To Save a Life

[Lady Victory]

I have zero knowledge of CPR and I am thus clearly useless in Scenario #1. Much as I'd like to help, there's literally nothing I can do. I'd only make it worst.

But the other two scenarios? Yeah, I'll go for it. Try to help them both.

[The Free Joy State]

1 & 3, save

2 "regardless of your swimming ability ..." I swim in the ocean, that water is going to be seriously unsafe, and the victim fairly far out, good chance they are dying


Where is the call the hoff, poll option?

Sorry. Oversight.

It's too late to add an option as that would reset all the answers.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

I have zero knowledge of CPR and I am thus clearly useless in Scenario #1. Much as I'd like to help, there's literally nothing I can do. I'd only make it worst.

But the other two scenarios? Yeah, I'll go for it. Try to help them both.

Instructions on how to perform chest compressions are readily available on the Internet, so it's not a hard to learn skill such as playing Chess or performing neurosurgery.

[The Blaatschapen]

This thread asks a simple question: What would you risk to save a life?

What should you have to risk to save a life?

To begin, we posit three scenarios:

Scenario One: A person is collapsed, unconscious, not breathing. A crowd has gathered, but none are helping (though some are filming on their phones). You have your current knowledge of first aid. The person has a badge that reads: "Litigious and Proud of It" on their rucksack. You know that performing CPR can break ribs and that people have been sued (whether successfully or not) for performing CPR. They have, however, also been sued for not performing CPR. What do you do?

Scenario Two: A person is drowning. This time, there is no-one around to help but you. Regardless of your swimming ability, you will save the person, but there is a 50/50 chance that you will die in the process. Do you take the risk?

Scenario Three: You are on your way to an important event for which a lot of money has been spent when you see a person standing up on a bridge, staring at the water. You know that, if you stop, you will be late and possibly miss the event. You know that, if you don't and they jump, they will almost certainly die. Do you stop?

And should you?

In some places there is a legal requirement that those who can help, do. Do you think such laws are a good idea that encourage us all to take care of our fellow man, or do they risk burdening ordinary people with the painful guilt that comes with failing to save someone?

In my opinion, there we should attempt to rescue others (where we have the ability and won't make the situation worse), even where there isn't a legal duty to rescue. A legal duty to rescue might help prevent the bystander effect (where-by, the more people on the scene, the less likely the person is to get help). As for questions of guilt, I think it would be worse -- for me -- if I didn't try.

Scenario One: I would perform CPR (I would also get one of the bystanders to call for an ambulance). I am trained in first aid, and -- even if the person is litigious -- I deem it less likely I would be successfully sued if I tried to help than not.

Scenario Two: Tough call. I have people who depend on me to sort things for them IRL. But, whether that would be at the forefront of my mind in this scenario, I am unsure. I would like to think I would take the chance. But, who knows.

Scenario Three: I would stop the car. No question.

Scenario 1: Yes, I would try to save. It's not a "do not resuscitate" badge. I don't live in the US, so their chances of winning it is are much slimmer And I'd point to one of the people filming it ( I assume it's a phone camera) to call 112.

Scenario 2: No. First rule of first aid, "always make sure that you are safe yourself". I used to be quite a trained swimmer, but that's so long ago.

Scenario 3: Yes, I would stop.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

For Scenario 1 and 2, my reasoning is that already given by Infected Mushroom. Because I am a normal human being with normal human desires, I consider my welfare to be worth more than the welfare of others. A bad lawsuit can ruin my life and death would, well, literally ruin my life. I would neither risk bankruptcy nor death to save another human being.

Of course, if this Scenario takes place in a jurisdiction with strong Good Samaritan laws, then Scenario 1 becomes much more appealing. But the Scenario given by the OP implies otherwise.

Scenario 3 is slightly different. If the person in question was drowning (as in Scenario 2), then I'd choose yes. I find it difficult to imagine an event important enough that I'd rather let a person die in front of me rather than miss it, and I'd certainly be willing to miss just about anything to save a person that's right in front of me. But the Scenario posits that the person in question is not merely dying: the person is suicidal. I'm not going to put myself on the hook for making a suicidal person see the value in life.

