NationStates

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.

Yes to all scenarios because in Russia performing CPR even if it fails rarely leads to being sued to I don’t care, scenario #2 YES because I want to die and scenario #3 yes because that’s just my duty as a human.

Laka Strolistandiler wrote:Yes to all scenarios because in Russia performing CPR even if it fails rarely leads to being sued to I don’t care, scenario #2 YES because I want to die and scenario #3 yes because that’s just my duty as a human.

On point two, I post this link with no judgement whatsoever.

On the CPR, I'm not sure how often performing CPR leads to being successfully sued. Stats indicate failure to perform CPR leads to a successful suit more often than performing it.

I would definitely try to save the person in case 1 and 3.

I would probably not take a 50% chance of dying to save someone I don't know. If it's someone I hold dear, or a child, I would probably take the risk. But then I'm not sure I would realize I've a 50% chance of dying, so not sure exactly what I would do. Might I would try and give up when it feels I'm exceeding I'm strength. It's very hard to figure what you would do in such situations in the abstract, from the safety of a chair, compared to being in front of the situation.

Yes to 1 and 3, no to 2. Assuming that I have the extensive CPR methods and knowing the risk of it all (I took a small bit of First Aid stuff before, so... I know the basics a little), I will still try my best to perform, anyway. Whether or not I will get sued is something else entirely that I would deal with later.

For scenario 2, I don't think I can save someone from drowning, not in this current state of myself. I can barely swim in hectic situations, let alone save another person.

For scenario 3, yeah I will try my very best to coax that person to not suicide. It would absolutely suck that I would either miss the event, or will be late for it, but I would find it much more worthwhile to save someone from their possible suicide. Missing and wasting an expensive event to save a priceless thing that is called life, is a more than fair deal. Plus I might just make a new friend if it is successful, so yeah, that is nice too.

Valentine Z wrote:For scenario 2, I don't think I can save someone from drowning, not in this current state of myself. I can barely swim in hectic situations, let alone save another person.

Well, the scenario states that -- regardless of your current ability -- you will save the person. With my current swimming ability, I would probably do more harm than good and would be better just calling the emergency services.

That said, if faced with a scenario where (as Kilobugya said) a loved one was drowning -- or a child -- that may override my rationality (even with my current swimming ability). I've experienced first-hand some of the rush of sense-stealing adrenaline when someone depending on you is in (albeit mild) peril. It doesn't make you cautious.

I have no idea regarding the first and third but I suspect I wouldn't with the second. NZ has a terrible drowning rate in large part because of drowned rescuers (sometimes they drown but do rescue the original drowner). I haven't been swimming in years, as well.

The Free Joy State wrote:

Laka Strolistandiler wrote:Yes to all scenarios because in Russia performing CPR even if it fails rarely leads to being sued to I don’t care, scenario #2 YES because I want to die and scenario #3 yes because that’s just my duty as a human.

On point two, I post this link with no judgement whatsoever.

On the CPR, I'm not sure how often performing CPR leads to being successfully sued. Stats indicate failure to perform CPR leads to a successful suit more often than performing it.

Not the first time someone linked this, and thanks for the effort.
That is in US. Russia is a far different story.

Yes to scenario's one and three. Dont know if i would do two.

Yeerosland wrote:[*snip*]

Hmm, you mentioned in One the risk of being sued. Doesn't that apply to Three as well?

Each scenario weighs a different personal cost (also, the risk of causing someone physical damage that might lead a litigious person to sue is more present in the first one; 30% of CPR deliveries are estimated to lead to rib fractures or a cracked sternum):

Scenario one: Legal risk.

Scenario two: Life risk.

Scenario three: Time and money.

Yeerosland wrote:

Forsher wrote:I have no idea regarding the first and third but I suspect I wouldn't with the second. NZ has a terrible drowning rate in large part because of drowned rescuers (sometimes they drown but do rescue the original drowner). I haven't been swimming in years, as well.

People who take it upon themselves to rescue someone else, are quite likely drunk. And being drunk around water is usually bad?

Actually, it has been found that what is known as "extreme altruists" (those who risk their lives to save a stranger) have differences in the right amygdala. It says: "Tellingly, these differences were the exact opposite of variations that have previously been found in diagnosed psychopaths.".

This is not to imply choosing not to save a stranger's life is unusual or bad (it's not something I'm sure I'd do), just that it is thought there is some structure in the brain of some people that makes them likely to make that choice.

Meanwhile, whether to save a stranger's life or not is intuitive. The person just acts: "The ratings were pretty clear: the vast majority of life savers, it turns out, reported acting intuitively, making split-second decisions rather than weighing pros and cons."

EDIT: And I have no idea how I hit quote instead of edit and ended up double-posting.

