NationStates Jolt Archive

New Zealand's Prime Minister Helen Clark has paid tribute to the family of a Samoan woman who died last week after power was cut to her Auckland home over an unpaid bill. [...] The government is moving to ensure state-owned enterprises providing essentials services in future will take a more compassionate approach to vulnerable customers.

[...]

Folole Muliaga's husband [widower] Lopa explained one of the main reasons the family moved from Samoa seven years ago to new Zealand was to give their four children an even better start in life. "We saw an opportunity for a better life and better decent for our children here in New Zealand. Then we came to New Zealand, as everyone say. The land of milk and honey."

The promised land he spoke of has had to do some soul-searching in the past week to reconcile the apparently hard-hearted attitude metered out to this gentle generous woman. [...] Prime Minister Helen Clark says it's almost impossible to comprehend how power company contractors could disconnect electricity to the home of a woman so seriously ill.


(link (http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/pacbeat/stories/s1944187.htm))

The well-entrenched ethos whereby a person's "right" to large profits is more important than another person's right to live. Yet some people will still say companies should be left free to do whatever they want. Their sense of priorities and values is so seriously screwed up it's sickening.

I hope at least Mrs. Muliaga's tragic and senseless death won't be forgotten any time soon.

Despicable.

The well-entrenched ethos whereby a person's "right" to large profits is more important than another person's right to live.

The right to not be forced to provide a good or service for free, you mean?

I don't see how this is the fault of the power company. If it's anyone's, it's the Government's.
Edit: I see now that it says the power company is state-owned, and that makes me wonder if the OP missed that part too. The *government* screwed up, not a private company that "does whatever it wants".

The right to not be forced to provide a good or service for free, you mean?


Clearly, someone who can't pay deserves to die. :rolleyes: There should be no humanitarian obligation for a company to provide at least temporary life-sustaining service until some solution can be found, is that what you're seriously saying? The poor should die if they can't pay to survive?

This proves that the profit motive is a corrosive vile stain wherever in society in rears it's ugly head, even from a state-owned company... We should remember that we are a society and not an economy, the economy is our master and it serves society first, not greedy individuals.

There's a lot more to this case than 'callous company' - read up on it fully before leaping to conclusions.

Clearly, someone who can't pay deserves to die. :rolleyes: There should be no humanitarian obligation for a company to provide at least temporary life-sustaining service until some solution can be found, is that what you're seriously saying? The poor should die if they can't pay to survive?

Didn't you notice that I thought it was the job of the government? No, I don't think a private company has any obligation to give you things for free. If a person is unable to live without help, that's when the government should step in.

There's a lot more to this case than 'callous company' - read up on it fully before leaping to conclusions.

I have read up on it (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1860248.ece):


A gravely ill woman dependent on an oxygen machine died after a power company confronted her over an unpaid bill for £62 and cut off her electricity supply.

Folole Muliaga, 44, who suffered from heart and lung disorders, begged the contractor to switch the electricity back on. But, with the alarm of her oxygen machine sounding, he told her that he was only doing his job.

Within ten minutes she began to suffer a severe headache and said that she could not see. She died within two hours.

[...] Her eldest son, Ietitaia, said that he was with her when the contractor came to the family’s home in south Auckland.

He said that his mother, who was sitting next to her oxygen pump, begged the contractor to give her another chance and restore the power. But the contractor responded that he had a job to do.

“She said, ‘Give us a chance, I need the oxygen’,” said her son. “But he said he was doing his job that was why he cut the power off.”

[...] Sue Bradford, a Green Party MP in New Zealand, described the power cut as mercenary.

She said: “Is there no social responsibility requirement? No code of conduct? Listening to the company spokesman, it would seem the company sees it as entirely the responsibility of the consumer to make contact, provide documentation and argue their right to life.”

The New Zealand First Party said that manslaughter charges should be considered, while the New Zealand Maori Party suggested that laws should be introduced to deal with cases of corporate manslaughter.