Thus, my response is no to all three scenarios.

To answer your auxiliary questions, yes and yes.

Of course it would be the ethical thing to do to help in all three scenarios. But that doesn't mean I'm going to do that.

I do consider laws that require bystanders to help people in distress - provided that such help doesn't put the bystander at risk of suffering grievous personal injuries themselves, of course - or at least absolves them of legal responsibility for a failed attempt to help to be a good idea. People should never be in a situation where they are held back from doing the altruistic thing because they are afraid of the law.

---

So not being coerced by law to do the right thing means you'll do the selfish thing and let someone die without help ? Scary.

The example that I often bring up is this: a UN emergency ration can keep a starving person fed on 50 cents a day. How much did the electronic device on which you are currently browsing this forum cost, and why didn't you donate it to the UNHCR?

There are two possibilities. Possibility one, an individual is morally obliged to consider the interests of everyone equally. Possibility two, it is reasonable for an individual to consider the interests of the people around them more than they consider the interests of people distant from them.

If possibility one, then please explain to me why your ability to browse the internet is more important than saving the victims of famines. If possibility two, then please explain to me why it's unreasonable for a person to take care of them and their own first.

The reason why we have things like good samaritan laws and social welfare programmes is precisely because it is unreasonable to ask individual human beings to, in the absence of external pressure, behave selflessly. If it was reasonable to ask people to just not be selfish then we would have no need to structure our society to discourage selfish behaviour.

[The Free Joy State]

There’s no legal duty to help

Depends where. Here in France we do, as long as there is no "risk for yourself or others", and I support that. I would say #1 doesn't expose you to any real risk, and for #3 it's very dubious it would be considered legally valid.

According to the somewhat-knowing Wiki these nations require someone to -- at minimum -- call emergency services: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Serbia, Spain, Switzerland and Tunisia.

Meanwhile, these nations have specific duty to rescue laws: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Israel, Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Serbia and Spain.

In Argentina "abandoning to their fate a person unable to cope alone who must be cared for" carries a sentence of 2-6 years. It does not seem overly clear on if that is always the case or only if people could help (while being safe themselves) and did nothing.

Most legislation is fairly clear that it only applies is there is no peril to the rescuer themselves.

[Ifreann]

It's been a good while since I've had any first aid training, and what I did have was hardly extensive, but I do remember that the first thing that a first responder has to do is keep themselves safe. You will only make an emergency situation worse by getting yourself into distress as well. If I jumped into the water to try and save a drowning person, I would probably just be making things more difficult for whoever came along next and had two drowning people to try and save. Or worse, two corpses to try and retrieve.

If I give someone CPR? I won't collapse beside them. If I try to talk someone off a ledge? As long as I just try to talk them off the ledge and not wrestle them off the ledge, I should be fine.

---

Depends where. Here in France we do, as long as there is no "risk for yourself or others", and I support that. I would say #1 doesn't expose you to any real risk, and for #3 it's very dubious it would be considered legally valid.

According to the somewhat-knowing Wiki these nations require someone to -- at minimum -- call emergency services: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Serbia, Spain, Switzerland and Tunisia.

Meanwhile, these nations have specific duty to rescue laws: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Israel, Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Serbia and Spain.

In Argentina "abandoning to their fate a person unable to cope alone who must be cared for" carries a sentence of 2-6 years. It does not seem overly clear on if that is always the case or only if people could help (while being safe themselves) and did nothing.

Most legislation is fairly clear that it only applies is there is no peril to the rescuer themselves.

I faintly recall a thread in the distant past of NSG about a news story from France, about two police officers who were facing charges regarding the death of a man they had been chasing. The man in question had run into an electricity substation and the officers abandoned the chase because it was too dangerous to follow. He died, and the officers were charged under that duty to rescue law because they didn't do anything to try and help, didn't call anyone or get on the radio to ask if anything could be done, just left.

