Advertisement
by Lady Victory » Fri Jun 11, 2021 5:07 am
by The Free Joy State » Fri Jun 11, 2021 5:10 am
Ethel mermania wrote: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?
by Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia » Fri Jun 11, 2021 5:23 am
Lady Victory wrote: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.
by The Blaatschapen » Fri Jun 11, 2021 5:24 am
The Free Joy State wrote: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.
by Northern Socialist Council Republics » Fri Jun 11, 2021 5:28 am
Kilobugya wrote: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.
by The Free Joy State » Fri Jun 11, 2021 5:28 am
by Ifreann » Fri Jun 11, 2021 6:10 am
The Free Joy State wrote:Kilobugya wrote:
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.
by The Emerald Legion » Fri Jun 11, 2021 6:13 am
by Kilobugya » Fri Jun 11, 2021 6:15 am
Ifreann wrote: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.
by Ethel mermania » Fri Jun 11, 2021 6:23 am
Ifreann wrote: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.The Free Joy State wrote: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.
by Autumn Wind » Fri Jun 11, 2021 6:43 am
by Apiary One » Fri Jun 11, 2021 7:03 am
by Autumn Wind » Fri Jun 11, 2021 7:35 am
by The Free Joy State » Fri Jun 11, 2021 7:45 am
Kilobugya wrote:Ifreann wrote: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).
by Kilobugya » Fri Jun 11, 2021 7:48 am
The Free Joy State wrote: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.
by Ifreann » Fri Jun 11, 2021 7:50 am
The Free Joy State wrote:Kilobugya wrote:
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.
by The Free Joy State » Fri Jun 11, 2021 8:06 am
Ifreann wrote:The Free Joy State wrote: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.
by Page » Fri Jun 11, 2021 9:14 am
Kilobugya wrote:Ifreann wrote: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).
by Kilobugya » Fri Jun 11, 2021 9:17 am
Page wrote:Kilobugya wrote:
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.
by Infected Mushroom » Fri Jun 11, 2021 9:31 am
Kilobugya wrote: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.
by The Free Joy State » Fri Jun 11, 2021 9:38 am
Infected Mushroom wrote:Kilobugya wrote:
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.
by Dakini » Fri Jun 11, 2021 9:55 am
The Free Joy State wrote: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?
by Major-Tom » Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:09 am
Kilobugya wrote: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.
by The Blaatschapen » Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:43 am
Major-Tom wrote: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.Kilobugya wrote:
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.
by Samudera Darussalam » Fri Jun 11, 2021 7:30 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Barinive, Ineva, Keltionialang, THe cHadS, Tiami, Tungstan
Advertisement