Objectors and Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs)

phbair

As have many employers, we have recently installed Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs) throughout out worksites. (Statistics show that a person's chance of recovery from a cardiac arrest are remarkably better when an AED is used in the first four minutes following an attack, especially when used in conjunction with CPR.) We have a trained cadre of people who are certified in AED use; but AEDs are designed and intended to be used by persons who have no training, since there may not always be a trained person in the area of a person experiencing cardiac arrest. (The AED leads a person through the process with a series of voice and visual prompts, and will not "shock" anyone who is not actually in cardiac arrest.)

The AEDs have been met with general acceptance. However, as with any advance, I suppose, there are those in our workforce who are extremely dubious about the prospect of an untrained coworker administering a shock to get their heart started again. Some of these folks would like to "opt out" of AED usage, i.e., be guarnteed that an AED will not be used on them. We are in the process of deciding whether to have an "objectors'" program, and if so, how to administer it.

As you can imagine, such a program would present significant practical difficulties. How would an objector be identified in an emergency, for instance? Should they be required to wear badges? (Someone has suggested forehead tatoos.) Obviously, simply maintaing a roster of objectors is inadequate, since there is no time to find and consult a roster in an emergency. Then there is the problem of what to do if an objector does go into cardiac arrest at the worksite, and his coworkers stand by and do nothing, even though the AED is available. Don't we face significant liability for failing to take reasonable measures? (At this point I should add that we have an AED "good Samaritan" law in Pennsylvania that grants immunity from liability to persons who use an AED in good faith.)

I've rambled on long enough. I'm sure you get the idea. Any thoughts?

Theresa Gegen TX

My thoughs are that it is more trouble than it is worth to have an opt out plan. I don't see how it could practically be enforced and the chances of any one of the opt outers having a heart attack at work are probably pretty slim. I would not let any employee think that he has opted out, because, like you said, if an emergency occurs, there would be no way to ensure that the device would not be used on him or her.

I would focus on trying to educate those employees who do not feel comfortable with the device. Perhaps by having an introductory training done by an outside expert (who they will probably trust more than a company person).

Good Luck!

Rockie

I guess I cannot understand the logic of these people not wanting to have an AED used on them - would they prefer to die rather than taking a chance of being saved? I think you would be buying yourself a legal problem if you did not apply this uniformly across the board to your employees.

If the opting out employee does happen to die, you can bet their estate will have a lot of questions for you concerning the "opt out" clause and why you "allowed" their loved one to die in front of your eyes without trying to save them.