NationStates Jolt Archive

Proposal: 1st Draft, Good Samaritan Act
Category: Social Justice
Effect: Mild

Deeply disturbed by the abuse of the democratic right to file a lawsuit for ones personal monetary gain,

Guided by sympathy for the passer by who takes mercy upon the injured and renders them first aid,

Taking note of the increasing lawsuits filed against the passer by, mentioned in the previous clause, who will be referred as a “Good Samaritan”

We, the member nations of the United Nations:

Demand an end to lawsuits against Good Samaritans who attempt to render first aid, but do so unsuccessfully, and

Further Requests that First Aid training be available in all member nations, to promote a higher quality of first aid worldwide.

Admendment
-A Good Samaritan is specified as someone who has no medical training and no legal binding to help this person. Also, a person looses a Good Samaritan standing if they accept payment from the victim, or responsibility for their actions.

R.S.V.P soon please

Note: All comments are appreciated.

Thesselonius will not support this resolution as-is.

It is simply too vague and open. People with good intentions can still commit wrongdoings. In the medical field, an untrained good samaritan can cause much more injury, even death. Even people with a good intention must be held accountable for gross negligence.

This needs to be refined, but in general this is a very good idea.

You might want to check out this site on such legislation (http://medi-smart.com/gslaw.htm)

Any person who, in good faith, renders emergency medical care or assistance to an injured person at the scene of an accident or other emergency without the expectation of receiving or intending to receive compensation from such injured person for such service, shall not be liable in civil damages for any act or omission, not constituting gross negligence, in the course of such care or assistance.

Thank you everybody for your input, I welcome more.

With so many variables involved and each case being so differed. Each case should be judged on its own merits, but perhaps the answer is to decriminalise any actions that are unintentional so that the Good Samaritans may be treated by the law as a medic would be.

A suitable resolution could be, perhaps, that the UN recognise and support the humanitarian actions of all individuals, but that legal rulings be left to each member state.

This member does however support the proposal of funding first aid training throughout the world and suggests such efforts should be concentrated in areas with poor health services and locations where UN forces are currently based in order to better relations with native populations.

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya strongly disagrees with this proposal. The fact is that good samaritans can actually do more harm than aid, and that it is never a good idea to help someone if you do not have the proper training.

We must disacourage, if not ban, good samaritans, not encourage them. There is a reason why we have paramedics, police, firemen, etc.--because not everyone has the ability to help someone in need. If somneone really wants to help they will contact such people instead of stalling and gambling the victim's life. Therefore, if someone is going to be so inconsiderate as to take such a profession, they must be responsible for any harm that they create for the victim. Their intentions do not justify doing harm.

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya

With so many variables involved and each case being so differed. Each case should be judged on its own merits, but perhaps the answer is to decriminalise any actions that are unintentional so that the Good Samaritans may be treated by the law as a medic would be.

Definite agreement here. It needs to be a matter of the intention of the "Good Samaritan". As Voroniziya points out, they can still have bad intentions and these shouldn't be protected by law.

But their actions under good intentions to restore basic systems to the "fallen person" should at least be somewhat protected. If the wording is just right, it will put the decision in the judges' hands, through which each case will be weighed on a case by case basis, (just in case).

I really like the idea about medical education for the public. If more clauses are put in about educating the masses then I think it'll subdue many angry voices. Lessening the wording from "Demands an end..." to something a little less threatening might also do it. But that's just personal preference.

I like it. And I think if you can write that much, then you probably have the chops to tweak it accordingly. So I won't make any more direct suggestions.

A compromise might be to wave liability for special recognized emergency response teams. The NS UN has already created an International Red Cross (IRC). You could create a resolution dealing with the IRC and emergency response liability. It would have international focus, and would apply to situations where the IRC and trained teams travel.

You might call these people "second responders". Here is an example from a corporate ad, illustrating the general service:


When an unexpected event or natural disaster occurs, MACTEC can provide immediate, on-site assistance. Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York City, earthquakes in California, hurricanes in Florida and the Carolinas, snowstorms and floods in the Southeast, and a high-rise fire in Texas, MACTEC successfully demonstrated a unique ability to quickly mobilize large numbers of engineers, architects, and other technical specialists to respond to client needs. Our emergency response management team understands what is required in the wake of man-made and natural disasters, including life safety issues, damage documentation and quantification, repair design, implementation, and prioritization, and reconstruction management.

I think you have found an interesting issue that isn't dealt with in NationStates, and if you'd like to go this way, my government would be prepared to help.

10kMichael
Confederated City States of Mikitivity

Good Samaritan laws were enacted in the US to protect people who provided first-responder care from civil liability suits should the injured person die while the care was being administered. The laws vary from state to state, but generally contain two specific clauses: first, that the first responder be trained in first-aid skills by an orgnization such as the Red Cross, and second, that the first-responder provided care within his or her level of training.

This resolution might be clarified if such definitions and qualifiers were added. If a person with no training whatsoever arrives on the scene and begins whacking away at a victim's chest, even if it's in the best intentions, they're acting in negligence. They haven't been trained and they know it. However, if a first responder who has been trained attempts to give care but the wounds are too grevious, the responder should not be faulted for being unable to save a life.

Just some food for thought.

Deeply disturbed by the abuse of the democratic right to file a lawsuit for ones personal monetary gain,

Guided by sympathy for the passer by who takes mercy upon the injured and renders them first aid,

Taking note of the increasing lawsuits filed against the passer by, mentioned in the previous clause, who will be referred as a “Good Samaritan”

First let me applaud you for this. I can see that you greatly care for the welfare of your people and trust their inner spirit to do the right thing. That must be an inspiration to every one of them to do even better.

