NationStates Jolt Archive

Kindness of Strangers Act

SEEKING to protect any person who, acting in good faith, renders emergency medical care or assistance while not being compensated for their time, from lawsuit.

UNDERSTANDING that in emergency medical situations seconds can mean the difference between life and death.

UNDERSTANDING that in some instances professional emergency medical personnel are non-existent or unable to respond in a timely manner.

UNDERSTANDING that in those instances the life of the person may depend on the kindness of strangers.

UNDERSTANDING that the administration of emergency medical care holds challenges that can directly affect the responders ability to work.

UNDERSTANDING that at times these situations may cause actions or omissions in care that may be detrimental to the victim’s heath.

CONCERNED that those actions or omissions may lead to litigation, causing others to think twice about rendering care in the future.

DEFINING “Negligence” as the failure to administer a level of care equivalent to the caregivers training level, performing an action which a reasonable and prudent person of equal medical training would not do, or failure to perform an action a reasonable and prudent person of equal training would do.

1.PROHIBITS civil litigations - for any act or omission excluding those constituting negligence, according to national law, - against any person who, in good faith, administers emergency medical care or assistance to an injured person, while not expecting compensation, or acting in an official capacity.

2. STRONGLY URGES each nation to establish a national review board for the review of potential negligence cases.




********************
Not sure on category or strength yet, Tort Reform or Moral Decency



Nigel S Youlkin
United Nations Ambassador At Large
The United State of Philimbesi

Since the focus seems to be on lawsuits, I would say Tort Reform. As for strength, it's not Strong, and I hesitate to call it Significant.

Tort Reform is about corporate law, not civil. This is Moral Decency if anything.

Unfortunately as anythings go, it's a blocker. Strongly urging will get you nowhere with a nation that happy suing at every turn, and the rest of us don't need the encouragement. This can't be stronger than 'Mild', surely.

OOC: Whoops, I didn't notice you'd toned it down to Strongly Urges. I don't really see why.

Um, there's a Tort Reform Category?

Yep, it's an Area of Effect of Advancement of Industry. So subcategory, I suppose.

Unfortunately as anythings go, it's a blocker. Strongly urging will get you nowhere with a nation that happy suing at every turn, and the rest of us don't need the encouragement.It's a blocker? What future UN legislation is this proposal forbidding?

OOC: Whoops, I didn't notice you'd toned it down to Strongly Urges. I don't really see why.

Yea I did in Reclamation, honestly not sure why. Mainly because I didn't want to spark up the National Sovereignty crowd. I'm changing it back.

With this definition of negligence, is it really your intent to call a non-action negligent? Although such statutes may exist in other areas, essentially requiring people to perform medical actions is a questionable action in itself, especially as stopping to render aid may be seen by one person as a potentially dangerous act, even though another person may believe it to be safe. Although the "national review boards" would likely judge such differences, it may be better to have a tighter definition of negligence in the document...

With this definition of negligence, is it really your intent to call a non-action negligent? Although such statutes may exist in other areas, essentially requiring people to perform medical actions is a questionable action in itself, especially as stopping to render aid may be seen by one person as a potentially dangerous act, even though another person may believe it to be safe. Although the "national review boards" would likely judge such differences, it may be better to have a tighter definition of negligence in the document...

Non-Action is to say that if a person does not do something in the administration of emergency of care that a reasonable and prudent person of similar training would. For instance failing to stabilizing a neck injury when you've been trained to do it.

It's a blocker? What future UN legislation is this proposal forbidding?
Apologies for misspeaking: I should have called it ineffectual rather than a blocker.

Yea I did in Reclamation, honestly not sure why. Mainly because I didn't want to spark up the National Sovereignty crowd. I'm changing it back.
I'd be very happy with that. The only other thing I see is a grammar nitpick: the definition of negligence shouldn't be two sentences. The second sentence isn't a complete sentence anyway, so all that needs to be done is changing the full stop to a comma and knocking down the capital letter.

Um, there's a Tort Reform Category?

Yep, it's an Area of Effect of Advancement of Industry. So subcategory, I suppose.

Yup, Advancement of Industry/Tort Reform. Of the Advancement of Industry category that particular sub category has the most entries in the Silly Proposals thread (mainly due to people not knowing what tort reform is).

My favorite torts to reform are those of the strawberry nature.

Oh, poor Mary Bellows...

Tort Reform is about corporate law, not civil. This is Moral Decency if anything.Tort Reform deals with law suits. They can certainly be about civil law.

a wrongful act other than a breach of contract for which relief may be obtained in the form of damages or an injunction

OOC:

Yep, that's what a tort is. And in RL, this would obviously be a tort reform proposal. But what's "tort reform" in the NSUN?

From the rules, the definition of the Tort Reform area of effect in the Advancement of Industry category:

Tort Reform. Removes legal barriers from anti-corporate litigation, reducing government interference in business. Guess who takes the hit when industry wins?

This proposal has nothing to do with corporations, business or industry. It doesn't fit the NSUN definition of "tort reform". Time for a change?

That'll teach me to forget what the game says, heh.

Yeah, okay. In the NS UN, it deals with suing corporations. Fair enough. Fitting this the the NS UN may be difficult.

Fitting this the the NS UN may be difficult.

OOC: That is unfortunate because I think we can use this, and possibly some other forms Tort Reform that have nothing do to with industry in the game

OOC: I'm sorry for advising you about Tort Reform: I hadn't realized the game category applied only to corporate litigation.

OOC: I'm sorry for advising you about Tort Reform: I hadn't realized the game category applied only to corporate litigation.

OOC: No problem.