I have read up on it (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1860248.ece):

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folole_Muliaga)

It was a tragedy to be sure, but there was a large element of human error as opposed to a company saying 'we just don't care'.

Didn't something like this already happen a while ago? (I think in Australia?)

edit: Oh, it is indeed the case we already had here in June...

There were a couple of threads on this a few months ago.

There was indeed more to it. However, Mercury Energy more than paid for their lack of foresight and all power companies updated their policies as a result.

Would I have done it? No.

Do I think the guys who did it are bad people? Yes.

Does this lady, or anyone else for that matter, have a claim on a person or a person's time, effort and product simply because she is incapable of providing something in return? Absolutely not.

While one does feel badly for this family, one does wonder a couple of things, why didn't the woman have a non-electrical oxygen tank and why didn't the family help relocate her to the hospital?

Yes the company should have been compassionate and granted more time but at the same time, the family had a responsibility to help the woman be comfortable. Why didn't they do anything? They had two hours to move her to the hospital or at least a place with electricity while they worked out a solution with the company.

It's also really old news. This story broke months ago, and we had a thread on it back then.

It's a shame, but what seems to be at play is a nameless technician, somewhere down the line decided that the bills hadn't been paid, and therefore the power needed cut off. The decision was made without even looking into the case, by someone who doesn't personally benefit all that greatly from increased profits. It's not like the CEO phoned up a lineman and said "cut this delinquent's power off".

Didn't something like this happen last year as well? Or is this the same story?

So, in the two hours it took her to die, what was her apparently present son doing? And was it really so pressing that he couldn't have stopped for a few minutes to call an ambulance?

I seem to remember this exact story a few months ago...

...back then, people thought it strange that the woman had no backup plan, in case of a blackout caused by storms, etc...

The guy that turned off the electricity is a murderer. Period.

The company that included that kind of thing as its policy should also be held liable.

The government SHOULD provide help in these cases, but it's not the right of the company or the guy to go "well, since they didn't provide help, let's kill this old lady slowly, shall we? Oh, by the way, "I have a job to do", "I'm just following orders" and all the OTHER excuses that didn't work in Nuremberg."

As for why the son didn't call an ambulance, who's to say they had a phone? If the technician had one, I'm pretty sure he's the kind of "person" to deny access to the phone "because it's not company policy".

But anyways, I'm pretty sure the same people that go "you can't put a price on human life" when it's about abortion or stem cell research (that would save more lives than the CELLS it would "kill") will defend the company that put a price of approximately sixty pounds on it.

The guy that turned off the electricity is a murderer. Period.
Innocent until proven guilty

The company that included that kind of thing as its policy should also be held liable.
I'm pretty sure every service company has a policy of removing that service if it's not being paid for.

The government SHOULD provide help in these cases, but it's not the right of the company or the guy to go "well, since they didn't provide help, let's kill this old lady slowly, shall we?
Except they didn't do anything like that. Where they fucked up was not looking into the case at all, rather than looking into the case and deciding to let the old lady die.
Oh, by the way, "I have a job to do", "I'm just following orders" and all the OTHER excuses that didn't work in Nuremberg."
Close enough to a Godwin for me.
As for why the son didn't call an ambulance, who's to say they had a phone?
No phone or electricity within 2 hours of his mother's house? So was she living in one of those back-ass-of-nowhere parts of Australia?
If the technician had one, I'm pretty sure he's the kind of "person" to deny access to the phone "because it's not company policy".

This is totally unsubstantiated. Try turning your brain on before you start typing next time.

Clearly, someone who can't pay deserves to die. :rolleyes: There should be no humanitarian obligation for a company to provide at least temporary life-sustaining service until some solution can be found, is that what you're seriously saying? The poor should die if they can't pay to survive?

If he is from America, of course that is what he is saying. That is what everyone believes when talking about people they don't personally know.

Innocent until proven guilty


I'm pretty sure every service company has a policy of removing that service if it's not being paid for.


