Duty to Rescue

[Distruzio]

No. Not at all. Not even remotely close. My general political outlook reinforces the "mind your own business" approach.

...So you're fine with me standing by and doing nothing while a child beats the shit out of your child?

I'll be sure to call child services.

Yes. I am fine with you standing by idly. It's my child. Not yours.

[Condunum]

...So you're fine with me standing by and doing nothing while a child beats the shit out of your child?

I'll be sure to call child services.

Yes. I am fine with you standing by idly. It's my child. Not yours.

You'll probably never have a case on me if I intervene.

[Ethel mermania]

...So you're fine with me standing by and doing nothing while a child beats the shit out of your child?

I'll be sure to call child services.

Yes. I am fine with you standing by idly. It's my child. Not yours.

in the states parents who have done that, go to jail for child abuse. (and it has happened).

[Condunum]

Yes. I am fine with you standing by idly. It's my child. Not yours.

in the states parents who have done that, go to jail for child abuse. (and it has happened).

Like I said earlier, his notion of this "mind your own business" ideal doesn't have any application for a society with more than five people.

[Gravlen]

One of the fundamental principles of Anglo-American common law is that you have the right to engage in self-defense on another's behalf. This is because the law, unlike you, recognizes that minor offenses committed to stop greater offenses are not offenses at all. So pulling apart two kids in a fight is no crime at all.

No it isn't a crime. Nice strawman, though. Very subtle. Touching children, not your own, without permission, however, is.

Under what law?

[Condunum]

No it isn't a crime. Nice strawman, though. Very subtle. Touching children, not your own, without permission, however, is.

Under what law?

In his own little world where he completely forgets that there is a such thing as child protection laws and good sumeritan laws.

[Fionnuala_Saoirse]

Oh what, now you're going to tell me that pounding on their chests and yelling "LIVE, DAMN YOU!" doesn't work?

Only in Young Frankenstein.

Google 'praecordial thump'

[Tsa-la-gi Nation]

It was reported this morning that the victim decribed in the Op had told her family that she didn't want resuscition is such an event. With that being said, it wasn't reported if the nurse knew this. I do think you have an duty to help if you are professionally trained to do so. I also think a citizen has a duty to report a crime & should have protective rights if that person tries to help out of goodwill. Other than that, I don;t think the law should force someone to save a victim. If one gets harmed in the effort to save a victim, does the law provide full compensation? No.

[Distruzio]

Under what law?

In his own little world where he completely forgets that there is a such thing as child protection laws and good sumeritan laws.

Actually, being an emergency responder myself, I'm often reminded of the need for consent before acting by the officers and firemen involved. Since I'm not a societal leech (as they are), consent is not implied in the case of a private citizen acting on behalf of a child.

If this differs from child protection laws and good samaritan laws, I'd like you to point me to them. Because as far as I have been taught, for the last 6 years, touching children, not your own, without permission, is illegal.

Wiki sez:

If the victim is a minor, consent must come from a parent or guardian. However, if the legal parent or guardian is absent, unconscious, delusional or intoxicated, consent is implied. A responder is not required to withhold life-saving treatment (e.g., CPR or the Heimlich maneuver) from a minor if the parent or guardian will not consent. The parent or guardian is then considered neglecting, and consent for treatment is implied by default because neglect has been committed. Special circumstances may exist if child abuse is suspected (the courts will usually give immunity to those first responders who report what they reasonably consider to be evidence of child abuse or neglect, similar to that given to those who have an actual duty to report such abuse, such as teachers or counselors).

^ Foltin GL, Lucky C, Portelli I, et al. (June 2008). "Overcoming legal obstacles involving the voluntary care of children who are separated from their legal guardians during a disaster". Pediatric emergency care 24 (6): 392–8. doi:10.1097/PEC.0b013e318178c05d. PMID 18562886.

Note that in this discussion, we have been discussing two children fighting, not a child choking.

[Distruzio]

No it isn't a crime. Nice strawman, though. Very subtle. Touching children, not your own, without permission, however, is.

Under what law?

Good Samaritan laws, apparently.

[The Rising Sun of Doom]

A bystander should be allowed to use their own judgement, compelling someone by law to help is unworkable and a bit silly. Should be up to them, and them alone to decide if the situation is something they'd be able to help with, and the associated risks to themselves.

[Ethel mermania]

In his own little world where he completely forgets that there is a such thing as child protection laws and good sumeritan laws.

Actually, being an emergency responder myself, I'm often reminded of the need for consent before acting by the officers and firemen involved. Since I'm not a societal leech (as they are), consent is not implied in the case of a private citizen acting on behalf of a child.

If this differs from child protection laws and good samaritan laws, I'd like you to point me to them. Because as far as I have been taught, for the last 6 years, touching children, not your own, without permission, is illegal.