[The Emerald Legion]

1.) No. I don't know CPR to begin with, and also anyone who wears a pin proclaiming they're sue-happy is probably kind of an asshole.

2.) Yes. I've lived on the water my entire life. While I didn't quite learn to swim before I learned to walk, it was a fairly close thing, and drowning sucks.

3.) Yes. Whatever the event is isn't as important as at least taking a chance that they can be pulled back from the edge. Admittedly, I'm probably the worst person possible to try and do that, but assuming there's no time to go get a grief counselor I'd try to do my best.

[Kilobugya]

I faintly recall a thread in the distant past of NSG about a news story from France, about two police officers who were facing charges regarding the death of a man they had been chasing. The man in question had run into an electricity substation and the officers abandoned the chase because it was too dangerous to follow. He died, and the officers were charged under that duty to rescue law because they didn't do anything to try and help, didn't call anyone or get on the radio to ask if anything could be done, just left.

Policemen are hold to higher level of "duty to rescue" than civilians, because rescuing people is actually part of their job. While I don't recall that specific event, from what you said they should have at, at the very least, call for help (or maybe call EDF or whomever owned that station to know what the safe procedures in that case).

[Ethel mermania]

It's been a good while since I've had any first aid training, and what I did have was hardly extensive, but I do remember that the first thing that a first responder has to do is keep themselves safe. You will only make an emergency situation worse by getting yourself into distress as well. If I jumped into the water to try and save a drowning person, I would probably just be making things more difficult for whoever came along next and had two drowning people to try and save. Or worse, two corpses to try and retrieve.

If I give someone CPR? I won't collapse beside them. If I try to talk someone off a ledge? As long as I just try to talk them off the ledge and not wrestle them off the ledge, I should be fine.

---

According to the somewhat-knowing Wiki these nations require someone to -- at minimum -- call emergency services: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Serbia, Spain, Switzerland and Tunisia.

Meanwhile, these nations have specific duty to rescue laws: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Israel, Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Serbia and Spain.

In Argentina "abandoning to their fate a person unable to cope alone who must be cared for" carries a sentence of 2-6 years. It does not seem overly clear on if that is always the case or only if people could help (while being safe themselves) and did nothing.

Most legislation is fairly clear that it only applies is there is no peril to the rescuer themselves.

I faintly recall a thread in the distant past of NSG about a news story from France, about two police officers who were facing charges regarding the death of a man they had been chasing. The man in question had run into an electricity substation and the officers abandoned the chase because it was too dangerous to follow. He died, and the officers were charged under that duty to rescue law because they didn't do anything to try and help, didn't call anyone or get on the radio to ask if anything could be done, just left.

You would expect them to call the power company and kill the power at the substation, and then go in.

Aside from the electrocution danger, you don't want random people wandering around in those things.

[Autumn Wind]

If I drove past someone standing on a bridge looking out at the water, my first reaction would be that they were enjoying the view, not that they were contemplating suicide. There is a bridge over a stream near my house where people stop to feed the ducks. I’ve never stopped to inquire about their mental health.

[Apiary One]

Because of the risk of contracting COVID, I would only help them if I can stay 6 feet away when doing so.

[Autumn Wind]

If I drove past someone standing on a bridge looking out at the water, my first reaction would be that they were enjoying the view, not that they were contemplating suicide. There is a bridge over a stream near my house where people stop to feed the ducks. I’ve never stopped to inquire about their mental health.

[The Free Joy State]

I faintly recall a thread in the distant past of NSG about a news story from France, about two police officers who were facing charges regarding the death of a man they had been chasing. The man in question had run into an electricity substation and the officers abandoned the chase because it was too dangerous to follow. He died, and the officers were charged under that duty to rescue law because they didn't do anything to try and help, didn't call anyone or get on the radio to ask if anything could be done, just left.

Policemen are hold to higher level of "duty to rescue" than civilians, because rescuing people is actually part of their job. While I don't recall that specific event, from what you said they should have at, at the very least, call for help (or maybe call EDF or whomever owned that station to know what the safe procedures in that case).