Except they didn't do anything like that. Where they fucked up was not looking into the case at all, rather than looking into the case and deciding to let the old lady die.

Close enough to a Godwin for me.

No phone or electricity within 2 hours of his mother's house? So was she living in one of those back-ass-of-nowhere parts of Australia?


This is totally unsubstantiated. Try turning your brain on before you start typing next time.

Companies are not morally, ethically, nor, probably, legally, allowed to remove service that prevents a death. Also, the LEAST that killer should do would be to call the company and inform them that HE WOULD KILL A PERSON IF HE TURNED OFF THE POWER. Also, it's not a Godwin if he ACTUALLY USES the "just doing his job" line that was, INDEED, used. It's pretty conceivable, yes, that she was living somewhere secluded or simply didn't have a phone line turned on. As for innocent until proven guilty, I'm not calling for him to be jailed without a trial. I'm calling for him to be arrested and judged for murder. Or you fail to see the causal nexus between him turning off the energy and the lady dying?

So, in the two hours it took her to die, what was her apparently present son doing? And was it really so pressing that he couldn't have stopped for a few minutes to call an ambulance?

There was something about this mentioned before and it was along the lines that the mother didn't want her children to worry; something about it being part of the culture. Though in this case I think that you're right, the son should have ignored the mother's wishes for the sake of her health.

I seem to remember this exact story a few months ago...

...back then, people thought it strange that the woman had no backup plan, in case of a blackout caused by storms, etc...

...and then who would the family blame?

So, the assumption here is that this woman could not be taken to a hospital or any other location in order to live? If she was on her own, I'd see the validity of your argument but she had other people living with her who have a responsibility for caring for family members.

You're assuming that the same family that can't afford a 62 pound electric bill can afford a car or other quick means of transportation to a hospital or even a phone. Regardless, one doesn't turn off energy if it prevents even risk of brain damage brought about by lack of oxygenation, let alone death. What were they supposed to do without an oxygen machine there? Breathe for her?

Companies are not morally, ethically, nor, probably, legally, allowed to remove service that prevents a death. Also, the LEAST that killer should do would be to call the company and inform them that HE WOULD KILL A PERSON IF HE TURNED OFF THE POWER. Also, it's not a Godwin if he ACTUALLY USES the "just doing his job" line that was, INDEED, used. It's pretty conceivable, yes, that she was living somewhere secluded or simply didn't have a phone line turned on.

So, the assumption here is that this woman could not be taken to a hospital or any other location in order to live? If she was on her own, I'd see the validity of your argument but she had other people living with her who have a responsibility for caring for family members.

...and then who would the family blame?

Strawman. In that case the family would either blame itself for not having a backup plan or curse its luck for not being able to afford one. But this isn't an act of God, this is an act of Man.

Companies are not morally, ethically, nor, probably, legally, allowed to remove service that prevents a death.
And if the company had actually looked at the case rather than just marking it for cut off then they most likely would have set up some kind of temporary deal, if only to look good(generous company provides free power to poor dying woman)
Also, the LEAST that killer should do would be to call the company and inform them that HE WOULD KILL A PERSON IF HE TURNED OFF THE POWER.
Indeed, he should have called up someone and asked what to do when there's someone who appears to need the power supply to live.
Also, it's not a Godwin if he ACTUALLY USES the "just doing his job" line that was, INDEED, used.
Yes, it is. But that's not really important.
It's pretty conceivable, yes, that she was living somewhere secluded or simply didn't have a phone line turned on.
I read that as "I don't know, but I've already made up my mind that the company is full of heartless bastards so I don't need to know"
As for innocent until proven guilty, I'm not calling for him to be jailed without a trial. I'm calling for him to be arrested and judged for murder. Or you fail to see the causal nexus between him turning off the energy and the lady dying?

Sorry, I didn't get "I think he should be charged with murder" from "[He] is a murderer. Period."