Have you checked on how this would interact with the extant Good Samaritan Laws (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7243275&postcount=77)? I think that it should be okay, but am feeling a bit drowsy at the moment so might have missed something...

renders emergency medical care or assistance while not being compensated for their time
In the US, there are large numbers of all-volunteer emergency workers - ambulance, first responders, firefighters, rescue personnel, and so on - who receive no compensation, but are recognized as the official responding agency in the event of local emergency. They are unpaid professionals, and they would appear to get coverage from this resolution.

I'm just not sure that all unpaid emergency respondents should be covered by this blanket provision. I'm also not quite sure how to get there without removing the exemption from doctors, nurses, and other professionals acting in an unpaid capacity.

See what you can do, please.

In the US, there are large numbers of all-volunteer emergency workers - ambulance, first responders, firefighters, rescue personnel, and so on - who receive no compensation, but are recognized as the official responding agency in the event of local emergency. They are unpaid professionals, and they would appear to get coverage from this resolution.

I'm just not sure that all unpaid emergency respondents should be covered by this blanket provision. I'm also not quite sure how to get there without removing the exemption from doctors, nurses, and other professionals acting in an unpaid capacity.

See what you can do, please.

Did you mean appear not to get coverage?

I mean that basing your ability to seek redress based solely upon whether somebody gets paid or not is not enough of a qualification.

A volunteer fireman, acting in an official capacity for his municipality, should not be exempted from legal action simply because he's unpaid. In such a case, he could attempt medical treatment for which he hasn't been trained or is manifestly incapable of doing, and could actively harm the patient in his care.

Is it negligence if he's trying to be helpful, but simply hasn't a clue what he's doing? I don't see it falling under that classification.

I mean that basing your ability to seek redress based solely upon whether somebody gets paid or not is not enough of a qualification.

A volunteer fireman, acting in an official capacity for his municipality, should not be exempted from legal action simply because he's unpaid. In such a case, he could attempt medical treatment for which he hasn't been trained or is manifestly incapable of doing, and could actively harm the patient in his care.

Is it negligence if he's trying to be helpful, but simply hasn't a clue what he's doing? I don't see it falling under that classification.

It does.

If the firefighter tried to do something he's not trained to do, or is manifestly incapable of doing it, and the patient is harmed then he is negligent and can be sued, the national review board can look at the situation and say this is frivolous and throw it out, but he can be sued.

OOC: Full disclosure, I am a firefighter in RL and legally we know our limits, as police, EMT's and other medical personnel do. If I try to give someone medicines (something I'm not trained to do) and they die I'm negligent, that doesn't mean I'd be sued, that would be up to the family but I am negligent.

*bump*

This act could be misread and could be open to interperatation, If someone has been in a car crash and a Stranger comes to the car and pulls him out, subseguently Breaking his legs, although if a qualified Fireman had entered the same situation he may not have caused any damage.

Could this person then say i was acting out of good nature adn i should not have to pay any compensation?

This act could be misread and could be open to interperatation, If someone has been in a car crash and a Stranger comes to the car and pulls him out, subseguently Breaking his legs, although if a qualified Fireman had entered the same situation he may not have caused any damage.

Could this person then say i was acting out of good nature adn i should not have to pay any compensation?

Yes.

Tort Reform is about corporate law, not civil. This is Moral Decency if anything.

Unfortunately as anythings go, it's a blocker. Strongly urging will get you nowhere with a nation that happy suing at every turn, and the rest of us don't need the encouragement. This can't be stronger than 'Mild', surely.

I'm going to agree with both the category "Moral Decency" and strength "Mild" as Gobbannium is suggesting. Remember the right to sue people is a civil liberty, but the idea behind this proposal is that by restricting that freedom we will be safer. This isn't that different from the "Good Samaritan Laws" resolution -- but it is different enough that I consider is a unique proposal.

In the US, there are large numbers of all-volunteer emergency workers - ambulance, first responders, firefighters, rescue personnel, and so on - who receive no compensation, but are recognized as the official responding agency in the event of local emergency. They are unpaid professionals, and they would appear to get coverage from this resolution.

In an emergency, the US agency (local, State, Fed) that is responsible for responding typically extends its authority to the volunteers and also assumes the liability for their actions -- which is why county and city response elements tend to be small.

While the individuals might be protected, I'd advocate (as a RL member of State level emergency response) that citizens should have the right to sue agencies after the event. Should they do this ... most of the time NO FRAKKIN WAY, but I think the right should remain.

I think that if the intent of the resolution is similar to this idea, that it should be rewritten slightly.

Here is how I'd approach this:

I'd talk about how when individuals volunteer to help others they either do so on their own or under the authority of an agency that is mandated to respond. If they are a true first responder and not required to respond they should fall into a more traditional "Good Samaritan" classification. If they are instead working (for pay or free) under the authority of a government agency (of any level), then they should be immune to legal liability, but their agency should be accountable for their decisions in the recovery phase.

One thing that shouldn't be incorporated into this resolution, but at the risk of micromanaging nations would be a resolution calling for standardized "After Action Reports" -- AARs from agencies that were required to respond. I think these would be better developed in a NationStates issue, but the international focus could be a requirement that these be required for any international incidents. Would such a resolution pass ... doubtful. Is there real merit in AARs, hell yes ... the US requires them, and they are in turn used to both learn from previous response actions and also navigate the post event recovery accounting work.

One thing that shouldn't be incorporated into this resolution, but at the risk of micromanaging nations would be a resolution calling for standardized "After Action Reports" -- AARs from agencies that were required to respond. I think these would be better developed in a NationStates issue, but the international focus could be a requirement that these be required for any international incidents. .

OOC: After all the time I've sat filling out AAR's, I just thought it would be cruel and unusual to unleash that on the NS world. :D