The officers were acquitted on the grounds that "the two officers were not aware of the 'certain and imminent' danger to the boys", even though one of the officers who walked away said into his police radio: "If they’ve gone into the EDF site, I don’t give them much chance." (which suggests the opposite to be the case).

The person listening in the communications room could and should have sent emergency services. The officers themselves could have had the site rendered safe and then pursued the boys (for, in the case I found, they were 15 and 17). So many things could have been done.

[Kilobugya]

The officers were acquitted on the grounds that "the two officers were not aware of the “certain and imminent” danger to the boys", even though one of the officers who walked away said into his police radio: "If they’ve gone into the EDF site, I don’t give them much chance." (which suggests the opposite to be the case).

The person listening in the communications room could and should have sent emergency services. The officers themselves could have had the site rendered safe and then pursued the boys. So many things could have been done.

Ah, that's this case, I assumed it was another case because Ifreann spoke of "a man" when it actually was "two boys". In this case to me the trial was clearly political, since the events triggered the biggest riots we have had in decades, and the government sided with the police from hour 1 before any inquiry, it would have been very hard for a court to sentence them. Not impossible, sometimes courts do openly defy the government in France, but it's still rare enough.

Edit : also the officers weren't only guilty of letting them die, they were also guilty of dangerously chasing the two boys without any real reason to do it. And the boys were scared because of all the cases of police brutality/harassment. It really was a dramatic event in which the responsibility of the police, both those two officers and more generally the way the police operate in our "popular suburbs", is clear to me.

[Ifreann]

Policemen are hold to higher level of "duty to rescue" than civilians, because rescuing people is actually part of their job. While I don't recall that specific event, from what you said they should have at, at the very least, call for help (or maybe call EDF or whomever owned that station to know what the safe procedures in that case).

The officers were acquitted on the grounds that "the two officers were not aware of the 'certain and imminent' danger to the boys", even though one of the officers who walked away said into his police radio: "If they’ve gone into the EDF site, I don’t give them much chance." (which suggests the opposite to be the case).

The person listening in the communications room could and should have sent emergency services. The officers themselves could have had the site rendered safe and then pursued the boys (for, in the case I found, they were 15 and 17). So many things could have been done.

Guess I misremembered some details.

[The Free Joy State]

The officers were acquitted on the grounds that "the two officers were not aware of the 'certain and imminent' danger to the boys", even though one of the officers who walked away said into his police radio: "If they’ve gone into the EDF site, I don’t give them much chance." (which suggests the opposite to be the case).

The person listening in the communications room could and should have sent emergency services. The officers themselves could have had the site rendered safe and then pursued the boys (for, in the case I found, they were 15 and 17). So many things could have been done.

Guess I misremembered some details.

Happens to me all the time.

I found that article with the details you listed though, so it was close enough for Google.

[Page]

I faintly recall a thread in the distant past of NSG about a news story from France, about two police officers who were facing charges regarding the death of a man they had been chasing. The man in question had run into an electricity substation and the officers abandoned the chase because it was too dangerous to follow. He died, and the officers were charged under that duty to rescue law because they didn't do anything to try and help, didn't call anyone or get on the radio to ask if anything could be done, just left.

Policemen are hold to higher level of "duty to rescue" than civilians, because rescuing people is actually part of their job. While I don't recall that specific event, from what you said they should have at, at the very least, call for help (or maybe call EDF or whomever owned that station to know what the safe procedures in that case).

We're miles away from getting cops to a duty to rescue, right now they don't even have a duty to not empty their guns into someone who looks at them funny.

[Kilobugya]

Policemen are hold to higher level of "duty to rescue" than civilians, because rescuing people is actually part of their job. While I don't recall that specific event, from what you said they should have at, at the very least, call for help (or maybe call EDF or whomever owned that station to know what the safe procedures in that case).