Does this lady, or anyone else for that matter, have a claim on a person or a person's time, effort and product simply because she is incapable of providing something in return? Absolutely not.

Are you seriously saying someone has no right to vital life-sustaining services if they can't pay? That one person's "right" not to help is more important than another person's survival? That's a seriously messed up and sickening sense of priorities.

Here in France there's a legal principle which says that you're obliged to provide any assistance to a person in mortal danger, short of endangering yourself. If you don't, you are guilty of "non-assistance à personne en danger".

Of course, removal of an existing life-sustaining service is even worse.

Indeed, he should have called up someone and asked what to do when there's someone who appears to need the power supply to live.

Yes, it is. But that's not really important.

I read that as "I don't know, but I've already made up my mind that the company is full of heartless bastards so I don't need to know"


Sorry, I didn't get "I think he should be charged with murder" from "[He] is a murderer. Period."

1- But he didn't. Because he didn't, a woman is now dead.

2- No, it isn't.

3- You read that this way because you choose to. I said conceivable. Even assuming there was a hospital around the corner, you should know that oxygen deprivation is perfectly capable of doing irreversible damage.

4- Gee, I can't even express a personal opinion about the moron, now? Or you'll call for me to have his IQ tested now that I called him a moron?

1- But he didn't. Because he didn't, a woman is now dead.
Yes.
3- You read that this way because you choose to. I said conceivable.
Then surely it's just as concievable that she could have been given life saving medical attention, no?
Even assuming there was a hospital around the corner, you should know that oxygen deprivation is perfectly capable of doing irreversible damage.
Why on earth should I know that? I'm not a doctor, and I don't think I've ever had a biology class that dealt with the exact effects of oxygen dperivation on humans.

4- Gee, I can't even express a personal opinion about the moron, now? Or you'll call for me to have his IQ tested now that I called him a moron?

Can't I misundrestand what you wrote?

And while you're insulting him, where's the hate for the son who didn't seem to do anything to save his mother? It's not like letting someone die is all that far removed from killing someone.

And while you're insulting him, where's the hate for the son who didn't seem to do anything to save his mother? It's not like letting someone die is all that far removed from killing someone.

You're assuming the son had any means of providing assistance. We KNOW that the company guy did.

Strawman. In that case the family would either blame itself for not having a backup plan or curse its luck for not being able to afford one. But this isn't an act of God, this is an act of Man.

The family should have been prepared period. Even if they weren't, they should have taken steps to ensure that the mother was relocated where she could use her oxygen machine, be it a neighbour's house or the hospital where they would be equipped with the right machinery to keep her alive.

What if there was a blackout because the company messed up while working in the area? Would the company have been liable? Doubtful because a segment of a whole neighbourhood would have been affected.

And as for "act of God", bunk, total bunk, God is non-existent therefore there is no such thing as an act of God. Fail.

The family should have been prepared period. Even if they weren't, they should have taken steps to ensure that the mother was relocated where she could use her oxygen machine, be it a neighbour's house or the hospital where they would be equipped with the right machinery to keep her alive.

What if there was a blackout because the company messed up while working in the area? Would the company have been liable? Doubtful because a segment of a whole neighbourhood would have been affected.

And as for "act of God", bunk, total bunk, God is non-existent therefore there is no such thing as an act of God. Fail.

"Act of God" is what's known as an accident caused by nature or some other event outside human control ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_god ). Whether a god exists or not isn't the point. By that logic you're assuming devil-fish ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_fish ) don't exist because there are no such things as devils.

You are, again, assuming the family had the means to provide assistance. The company, however, DID.

And in companies screw-ups, if they are liable to pay damages for, say, an electricity surge that fried a computer, yes, they are also liable to pay damages for a human life.

You're assuming the son had any means of providing assistance. We KNOW that the company guy did.

And you seem to be assuming he didn't. And he or someone in the family must have had some means of getting to a hospital. It's not like oxygen pumps and tanks grow on trees.

