

prinz wrote: »

Indeed but then you are into a minefield of what constitutes negligence, particularly in cases of attempting to assist at the scene of an accident.

Not really, if you're first aid trained once you stay within your protocols a case of negligence cannot be taken. Negligence is only when someone deliberately doesn't provide treatment, or causes further harm to someone by going outside what they are trained to do. its fairly straightforward. if you help someone, once you do as trained and don't cause further injury you cannot be sued.

kylith · 02-09-2010 01:58PM

pickarooney wrote: »

With what result? This sounds like nonsense without any more relevant detail.

I've been told that they were advised by their lawyer to settle out of court because they couldn't prove that the scissors were clean.

drkpower · 02-09-2010 02:02PM

kylith wrote: »

I've been told that they were advised by their lawyer to settle out of court because they couldn't prove that the scissors were clean.

'I don't know, but I've been told. Eskimo pussy is mighty cold ...'

The dubiosity of your dubiousness is become more and more dubious.

prinz · 02-09-2010 02:05PM

Bobby42 wrote: »

Not really, if you're first aid trained once you stay within your protocols a case of negligence cannot be taken. Negligence is only when someone deliberately doesn't provide treatment, or causes further harm to someone by going outside what they are trained to do. its fairly straightforward. if you help someone, once you do as trained and don't cause further injury you cannot be sued.

Ah yes, because everyone has proper first aid training right? :rolleyes:

kylith · 02-09-2010 02:23PM

drkpower wrote: »

'I don't know, but I've been told. Eskimo pussy is mighty cold ...'

The dubiosity of your dubiousness is become more and more dubious.

Sorry I don't have the case number from something that didn't make it to the courts 15 years ago to hand :rolleyes:

drkpower · 02-09-2010 03:19PM

kylith wrote: »

Sorry I don't have the case number from something that didn't make it to the courts 15 years ago to hand :rolleyes:

You know that settlements involving kids have to be 'ruled' by the court and often attract media attention - this one, given the subject matter, would have been lapped up by the papers. As would any cases involving schools being sued for plaster allergic reactions.

Any link to ANY such reporting; any, at all? Even one? Even a small one? No, nothing? Nothing at all?

Overheal · 02-09-2010 03:30PM

RoryMurphyJnr wrote: »

Jeez when did people become allergic to plasters?

When I was a kid everyone ate peanuts, no one was lactose intolerant, don't think anyone even had asthma

R

My child will sleep on a pillow filled with peanuts, he will sleep with a cat and he will play in the mud. He will be fed every vegetable under the sun.

Cookie_Monster · 02-09-2010 03:51PM

Overheal wrote: »

My child will sleep on a pillow filled with peanuts, he will sleep with a cat and he will play in the mud. He will be fed every vegetable under the sun.

and he'll hate you for it

pickarooney · 02-09-2010 04:32PM

kylith wrote: »

I've been told that they were advised by their lawyer to settle out of court because they couldn't prove that the scissors were clean.

I mean, what was the result of the scissors not being sterilised? Did someone contract an infection?

Policy not to give a child a plaster. WTF ?

Comments