In a seperate thread, there was much debate about the opt-in fire protection scheme in place in a rural TN community. One aspect I brought into that discussion was the potential conflict the rules might have with Duty to Act laws.

 

I do not know what the Duty to Act laws are in Tennessee, I am only familiar with them in the states where I have carried an EMT license. I've actually taught CPR and basic first aid, years ago, and one of the topics I discussed was the two action laws regarding rendering aid - Duty to Act, and Good Samaritan. Virtually every state has some version of both of those. One, Duty to Act, requires certain individuals (some or all of Doctors, Paramedics/EMT's, Nurses, Cops, etc.) to render aid when someone is in need. Good Samaritan laws are there to protect individuals not "on duty", usually regardless of medical background, in instances where they voluntarily render aid (protected, meaning, from legal liability, except in cases of gross negligence or reckless abandonment). In the case of one state (Alaska), Duty to Act actually extends to ALL citizens of the state, requiring them to render whatever assistance they can.

 

So, here is the topic for debate... how do you feel about Duty to Act laws? Should people be required to render aid by law? Should it only cover doctors? Paramedics/EMT's? All citizens? Where does privilege that goes with licensure end, and paternalistic law begin? Should it even be a states issue, or should it be federal?

 

 

There is a major problem with my answer. I believe people should be compelled to act up to their comfort and skill level. That is impossible to quantify in a court of law. For example, someone may have taken a course in First Aid, but not feel comfortable coming to the aid of a car crash victim. It does seem criminal to me, and I use criminal specifically, for someone to stand by and watch someone suffer or die. So I'd agree with the law and hope that a jury would be able to sort out the marginal situations.

 

 

There is a major problem with my answer. I believe people should be compelled to act up to their comfort and skill level. That is impossible to quantify in a court of law. For example, someone may have taken a course in First Aid, but not feel comfortable coming to the aid of a car crash victim. It does seem criminal to me, and I use criminal specifically, for someone to stand by and watch someone suffer or die. So I'd agree with the law and hope that a jury would be able to sort out the marginal situations.

I'd guess that any legal action taken using such a law would only prosecute in cases of obvious and gross negligence or abandonment. Like, you see someone get hit by a car, laying there bleeding to death, and you say "good luck with that" and walk away. If they at least try to get help or call 911, they'd be protected. That's the way Good Samaritan laws usually work out.

 

I believe people should be compelled to act up to their comfort and skill level. That is impossible to quantify in a court of law.

 

agreed

 

I'd guess that any legal action taken using such a law would only prosecute in cases of obvious and gross negligence or abandonment. Like, you see someone get hit by a car, laying there bleeding to death, and you say "good luck with that" and walk away. If they at least try to get help or call 911, they'd be protected. That's the way Good Samaritan laws usually work out.

 

This is kind of like pornography, we know it when we see it, but everyone sees it in shades of the same color. Too bad we even have to think about making it a law. I know I would always render whatever aid I could.

The other side of that is how much protection should a good samaritian have before being compelled to act. The whole reason that people are scared to help is they don't want to get sued.

The other side of that is how much protection should a good samaritian have before being compelled to act. The whole reason that people are scared to help is they don't want to get sued.

Good Samaritan laws are aggresively protected for that reason. Acting in aid (outside of job duty), as a good samaritan, unless you do something stunningly negligent and stupid, you are protected per se from criminal prosection, and in strong spirit from civil liability. Lawsuits against good samaritans rarely succeed, unless again, the actions of the good samaritan are just amazingly and obviously stupid.