And you seem to be assuming he didn't. And he or someone in the family must have had some means of getting to a hospital. It's not like oxygen pumps and tanks grow on trees.

No, I'm not assuming he didn't, though, if he pleaded to have the electricity turned back on rather than rushing her to a hospital, it would be a safe assumption. Plus, if not death, the man would be responsible for whatever happened to the woman due to the lack of oxygen between their house and the hospital. And no physical damage is "acceptable" for not paying.

"Act of God" is what's known as an accident caused by nature. Whether a god exists or not isn't the point. By that logic you're assuming devil-fish ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_fish ) don't exist because there are no such thing as devils.

You are, again, assuming the family had the means to provide assistance. The company, however, DID.

And in companies screw-ups, if they are liable to pay damages for, say, an electricity surge that fried a computer, yes, they are also liable to pay damages for a human life.

Yes they did. Even without electricity a phone with a cord would still work, hence they could have made a call for assistance. They did have the means, even if indirect. So whether it was a blackout because the company was working in the area and cut-off the power through human error, an storm downed wires or the company directly cut off power, the family still has its own responsibility.

The family could have also made a request to the neighbours to help out the woman. There are many solutions that don't lie with the company restoring power.

Even if the company did screw-up, why didn't the family do anything?

Ok, so I'll accept that the company made an error in judgement provided you accept that the family has a responsibility for the woman, and that the family had 2 hours in which to seek help or an alternative source of power in order to keep her oxygen machine working.

Yes they did. Even without electricity a phone with a cord would still work, hence they could have made a call for assistance. They did have the means, even if indirect. So whether it was a blackout because the company was working in the area and cut-off the power through human error, an storm downed wires or the company directly cut off power, the family still has its own responsibility.

The family could have also made a request to the neighbours to help out the woman. There are many solutions that don't lie with the company restoring power.

Even if the company did screw-up, why didn't the family do anything?

Ok, so I'll accept that the company made an error in judgement provided you accept that the family has a responsibility for the woman, and that the family had 2 hours in which to seek help or an alternative source of power in order to keep her oxygen machine working.

You're assuming the family had a phone. You're assuming the neighbors were there or able to do much.

You're assuming it was possible for the family to do anything.

Even if it was and the family HAD provided assistance, depriving someone of oxygen can cause irreversible damages to that person. Yes, even in the, say, 5 minutes it would take for an ambulance to get there. The moment the company moron cut off power, he was liable for any damage between that and the moment the woman got back her oxygen. That the damage ended up being death makes it all worse.

And no physical damage is "acceptable" for not paying.

This is where I really disagree with you. You seem to think that the electricity company was fully aware of the situation and decided that even dying people have to pay for electricity.

This is where I really disagree with you. You seem to think that the electricity company was fully aware of the situation and decided that even dying people have to pay for electricity.

The company may not have been aware, but the company moron was. And the company is liable in that it didn't train the man properly, or in that it even hired this moron, or in that its policy didn't include something as blatant as human life in its list of possibilities.

The company may not have been aware, but the company moron was.
Was he? I would have figured he'd be an engineer or an electrician, not a doctor.
And the company is liable in that it didn't train the man properly, or in that it even hired this moron, or in that its policy didn't include something as blatant as human life.
Didn't train him properly? What?

And do you know their policy doesn't cover something like this? I mean, since they didn't know the woman was dying and needed oxygen, what would it matter if they had a policy for that or not?

Yes, he did fuck up by letting the company know that the woman claimed she needed the power for her oxygen supply. But stop trying to act like this is a big evil heartless company being big evil and heartless. It was a big negligent fuck up on their part. Not premeditated murder.

Was he? I would have figured he'd be an engineer or an electrician, not a doctor.

Didn't train him properly? What?

And do you know their policy doesn't cover something like this? I mean, since they didn't know the woman was dying and needed oxygen, what would it matter if they had a policy for that or not?