The Free Joy State wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote:Each scenario weighs a different personal cost (also, the risk of causing someone physical damage that might lead a litigious person to sue is more present in the first one; 30% of CPR deliveries are estimated to lead to rib fractures or a cracked sternum):

Scenario one: Legal risk.

Scenario two: Life risk.

Scenario three: Time and money.

Yeerosland wrote:
People who take it upon themselves to rescue someone else, are quite likely drunk. And being drunk around water is usually bad?

Actually, it has been found that what is known as "extreme altruists" (those who risk their lives to save a stranger) have differences in the right amygdala. It says: "Tellingly, these differences were the exact opposite of variations that have previously been found in diagnosed psychopaths.".

This is not to imply choosing not to save a stranger's life is unusual, just that it is thought there is some structure in the brain of people who can be that selfless who makes them likely to make that choice.

Meanwhile, whether to save a stranger's life or not is intuitive. The person just acts: "The ratings were pretty clear: the vast majority of life savers, it turns out, reported acting intuitively, making split-second decisions rather than weighing pros and cons."

Damn I’d love to be able to sacrifice my life to save someone’s... Too bad that’s quite a challenge in itself these days.

Yeerosland wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote:Actually, it has been found that what is known as "extreme altruists" (those who risk their lives to save a stranger) have differences in the right amygdala. It says: "Tellingly, these differences were the exact opposite of variations that have previously been found in diagnosed psychopaths.".

This is not to imply choosing not to save a stranger's life is unusual or bad , just that it is thought there is some structure in the brain of some people that makes them likely to make that choice.

Meanwhile, whether to save a stranger's life or not is intuitive. The person just acts: "The ratings were pretty clear: the vast majority of life savers, it turns out, reported acting intuitively, making split-second decisions rather than weighing pros and cons."

EDIT: And I have no idea how I ended up double-posting.

That's very interesting. To get a result like "more rescuers drown than the people they try to save" it's still quite likely alcohol was involved.

Please clarify in Two, whether the rescuer dying means the drowning person drowns too?

It could also mean the water is choppy or very cold (shock caused by cold water is a common cause of drowning IIRC).

And it's already clear:

The Free Joy State wrote:Regardless of your swimming ability, you will save the person, but there is a 50/50 chance that you will die in the process.

The Free Joy State wrote:

Valentine Z wrote:For scenario 2, I don't think I can save someone from drowning, not in this current state of myself. I can barely swim in hectic situations, let alone save another person.

Well, the scenario states that -- regardless of your current ability -- you will save the person. With my current swimming ability, I would probably do more harm than good and would be better just calling the emergency services.

That said, if faced with a scenario where (as Kilobugya said) a loved one was drowning -- or a child -- that may override my rationality (even with my current swimming ability). I've experienced first-hand some of the rush of sense-stealing adrenaline when someone depending on you is in (albeit mild) peril. It doesn't make you cautious.

If you did that, then they’d probably drown before the ambulance got there. And depending on the location and deepness of the water, you could save them without dunking your head in.

Esthe wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote:Well, the scenario states that -- regardless of your current ability -- you will save the person. With my current swimming ability, I would probably do more harm than good and would be better just calling the emergency services.

That said, if faced with a scenario where (as Kilobugya said) a loved one was drowning -- or a child -- that may override my rationality (even with my current swimming ability). I've experienced first-hand some of the rush of sense-stealing adrenaline when someone depending on you is in (albeit mild) peril. It doesn't make you cautious.

If you did that, then they’d probably drown before the ambulance got there. And depending on the location and deepness of the water, you could save them without dunking your head in.

So, what would be your answer to the scenarios?

The Free Joy State wrote:

Esthe wrote:If you did that, then they’d probably drown before the ambulance got there. And depending on the location and deepness of the water, you could save them without dunking your head in.

So, what would be your answer to the scenarios?

I like to think I’d try to save them all regardless, but if that happened in real life, I’d probably just stand there in shock.

Scenario 1: Ambivalent. I have to acknowledge that not helping is the safer choice for me, whatever scenarios one has been sued for not performing CPR, I'm 100% certain that involves people whose job it is to provide first aid or someone is responsible for the property in which the emergency takes place, and that as a bystander in public there is zero risk. But if I decline to help, while there is no financial risk, I do risk feeling shitty about myself for a long time if I thought I might have been able to save them. So I'll go with a soft yes on this one.

Scenario 2: Would not risk 50% chance of death. At other points in my life I might have but presently I am deeply committed to a very important project, and I have a wife who loves me. My death would have a devastating impact on her and I value her happiness more than a stranger's life. Quite honestly I value her happiness more than 100 strangers' lives. I don't necessarily think my priorities are entirely rational or justifiable, but that is how I feel, and it's a part of the human condition to prioritize your own.