We're miles away from getting cops to a duty to rescue, right now they don't even have a duty to not empty their guns into someone who looks at them funny.

Well, as Einstein (supposedly) said : Do you know what's the difference between theory and practice ? In theory there is none.

[Infected Mushroom]

There’s no legal duty to help

Depends where. Here in France we do, as long as there is no "risk for yourself or others", and I support that. I would say #1 doesn't expose you to any real risk, and for #3 it's very dubious it would be considered legally valid.

and helping in all three scenarios could cause me considerable damage.

Therefore, I wouldn’t help in any of the three scenarios.

So not being coerced by law to do the right thing means you'll do the selfish thing and let someone die without help ? Scary.

Well the scenario does suggest that one person is highly litigious, that the second situation is dangerous to my own life, and that in the third scenario I stand to lose something economically. I mean, if it weren't set up like that then maybe I'd do something different.

[The Free Joy State]

Depends where. Here in France we do, as long as there is no "risk for yourself or others", and I support that. I would say #1 doesn't expose you to any real risk, and for #3 it's very dubious it would be considered legally valid.



So not being coerced by law to do the right thing means you'll do the selfish thing and let someone die without help ? Scary.

Well the scenario does suggest that one person is highly litigious, that the second situation is dangerous to my own life, and that in the third scenario I stand to lose something economically. I mean, if it weren't set up like that then maybe I'd do something different.

They are set up this way for a reason.

The thread asks what you would risk to save a life, with each scenario asking you to lay something different on the line: (1) legal risk; (2} risk to life; (3) loss of time/money.

It wouldn't be much of a dilemma if it there weren't realistic stakes.

For me, I deem the legal risk is miniscule compared to the guilt I (a first aid trained person) would feel if I did nothing, and the loss of time/money does not feature if someone is in extremis.

The second one is the really tough one. Intellectually, I weigh the needs of the people I know, who need me, and feel I should call emergency services and so keep living. Though it is impossible to know what I would actually do until (which I hope never happens) the heat of the moment. If the drowning person was someone close to me or a child, I doubt I could stand by.

[Dakini]

This thread asks a simple question: What would you risk to save a life?

What should you have to risk to save a life?

To begin, we posit three scenarios:

Scenario One: A person is collapsed, unconscious, not breathing. A crowd has gathered, but none are helping (though some are filming on their phones). You have your current knowledge of first aid. The person has a badge that reads: "Litigious and Proud of It" on their rucksack. You know that performing CPR can break ribs and that people have been sued (whether successfully or not) for performing CPR. They have, however, also been sued for not performing CPR. What do you do?

You say that they're not breathing, not that they don't have a pulse, so CPR doesn't sound necessary. I would call the local emergency number to alert them of an unconscious person who isn't breathing, check their airway for obstructions and perform AR (artificial respiration) until help arrives.

If they didn't have a pulse, emergency operators can talk you through CPR (which I would need them to do because my CPR certification has lapsed) and you can't be sued for being walked through CPR by a professional so there's really no reason not to do it.

Also, if you do CPR correctly, you're going to break ribs. If you don't break a rib, you're probably not really doing the chest compressions hard enough.

Scenario Two: A person is drowning. This time, there is no-one around to help but you. Regardless of your swimming ability, you will save the person, but there is a 50/50 chance that you will die in the process. Do you take the risk?

Absolutely not. Even when my swimming abilities were the best they were, the first rule is that you don't endanger yourself to save someone else and swimming on your own is always endangering yourself. It doesn't help a drowning person if the next person to come along has to rescue two people instead of one.

I would call for help first before attempting any rescue effort and then rescue them safely once help arrives (e.g. approaching them with a flotation device and then giving it to them while keeping my distance so they cannot drag me down too). Unless this is a swimming pool and I can just start throwing flotation devices at the person and then I don't need to get into the water or endanger myself at all, waiting for another person to show up is the only responsible option here.

Scenario Three: You are on your way to an important event for which a lot of money has been spent when you see a person standing up on a bridge, staring at the water. You know that, if you stop, you will be late and possibly miss the event. You know that, if you don't and they jump, they will almost certainly die. Do you stop?