Yes, he did fuck up by letting the company know that the woman claimed she needed the power for her oxygen supply. But stop trying to act like this is a big evil heartless company being big evil and heartless. It was a big negligent fuck up on their part. Not premeditated murder.

I didn't say anything about premeditated. Not even about being big or evil or heartless, given though that may be. I said it should be held liable. Whether it was out of being evil or out of stupidity, it should be held liable. As for the guy, it doesn't take a doctor to know that people need to breathe. And it doesn't take one to figure out that something bad might happen should this need be denied. He's either very dumb or very callous, or both.

They did. Despite not having a phone, they had an ambulance come round. As is clearly said in the article.

Ah, so the family DID try and help the woman.

What will the "the company's a saint" folks say now? :rolleyes:

And he or someone in the family must have had some means of getting to a hospital.

They did. Despite not having a phone, they had an ambulance come round. As is clearly said in the article.

I didn't say anything about premeditated. Not even about being big or evil or heartless, given though that may be. I said it should be held liable. Whether it was out of being evil or out of stupidity, it should be held liable.
Now I'm not sure why we're disagreeing. :confused:

Now I'm not sure why we're disagreeing. :confused:

Meh. The company was either money-grubbing or careless. The guy that turned off the electricity, either evil or a moron. I hope the company has to pay the family a big, fat compensation and I hope the guy is tried for murder or manslaughter. I also hope laws are passed to prevent this kind of thing from ever happening again.

Ah, so the family DID try and help the woman.

What will the "the company's a saint" folks say now? :rolleyes:

She told them not to call an ambulance straight away. They didn't seek help until she'd passed out.

Also, the contractor was never actually made fully aware of how serious her illness was. Apparently he didn't turn off the electricity at another house that day where there was a sick child, so I don't imagine he's the heartless bastard that everyone is making him out to be.

Does this lady, or anyone else for that matter, have a claim on a person or a person's time, effort and product simply because she is incapable of providing something in return?

yes. thus is the nature of human social obligation.

yes. thus is the nature of human social obligation.

No dude, that's the borg.

Ah, so the family DID try and help the woman.

What will the "the company's a saint" folks say now? :rolleyes:

Even the people calling the family's actions into question have not said the company is a saint. We've considered that there are many factors involved.

And here...

Mrs Muliaga fell ill immediately but, despite her increasing difficulties with breathing, asked her son not to call an ambulance. When she collapsed he decided to take action.

He said: “I went straight to call an ambulance. When I came back I saw my other brother crying. We couldn’t wake her up. She seemed to be dead.”

Why aren't the children questioned for NOT acting sooner? They should have ignored her request. But it is noted that she asked for an ambulance to NOT be called. Or why they waited until she collapsed despite knowing that she needed the oxygen. They are equally as responsible.

The family should have taken responsibility sooner. They didn't. The fact that they didn't shouldn't rest on the shoulders of the company. Yes the company should have given more time but the family was already late in making payments on previous bills.

The family knew she needed medical assistance. They knew they were unable to give it themselves so seeking help immediately should have been done, but why isn't this being questioned? It should have been questioned along with the possible lack of compassion from the company.

No dude, that's the borg.

Don't be ridiculous. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13071404&postcount=27)

Even the people calling the family's actions into question have not said the company is a saint. We've considered that there are many factors involved.

And here...

Mrs Muliaga fell ill immediately but, despite her increasing difficulties with breathing, asked her son not to call an ambulance. When she collapsed he decided to take action.

He said: “I went straight to call an ambulance. When I came back I saw my other brother crying. We couldn’t wake her up. She seemed to be dead.”

Why aren't the children questioned for NOT acting sooner? They should have ignored her request. But it is noted that she asked for an ambulance to NOT be called. Or why they waited until she collapsed despite knowing that she needed the oxygen. They are equally as responsible.

The family should have taken responsibility sooner. They didn't. The fact that they didn't shouldn't rest on the shoulders of the company. Yes the company should have given more time but the family was already late in making payments on previous bills.

