The Obligation Of The Individual

Last weekend I was in a First Aid/CPR training class, and the question was raised whether or not we were obligated to assist someone in need. The discussion that ensued was quite interesting, and I will talk of my experience here and see what others think. The answer to the question was "No". If we were to help, we would have an obligation to continue to assist. But no single individual has any obligation to assist any other person. That is in Canadian law anyways. With the exception of Quebec. Quebec is the only Canadian province that believes every citizen has an obligation to every other citizen, and assist them when they find themselves in need.

Does Quebec have something here?

I for one would support such a law. I believe that every individual should have a moral obligation to assist our fellow man, and if we cross someone in need, we should do our part to help out. Like the Seinfield series finale, the "Good Samaritan Law". I'm not saying that we need to confront an attacker, rapist, murderer, etc., but we should call for help at least, or do more when we can.

What about individual states in America? Do they have any such laws?

Does anyone agree that the individual should have an obligation to complete strangers?

If we see someone being harassed, bullied, etc., should it be our responsibility to lend a helping hand? If it were, I think we would see a lot of anti-social behaviours being slowly curbed out.

Thoughts on this one?

Ok, my reply to this thread now. (Those fancy stars )

I would agree with that law.

But the thing is it shouldn't come down to having to make a law like that in the first place. People shouldn't need a law telling them to help others. They should do it on their own, and do the right thing.

If a person needs a law to make them do the right thing, they need to do some thinking.

How would a law like that be enforced though? Cameras watching everyone? Or police watching for somebody not helping? Wait...they the police wouldn't be helping.

And to add, I'm not saying for an average person to try and take on three guys with weapons, but there are alot of situations where a person can help and make a difference just by being a good person.

Yeah.

[edit on 16/5/2007 by enjoies05]

Thats the thing though, it's all about expectations. If the expectation is set that every individual has a moral obligation to fellow man, they will act accordingly. The beauty of this is that we really don't need to enforce any punitive measures. Just tell people that it is a law that we need to assist fellow man who finds him or herself in need. A phone call, yell for help, anything to assist.

How many laws do we have that are never enforced?

There are ridiculous laws in the books pertaining to annual showers, playing certain instruments in certain clothing, etc., which are never considered. Why can't this be one? We never really need to consider enforcing it, but if we set it as the standard, it may have people acting more appropriately.

It bigger cities, I'm willing to bet that a lot of people would bypass an individual in need. Quite quickly I might add, and never think twice about it. That is sad.

And you ask why do we need to set a law? Well, because there is no other way. We would love to be optimistic about it and think that people would "just do it". But they won't. People need to be told to do something, and then told to do it again, again, and again.

Then at that point, there is still no guarantee that they will do it.

I don't profess that this should be a paper tiger. If we can, beyond a reasonable doubt, show that someone ignored a fellow man in need, maybe five or six hours of community service would be a just penalty. Just enough to be a pain in the ass, to have them think about the next time they find themselves in a situation to help another person.

Yeah, thats why I said I'd support it, because more people might help others.

The point was though it's sad when there has to be a law to get people to help others. But I guess thats what we have come to.

In the United States, many jurisdictions have Good Samaritan Laws to protect from lawsuits those who aid others in need.

There are some exceptions as this case demonstrates.

www.bismarcktribune.com

I seem to recall a case many years ago in which a man watched another man or woman drown without doing anything to save the person even though the means were at hand. I believe that there was "bad blood" between them. I believe that the court ruled that to watch another person die and do nothing when something could clearly be done makes one liable.

I can find nothing regarding such incidents.

Maybe someone with more legal knowledge can help.

[edit on 2007/5/16 by GradyPhilpott]

Helping another is a moral obligation and I believe that people should render aid to another when possible. Now we run into whether it should be enforced by law. No, I believe that there shouldn't be yet another law enacted that would be unenforceable.

Most states here in the US have a Good Samaritan law that protects the person rendering aid should anything go wrong as long as you don't go over your level of training. I'm a trained first responder due to my job. Therefore as long as I don't go past my Medic First Aid training I can't be sued.

As a point; during my training this year we were taught that if you don't feel comfortable giving rescue breathing during CPR go ahead and just do the chest compressions. Also remember that if you are giving another CPR that person is in effect already dead; you can do no further harm and you may very well save their life.

[edit on 16-5-2007 by gallopinghordes]

[edit on 16-5-2007 by gallopinghordes]

I can find one reference to states having laws requiring citizens to provide aid to others in emergencies as long as they are not themselves put in danger.