I would definitely call for help and stop to talk to the person until a more helpful person arrives (I'm in no way trained in suicide prevention).

And should you?

Of course. If one is able to help another person in dire need of it, then one should do so.

I do wish that it was easier to re-certify first aid skills so I could be more helpful though. I used to have actual qualifications, but my knowledge is definitely rusty/lacking in some areas and although I've looked into updating my skills, so many classes are only offered during the week so it's difficult to do if you're working a regular 9-5 job.

[Major-Tom]

Scenarios 1 and 3 seem pretty clear-cut. If I break some ribs doing CPR in scenario one, I can only hope he wouldn't sue. If he did, I'm lucky to know some good attorneys. Scenario 3 is very simple, it would be asinine not to intervene.

Scenario 2 is tricky. I think, in that moment, I'd be cocky and go for it. I've been a swimmer my whole life and probably wouldn't realize the 50/50 risk, or I'd convince myself that I was somehow "better-equipped" to handle that kind of an aquatic situation because of my experience having done dangerous and risky swims/dives. But, who knows.

Even if I could guarantee that I could lunge for them without any risk to myself, I still wouldn't necessarily do it. Depends on the state of mind of the person. If they're having psychotic delusions and think that an alien tractor beam will pull them to heaven if they jump, then I would grab them. But if they were sane and just really wanted to die, I wouldn't.

I do support the right of someone to take his own life if they consistently desire so. But lots of suicide attempts happen due to temporary boot of hopelessness/panic/... and when prevented from committing suicide, many don't try again and are glad to have been saved. The line between "sane" and "temporary dementia" is very hard to draw, and some mental illness like depression are also very difficult to deal with, from an ethical point of view.

Pretty much. They did interviews with folks who survived the Golden Gate Bridge jumps (about 1 in 10 survive or something along those lines), and every single one of them remarked that "on the long fall down, they instantly regretted their decision." It would be well worth saving those lives in a hypothetical.

[The Blaatschapen]

Scenarios 1 and 3 seem pretty clear-cut. If I break some ribs doing CPR in scenario one, I can only hope he wouldn't sue. If he did, I'm lucky to know some good attorneys. Scenario 3 is very simple, it would be asinine not to intervene.

Scenario 2 is tricky. I think, in that moment, I'd be cocky and go for it. I've been a swimmer my whole life and probably wouldn't realize the 50/50 risk, or I'd convince myself that I was somehow "better-equipped" to handle that kind of an aquatic situation because of my experience having done dangerous and risky swims/dives. But, who knows.

I do support the right of someone to take his own life if they consistently desire so. But lots of suicide attempts happen due to temporary boot of hopelessness/panic/... and when prevented from committing suicide, many don't try again and are glad to have been saved. The line between "sane" and "temporary dementia" is very hard to draw, and some mental illness like depression are also very difficult to deal with, from an ethical point of view.

Pretty much. They did interviews with folks who survived the Golden Gate Bridge jumps (about 1 in 10 survive or something along those lines), and every single one of them remarked that "on the long fall down, they instantly regretted their decision." It would be well worth saving those lives in a hypothetical.

From golden gate to the pearly gates. Falling down while climbing the stairway.

It's almost poetic

[Samudera Darussalam]

1. I would try to help, though.....I know little of CPR. I think while helping, I also would ask nearby people if they know how to do it properly and also ask for someone to call for emergency service/help.

2. I don't know how to swim, so no. However, I would ask for others who are able to swim to help the person in question.
I'm not sure if this is a scenario where I am unable to think rationally though.

3. This scenario is almost similar to a song I've heard.
I would do my best to help and stop the person from what I'm thinking they are about to do, and....well, ask them to talk about it. I don't care if I'm missing whatever that event is, and if it's necessary, I would also offer my number to the person, since this kind of thing I guess need more than a random night to be solved.
If it's needed and the person is okay with it, I would then call for help.