The family knew she needed medical assistance. They knew they were unable to give it themselves so seeking help immediately should have been done, but why isn't this being questioned? It should have been questioned along with the possible lack of compassion from the company.

Very well, but mind that even if the family had called right then there'd be still possible damage. I'll agree that the family should ALSO be held liable somewhat if you agree that, if the family had called right then, the company would be the sole responsible for any damage.

Are you seriously saying someone has no right to vital life-sustaining services if they can't pay? That one person's "right" not to help is more important than another person's survival? That's a seriously messed up and sickening sense of priorities.
No, it isn't. Would I help her? Of course I would. I think pretty much anyone would.

Look, human interaction is based on trades of some form or another. Sometimes the benefit someone gets from doing something for someone else isn't paid for by that other person, but just comes from feeling good about oneself. If you give a dollar to a beggar, you're not doing it because you have to or you're somehow morally obliged to, but because that beggar's quality of life improving gives you some sort of happiness. If anything, the beggar is morally obliged to make good use of the money, to "maximise your return", so to speak.

The vast majority of people would feel similarly about the lady and her machine. In fact, if the technician had really known just how serious the situation was (I mean, don't you think people act out all sorts of stories to prevent him turning off their power?), I think he would've called his boss and they would have made provisions.

The problem is if you disregard this trade element from such an interaction and instead use force, either through some sort of moral obligation or through the actual law. Because then you're basing human coexistence on the notion that if someone does not have something material to pay in return, you are obliged to do all sorts of stuff for them, or give them the product of your time and effort. By virtue of being incapable, people are being rewarded. Suddenly it's no longer good to be able to care of yourself and reciprocate anything good anyone does for you, but if you're good you just become a walking piggybank for anyone who doesn't take care of themselves. Just imagine how many possible claimants there are, making how many possible claims. You'd be squeezed dry before they move on to the next one.

And you can't even feel good about it, because it was never your decision to start with. You're no longer a good person because you helped someone, you're just some automaton doing his duty, without there ever having been the chance of you being a bastard. If it's not possible to be evil, then how can anyone be good?

Here in France there's a legal principle which says that you're obliged to provide any assistance to a person in mortal danger, short of endangering yourself. If you don't, you are guilty of "non-assistance à personne en danger".
And I'm almost 100% positive the same is true in NZ. Doesn't mean I agree with it.

No dude, that's the borg.
Thank You. It's nice if at least one person understands what I'm trying to say.

The guy that turned off the electricity is a murderer. Period.
Patently false. Murder is an act, and what the (government run) power company did here was cease action. They stopped giving her free power.

If we're required to give dying people what they need to survive to avoid being alled murderers, that's a pretty steep requirement you've just assigned to everyone.

Patently false. Murder is an act, and what the (government run) power company did here was cease action. They stopped giving her free power.

If we're required to give dying people what they need to survive to avoid being called murderers, that's a pretty steep requirement you've just assigned to everyone.

No, that isn't. There is such a concept as murder through inaction. Also, that's not a steep requirement. It wasn't inconvenient for the man to keep the electricity on. It wasn't a sacrifice. He did so willingly. He allowed her to die willingly.

Would I have done it? No.

Do I think the guys who did it are bad people? Yes.

Does this lady, or anyone else for that matter, have a claim on a person or a person's time, effort and product simply because she is incapable of providing something in return? Absolutely not.

How do the last two points fit together? If the the woman had no claims on the labor of those guys then why are they bad men? Are you saying that these guys were bad because of stuff unrelated to this case or are they bad for not giving the woman the resources she need to survive?

Snip.

Let's play Jeopardy, shall we?

*Me* Okay, Alex Trebek, I'll take "Morality" for one hundred!

*Alex* That's the difference between not helping someone that can help themselves and isn't going to die if they aren't helped and not helping someone that that can't help themselves and IS going to die if they aren't helped.

*Me* What's "Context"?