To the best of my knowledge, no BSA, Red Cross, or other imprimatur applies to invasive procedures, which I presume would include an injection of epinephrine. Therefore, a scoutmaster (or assistant) would appear to be on his own in the legal world, not a pleasant thought to contemplate. Please understand, I am not saying that such an injection would not be useful; and I am certainly not saying that Tom would not practically be the appropriate person to administer it. But in the legal arena, he'd be naked on thin ice. In my own situation, only one scout in my troop might benefit. Since he is my youngest son, <img src="/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> the contraindication does not apply. One caveat, I've been a defense attorney a whole lot longer than I've been a plaintiff's attorney. So I do acknowledge my own cautiousness.

I agree that releases and waivers require parents and guardians to acknowledge risks and authorizations. They also dissuade parents and guardians from lawsuits. Furthermore, they may be upheld by the courts.

Randjack, Thanks. It really is nice to have another lawyer in this forum. You just can't have a good legal disagreement without another good legal argument. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

John