Wiki sez:

If the victim is a minor, consent must come from a parent or guardian. However, if the legal parent or guardian is absent, unconscious, delusional or intoxicated, consent is implied. A responder is not required to withhold life-saving treatment (e.g., CPR or the Heimlich maneuver) from a minor if the parent or guardian will not consent. The parent or guardian is then considered neglecting, and consent for treatment is implied by default because neglect has been committed. Special circumstances may exist if child abuse is suspected (the courts will usually give immunity to those first responders who report what they reasonably consider to be evidence of child abuse or neglect, similar to that given to those who have an actual duty to report such abuse, such as teachers or counselors).

^ Foltin GL, Lucky C, Portelli I, et al. (June 2008). "Overcoming legal obstacles involving the voluntary care of children who are separated from their legal guardians during a disaster". Pediatric emergency care 24 (6): 392–8. doi:10.1097/PEC.0b013e318178c05d. PMID 18562886.

Note that in this discussion, we have been discussing two children fighting, not a child choking.

are you are aware that the bolded part means you can give treatment without parental consent?

[Cannot think of a name]

I stopped at an accident once to assist (I was the third car on the scene but the second one just drove pass). As the first responder was checking on the injured victim, I want to see how the driver of the other car was (he legs were trapped (and we later found out had been shattered in 4 places). I told her I'd check her legs for blood and then talked to her until the ambulance arrived.

As a result I was named as a witness (even though the accident had occured before I arrived), summoned to the court and had to endure an unpleasant process that now has me thinking first whether helping is worth the subsequent hassle (especially as the car that just drove pass didn't have to do anything)

I stopped for a lady who got run off the road once. Turns out she was a recent immigrant from China and was very confused and frightened. The cop treated her like a total asshole and when she didn't understand he just kept saying the exact same thing over and over again and not answering any of her concerns. I had to interrupt and explain the bullshit the cop was presenting her with while he gave us excuses as to why he couldn't do anything about the person who ran her off the road even though we had plates and a description of the vehicle.

The cop eventually decided that she was my responsibility because when I tried to leave lest I tell the cop what a raging fucking asshole he was being she begged me to stay. So I checked her car out and it seemed like she could drive it off, talked her into doing that but she insisted I follow her home, which I tried to tell her wasn't the greatest idea, to have sketchy looking dudes follow you home after you've just met, but she was scared so fine. When we got to her place the people who owned it, a Chinese couple who had been here a while, were standing on the porch looking stern...probably thinking, "Did she just have that sketchy looking guy in a van follow her home?" For some reason I thought the best way to assuage their fears was to wave and drive off without saying anything to them...probably not, but I had been kind of looking for an out for a while. She had asked for my number but that's when I didn't have a phone so I just told her where I work. She never showed up there, there are any number of valid reasons why.

I never got called as a witness or anything, but I did have to go into work hungry because I had left early to grab something to eat before hand.

Don't regret it though, that woman needed help dealing with that asshole of a cop. My only regret is not actually telling him off, though it's probably best that I didn't, I got pulled over enough as it is.

[Fionnuala_Saoirse]

Not a fan. Professional duty and consequences with licensing boards? Sure. Everyone? Nope.

[Distruzio]

Actually, being an emergency responder myself, I'm often reminded of the need for consent before acting by the officers and firemen involved. Since I'm not a societal leech (as they are), consent is not implied in the case of a private citizen acting on behalf of a child.

If this differs from child protection laws and good samaritan laws, I'd like you to point me to them. Because as far as I have been taught, for the last 6 years, touching children, not your own, without permission, is illegal.

Wiki sez:

Note that in this discussion, we have been discussing two children fighting, not a child choking.

are you are aware that the bolded part means you can give treatment without parental consent?

Only in instances of the Child being in mortal danger. A fight is not mortal danger.

[Greater Mackonia]

No. There is no "duty" to endanger or otherwise inconvenience the life of one for the sake of another. There should not be a law requiring it either.

Morality must remain voluntary. Especially in the face of immorality.

This pretty much sums up my own view^.

[Zottistan]

A bystander should not be held legally accountable to help people in need. That's not their responsibility.

[Norstal]

No.

My next question: Why?

Because you can get your ass beat and now we have two people getting beaten to a pulp.

[Norstal]

Yes. Absolutely.

*shrugs* You have strange views.

Strange views that are easily exploited, which is why I hate Libertarianism.

For example, if you do see a 10 year old hurt a 5 year old and, since this is Distruzio's world, it's wrong to intervene by touching, you just need to intervene by some other way. For example, you can make the 10 year old hurt you instead. Then you have all rights to defend yourself and thus, stop the 5 year old from getting hurt.

Really, there's more than one way to skin a cat.