Increasingly, however, in reaction to cases of callous indifference, states such as Minnesota and Wisconsin are mandating citizen help in emergencies. They are imposing on us a duty to assist, provided we don't put ourselves at risk.

scholar.lib.vt.edu

Should it be a law that you need to do something if you see a 92 year old being beat
to death by some gangsta wannabe or a woman throwing her baby on the ground,
I'd have to say yes, I can't believe that someone would not do anything.


Now, that said, I do believe that if someone is committing suicide, you should not
have to do anything, indeed you should get in trouble for interfering, unless the
end result would directly cause the death of others, like if someone was going to blow
themselves up or jump into rush-hour traffic causing car crashes.



That's my opinion on it.

OK, I can see both sides of the coin here. I understand why some believe that there should be a law on the books requiring you to come to the assistance of another. I will say we shouldn't have to have one it should just be the thing you do.

Now I must ask; how do you know that the passerby hasn't done every thing in their power to help? I've had extensive training in responding to all kinds of emergencies from medical to violence. I still don't and will never know how I will respond to each and every emergency. I've seen people freeze and are unable to respond even to make a radio or phone call. Are they cowards who refused to help? No, they are people who is that instance lost their ability to take action; it is a normal reaction. Who will be able to tell whether fear paralyzed them? How will we judge that? Who among us is able to read the heart or mind of another? It's easy for us to sit here and say I would help or I would do this or that. Not so easy when the situation hits and we do have to take action. It's also easy to arm chair quarterback another person's actions when we weren't there.

Morals and ethics are taught by the parents and society; maybe instead of legislation we should concentrate more on celebrating heroes. Instead of celebrating Hollywood stars we should celebrate the normal people who do heroic things every day as they go about their business without shouting for attention. When we as a society get out act together people will respond by doing the right thing without a law enforcing it.

Oak, I'm sorry I'll get of my soap box now.

I believe there is a failure to stop and render aid charge if you did not.


I took a cpr class, and I'd gladly try to save someones live if I am able.

I'd stay until they were ok, or until the rigormortis set in and there was nothing more I could do.

I just hope someone would do the same for me if I was in need.

There is a problem often overlooked where in some instances a good samiritan has become involved then been severely beaten and injured to the point of death sometimes yet the culprits recieve ridiculously lenient sentences. If we want to encourage a culture of getting involved we need the unequivocal backing of our legal system, otherwise we're just lone enforcers running too many risks to take a chance.

This whole issue of social responsoblity is part of a wider problem regarding, crime, anti-social behaviour and over liberal ideologies that are undermining society IMO.

WE have a moral obligation but not a legal one and that is a very important line I think.

Consider the stoning which takes place in islamic countries. What do you do as an american?

C

Moral obligations aside, I'd just as soon not have the government mandating things like that. Do you really want someone helping you because they're in fear of sanctions? I don't. It could devolve into a "more harm than good" scenario really quickly.

Originally posted by god_of_wine
Consider the stoning which takes place in islamic countries. What do you do as an american?

Personally, I'd prefer to not get involved. Maybe sort rocks or something, but not actually throwing any.

It your own choice

Do onto others as you would have them do onto you.(God)

it still applies. He who won't help someone has no one to blame when he needs help and doesn't get it.

With Great Power comes a Great Responsibility (Grandpa Parker)

Those with the power to help, should, its their Responsibility.

[edit on 17-5-2007 by Royal76]

Love your neighbour as yourself, do unto him as you would have him do unto you

from a proud canadian

Legislating morality? It shouldn't be, and in most cases isn't, necessary.

Good Samaritan Laws are in place for that very reason. Most people will render all the assisstance they can. The Katrina disaster is a prime example of this...volunteers from all over the country, and other countries came flocking in by the hundreds, or thousands, to do what they could to help.

Legislating morality is like King Canute holding back the tide. Can't be done. People do the right thing, because it's the right thing, not because some politician says to. That's the way it is, nothing can change that, certainly not feel good legislation.

Seagull, you are absolutely right morality can't be legislated nor should it be. That would be yet another useless unenforceable law on the books. We have enough of those.

There have been cases of people standing by and doing nothing but those are the rare cases. In most cases people will help even to the point of placing themselves in harms way. I know several people who have done so. They do these things because it is the right things to do. Every day heroes who then just go about their business. These are the people who should make the headlines not the Hollywood stars and the sports figures.

[edit on 18-5-2007 by gallopinghordes]