I think you're missing my point that even if your information is valid, you are opening yourself up to a huge liability. I've responded to your comments below.
I knew a comment like this would pop up and it's a really frustrating attitude that comes from a place of ignorance and fear about the legal and medical systems. A few other commenters have echoed it as well. The idea that you should only learn first aid from Certified Sources™ or else you're going to totally eff things up and kill someone is so impractical and unreasonable. Your argument is that someone shouldn't be allowed to render any care (beyond a band aid) unless they're a card-carrying, certified medical professional.
Actually, it's not coming from a place of ignorance. I'm Wilderness Medical Associated WFA certified, and I see that you took NOLS, but we probably had very similar classes. The fact is that you're taking sections that we spent hours on learning / practicing and distilling them into 3 paragraphs. You're providing guidelines for medical evacuation on your blog post when you're NOT a medical professional. You have a WFA certification and have read the WFR handbook. Your guidelines for evacuation on the blog should be if you have to do any of this get the person fucking out to someone who knows what they're doing. Don't think that because you applied a pressure bandage they're fine to continue their trip.
... sometimes, yes, responders choose the wrong course of action and things get worse.
Yes, sometimes RESPONDERS choose wrong who have been trained significantly more than you or me. They certainly know more than someone who read about the basics of WFA on a blog post.
But it's a nearly universal part of every legal system in the world that a Good Samaritan is protected as long as they act reasonably and don't exceed their scope of knowledge.
I'm sorry, but this is just flat out wrong. You and I are protected as Good Samaritans specifically because we have taken a class in WFA and have been certified by certified instructors. Anyone reading this comment should know that The Good Samaritan law does not cover someone who has read a blog post on what to do and makes a patient worse, or even if it doesn't make them worse and the patient decides to sue. Sometimes people are just desperate and need money. If you help a drug addict who falls down on the street and they decide to sue you for more money, you can't look to the good samaritan law to get out of it. You were not trained in what you were doing.
God forbid people try to learn how to take care of their friends, family and strangers in an emergency, without getting a full medical degree. You're arguing that helpful, potentially life-saving information should be banned.
Stop exaggerating. It's not a full medical degree. It's a $250 class that takes 2 days and is run through many different organizations nearly all over the country. Anyone who can spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on hiking and camping gear can afford to take this class. For a lot of people it probably costs less than the boots they wear out on the trail. If you're serious about first aid, take the class.
Again, I'm not saying any of your information is wrong. I'm saying it's incomplete. I'm also point out that anyone who uses it is not covered by the Good Samaritan law, and I promise you that a crooked lawyer would easily find a reason to sue you if their client pointed out that they didn't have training and took what they knew from your site.