[Distruzio]

*shrugs* You have strange views.

Strange views that are easily exploited, which is why I hate Libertarianism.

For example, if you do see a 10 year old hurt a 5 year old and, since this is Distruzio's world, it's wrong to intervene by touching, you just need to intervene by some other way. For example, you can make the 10 year old hurt you instead. Then you have all rights to defend yourself and thus, stop the 5 year old from getting hurt.

Really, there's more than one way to skin a cat.

Really, that's a reason to hate libertarianism? If anything, that example shows the beauty of it. You save the 5 yr old and assert your own sovereignty. Sounds like a good deal to me. Instead of abusing two children, you defend yourself.

[Norstal]

In his own little world where he completely forgets that there is a such thing as child protection laws and good sumeritan laws.

Actually, being an emergency responder myself, I'm often reminded of the need for consent before acting by the officers and firemen involved. Since I'm not a societal leech (as they are), consent is not implied in the case of a private citizen acting on behalf of a child.

If this differs from child protection laws and good samaritan laws, I'd like you to point me to them. Because as far as I have been taught, for the last 6 years, touching children, not your own, without permission, is illegal.

Wiki sez:

If the victim is a minor, consent must come from a parent or guardian. However, if the legal parent or guardian is absent, unconscious, delusional or intoxicated, consent is implied. A responder is not required to withhold life-saving treatment (e.g., CPR or the Heimlich maneuver) from a minor if the parent or guardian will not consent. The parent or guardian is then considered neglecting, and consent for treatment is implied by default because neglect has been committed. Special circumstances may exist if child abuse is suspected (the courts will usually give immunity to those first responders who report what they reasonably consider to be evidence of child abuse or neglect, similar to that given to those who have an actual duty to report such abuse, such as teachers or counselors).

^ Foltin GL, Lucky C, Portelli I, et al. (June 2008). "Overcoming legal obstacles involving the voluntary care of children who are separated from their legal guardians during a disaster". Pediatric emergency care 24 (6): 392–8. doi:10.1097/PEC.0b013e318178c05d. PMID 18562886.

Note that in this discussion, we have been discussing two children fighting, not a child choking.

Where does it say that you don't have to give treatment when you are given consent?

[Norstal]

Strange views that are easily exploited, which is why I hate Libertarianism.

For example, if you do see a 10 year old hurt a 5 year old and, since this is Distruzio's world, it's wrong to intervene by touching, you just need to intervene by some other way. For example, you can make the 10 year old hurt you instead. Then you have all rights to defend yourself and thus, stop the 5 year old from getting hurt.

Really, there's more than one way to skin a cat.

Really, that's a reason to hate libertarianism? If anything, that example shows the beauty of it. You save the 5 yr old and assert your own sovereignty. Sounds like a good deal to me. Instead of abusing two children, you defend yourself.

Again, easily exploited. Instead of stopping the abuse, you abuse the 10 year old because you are given free reign over your own defense.

You're just lucky that, in my first example, I exploited it for a "good" cause.

[Distruzio]

Actually, being an emergency responder myself, I'm often reminded of the need for consent before acting by the officers and firemen involved. Since I'm not a societal leech (as they are), consent is not implied in the case of a private citizen acting on behalf of a child.

If this differs from child protection laws and good samaritan laws, I'd like you to point me to them. Because as far as I have been taught, for the last 6 years, touching children, not your own, without permission, is illegal.

Wiki sez:

Note that in this discussion, we have been discussing two children fighting, not a child choking.

Where does it say that you don't have to give treatment when you are given consent?

??

It doesn't. Neither did I.

[Distruzio]

Really, that's a reason to hate libertarianism? If anything, that example shows the beauty of it. You save the 5 yr old and assert your own sovereignty. Sounds like a good deal to me. Instead of abusing two children, you defend yourself.

Again, easily exploited. Instead of stopping the abuse, you abuse the 10 year old because you are given free reign over your own defense.

You're just lucky that, in my first example, I exploited it for a "good" cause.

It isn't abuse if its in self defense.

[Norstal]

Where does it say that you don't have to give treatment when you are given consent?

??

It doesn't. Neither did I.

So are you forced to give treatment when given consent?

Because if you read the previous and latter statement, it says that, if the parent doesn't give consent it will be treated as neglect and in cases of neglect, you are given consent by default. When they are absentia, you are given consent by default as well. Then in some special cases, you are given immunity if you have authority.

It is saying that if the parents tries to stop you, you don't have to force your way to treat the child. You will be protected if that happens. But, if they're not trying to stop you and you can save them, well, that's why I asked you if you are forced to give treatment when given consent.

It isn't abuse if its in self defense.

I'm sure.

For those who are reading this with a greater imagination, think of the many ways you can beat a 10 year old. But don't think of it as abuse.