It is often the case that frivolous lawsuits are filed, and they are a great burden on any legal system.

If we are to enact this kind of law we should also set some kind of standard for teaching basic first aid techniques. The Sophista who spoke of the ancien United States has the right idea. I agree that there should be some cutoff point where random psycho #3 doesn't have the privileges.

The idea could be anything from simple courses in CPR and tourniquet usage, to the kind program the BSA developed (minus the BS ;) ,) hardwiring the population at a young age with basic survival skills.

Very good idea. But I also believe it could be refined and more specific.
If a person administers CPR to a dead fellow human, and say breaks ribs, they should not be held accountable. If a person stumbles upon a fellow human suffering lifethreatening wounds and tries to find trained Red Cross personel, etc., but fails, and attempts to help the injured person, who dies, they should not be held accountable. I would say that no one should be held responsible of death due to attempted aid as long as it was attempted AID, not HARM.
EX: Johnny was walking through the park, and finds a man under a fallen tree. He tries to help, to find assistance, etc., but fails, and attempts first aid (as he could) himself. The man dies. OK
VS.
Joe was walking through the park, and finds a man under a fallen tree. He points and laughs at the man, tries to find help, but fails, then sits on the tree on top of the man, pulls his knife and "tries to cut the log in half" but really stabs him. BAD.

Of course these are obviously silly and slightly if not fully non-helpful, but I find it hard at the moment to describe perfection of this resolution. Perhaps a little viddi of the previous posts and a nice martini will clear me up...
*walks to the liqoure cabinet*

Cordially,
His Lordship LG

Does, by any chance, anyone know how to insert pictures, or bold/color text when writing a post? Or can you at least tell me where I left the key to my minibar?
*sigh*

Hopefully,
His Sadness LG

I think a little clarification might be helpful. This should be within one's training, but also one with no training should not be held responsible for giving basic help.
Ex) Bob is drowning. Bobette sees him, and with no lifeguards in sight, jumps in after him. She attempts to bring Bob back to shore, but is not strong enough to get him back to shore. Bob dies. Because Bobette was Bob's only chance of survival, and she didn't do anything rash, she is not at fault, either, even though she is not CPR certified or whatever.
I like this idea though, and I'll try to help get it through once you've ironed out the kinks.

Does, by any chance, anyone know how to insert pictures, or bold/color text when writing a post? Or can you at least tell me where I left the key to my minibar?
*sigh*

Hopefully,
His Sadness LG

LG,

Is it behind the usb cable for my digic I left behind the courtesy telephone last month? :headbang: Call room service. They'll know.

If a person administers CPR to a dead fellow human, and say breaks ribs, they should not be held accountable. [/QOUTE]

As long as they have certification that they knew CPR. Otherwise Bubba D. was jus trine to help th' purty thang. I believe that most people would want to learn first aid techniques if given the proper opportunity. And while it's easy to screw up if you don't know proper techniques, it's also not that hard to train.

[QUOTE]If a person stumbles upon a fellow human suffering life threatening wounds and tries to find trained Red Cross personel, etc., but fails, and attempts to help the injured person, who dies, they should not be held accountable.

Agreed. But again I must stress that it is important our citizens not only be "good samaritans" but also "be prepared," as the old motto goes.


Another thought is that using the term "Good Samaritans" may be turning off 'atheists' and 'secularists'. While it works for me, it might be better to come up with a more universally acceptable term. What say ye' Heathens? :D

I think a little clarification might be helpful. This should be within one's training, but also one with no training should not be held responsible for giving basic help.
Ex) Bob is drowning. Bobette sees him, and with no lifeguards in sight, jumps in after him. She attempts to bring Bob back to shore, but is not strong enough to get him back to shore. Bob dies. Because Bobette was Bob's only chance of survival, and she didn't do anything rash, she is not at fault, either, even though she is not CPR certified or whatever.
I like this idea though, and I'll try to help get it through once you've ironed out the kinks.

Ex 2)Cindel is drowning. Cindy sees him and with no lifeguards in sight, jumps in after him. The current is strong. She attempts to rescue him but he is panicking and struggling to stay up. As she draws near he blindy grabs her leg and tries to push himself up to the surface. In the process they both drown.

Ex 3)Reginald ignores the "20 people drown here every day sign." They are on an abandoned quarry in an old mining ghost town and there isn't a human or cell phone tower for miles. Sherlene sees him and wants to help him, but she isn't trained so she does nothing. Reginald's mother and father are irrational with grief and unable to comprehend Sherlene's logic. "There was nothing stopping you. You could have gone right in there. You can walk."

People should know their limits and it should be a standard that everyone is aware of.

Is it behind the usb cable for my digic I left behind the courtesy telephone last month? :headbang: Call room service. They'll know.

Why yes it is! I must thank you sir. Shall I mail the USB cable to thine nation?


As long as they have certification that they knew CPR. Otherwise Bubba D. was jus trine to help th' purty thang. I believe that most people would want to learn first aid techniques if given the proper opportunity. And while it's easy to screw up if you don't know proper techniques, it's also not that hard to train.

Agreed. But again I must stress that it is important our citizens not only be "good samaritans" but also "be prepared," as the old motto goes.

Agreed


Another thought is that using the term "Good Samaritans" may be turning off 'atheists' and 'secularists'. While it works for me, it might be better to come up with a more universally acceptable term. What say ye' Heathens? :D

Agreed, even though it didn't offend me. Makes sense. "Fair-willed passersby"

"Mini-bar is now open!"LG