"“You Might Get Sued If You Mess Up” ... Heated Debate Over CPR"

Helping People First Over Worrying About Being Accused as Sexual Offenders or Bearing Injury Liability
Rep. Shin Hyun-young to Propose 'Good Samaritan Law' in June to Ease Liability in Emergencies

On the afternoon of the 29th, citizens at the Itaewon disaster site performed cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on patients together with 119 rescue workers. Photo by Yonhap News

[Asia Economy Intern Reporter Lee Gyehwa] In the Itaewon disaster on the 29th, which resulted in many casualties, not only paramedics but also ordinary citizens performed cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and provided emergency treatment. However, survivor testimonies reveal that since most of the patients were women, men were reluctant to actively perform CPR.

Many netizens expressed regret that rescue efforts were not actively carried out due to concerns about subsequent situations in a large-scale disaster. One netizen said, "In such an urgent situation, men couldn’t even touch female patients. Why has the world come to this?" and added, "It’s frustrating that even in such a critical situation, they try to separate men and women for CPR due to problems that might arise after the accident is handled." Another netizen said, "I heard that the damage was greater because women are relatively smaller and have less muscle strength," and added, "There needs to be a change in awareness from now on regarding men’s reluctance to actively perform CPR."

There are also voices defending men who did not touch female patients. On the 1st, in the office worker community Blind, when asked, "If a woman collapses in front of you, would you perform CPR?" 63% answered they would observe, making it the top response. This was followed by 29% who said they would perform CPR, and 8% who said "woman." One netizen said, "If you perform CPR on a woman out of a sense of duty, you might be mistaken for a sex offender and your life could be ruined," adding, "You shouldn’t even touch a woman unless she’s family." Another netizen said, "If you perform CPR and even break a rib, they’ll demand medical expenses," and added, "I’m afraid of being sued later."

However, lawyer Shin Jinhee said in an interview with YTN, "If the situation is objectively dangerous or can be recognized as dangerous by the general public, there is no need to be afraid," and added, "The important thing is to help those who are truly in danger first; it is not desirable to incite gender conflict."

Some voices also point out legal issues. According to Article 5 of the Emergency Medical Service Act, if a non-emergency medical worker or an emergency medical worker not on duty provides emergency medical care in good faith to an emergency patient, they are exempt from civil liability and criminal liability for property damage and injury caused without intentional or gross negligence, and criminal liability for death is to be "mitigated." However, since responsibility for "death accidents" is only "mitigated," there remains some concern about liability.

The medical community also expresses difficulty in actively engaging in good-faith medical actions due to the possibility of criminal liability in urgent situations where the patient may die.

Meanwhile, Democratic Party lawmaker Shin Hyunyoung has proposed the so-called "Good Samaritan Act" in June, which significantly reduces liability arising during emergency treatment. Lawmaker Shin stated, "It is difficult to punish someone just for not helping a person in an emergency, but at least those who step forward with good intentions to save lives must be properly protected by law so that members of our society can become Good Samaritans to each other."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.