Scenario 3: Would definitely stop and talk to them and try to convince them to come down. Would not try to grab them down, both for my own safety and respect for their bodily autonomy.

Esthe wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote:So, what would be your answer to the scenarios?

I like to think I’d try to save them all regardless, but if that happened in real life, I’d probably just stand there in shock.

Fair enough.

You never truly know what you'd do until actually faced with the situation.

Page wrote:[*snip*]Scenario 2: Would not risk 50% chance of death. At other points in my life I might have but presently I am deeply committed to a very important project, and I have a wife who loves me. My death would have a devastating impact on her and I value her happiness more than a stranger's life. Quite honestly I value her happiness more than 100 strangers' lives. I don't necessarily think my priorities are entirely rational or justifiable, but that is how I feel, and it's a part of the human condition to prioritize your own.

I get that. As I said, I have people who depend on me, and there's no-one else. So, I'm not sure I would risk my life -- as shitty as I would feel.

Scenario 3: Would definitely stop and talk to them and try to convince them to come down. Would not try to grab them down, both for my own safety and respect for their bodily autonomy.

I was definitely thinking more of "talk them down", since making sudden lunges for someone in this situation is not a very good idea, as they might back away and fall.

The Free Joy State wrote:

Yeerosland wrote:That's very interesting. To get a result like "more rescuers drown than the people they try to save" it's still quite likely alcohol was involved.

Please clarify in Two, whether the rescuer dying means the drowning person drowns too?

It could also mean the water is choppy or very cold (shock caused by cold water is a common cause of drowning IIRC).

I mean, I don't think the result is "more rescuers drown than the people they try to save"... it's more "enough people drown trying to save people that it's not news when it happens".. in a 32 year period, 81 died in NZ... in Australia it's even more common, in an 18 year period 103 died. But those numbers, while large, are a only a fraction of the number of drowning deaths as a whole. Contradictory figures here and here but we're talking something like 30-100 drownings a year in NZ.

From the first link:

John Pearn, senior paediatrician at Royal Children's Hospital in Brisbane, and Richard Franklin, senior research fellow at the Royal Lifesaving Society in Australia, pioneered study into AVIR syndrome and are authors of The Impulse to Rescue. They explain our altruistic impulses are learned primarily in childhood and further reinforced in adult life.

"Every society lauds altruism and courage. In the British Commonwealth, nations bestow their highest accolades, the Victoria Cross and the George Cross, upon those who attempt to save the lives of others in the face of mortal risk."

This "rescue impulse" is particularly strong, they say, when it comes to family. "It is a case of ‘blood being thicker than water'," explains psychologist Sara Chatwin, who says when emotional and family connections are coupled with the need to act, the driving force becomes greater and more urgent.

Of course, you've got to be mental to go swimming in NZ outside of the pool setting to start with: you can't have safe swimming spots, mass dairying and systematic institutional failures to maintain water infrastructure quality in a wet country.

The Free Joy State wrote:

Esthe wrote:I like to think I’d try to save them all regardless, but if that happened in real life, I’d probably just stand there in shock.

Fair enough.

You never truly know what you'd do until actually faced with the situation.

Page wrote:[*snip*]Scenario 2: Would not risk 50% chance of death. At other points in my life I might have but presently I am deeply committed to a very important project, and I have a wife who loves me. My death would have a devastating impact on her and I value her happiness more than a stranger's life. Quite honestly I value her happiness more than 100 strangers' lives. I don't necessarily think my priorities are entirely rational or justifiable, but that is how I feel, and it's a part of the human condition to prioritize your own.

I get that. As I said, I have people who depend on me, and there's no-one else. So, I'm not sure I would risk my life -- as shitty as I would feel.

Scenario 3: Would definitely stop and talk to them and try to convince them to come down. Would not try to grab them down, both for my own safety and respect for their bodily autonomy.

I was definitely thinking more of "talk them down", since making sudden lunges for someone in this situation is not a very good idea, as they might back away and fall.

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.

Page wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote:Fair enough.

You never truly know what you'd do until actually faced with the situation.


I get that. As I said, I have people who depend on me, and there's no-one else. So, I'm not sure I would risk my life -- as shitty as I would feel.


I was definitely thinking more of "talk them down", since making sudden lunges for someone in this situation is not a very good idea, as they might back away and fall.

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 mean, they could think that the alien is pulling them to the tractor beam and just not resist.

Page wrote: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.

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?

There’s no legal duty to help and helping in all three scenarios could cause me considerable damage.

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

Infected Mushroom wrote: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.

Infected Mushroom wrote: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.