A rescue task is the concept of a lawsuit that appears in a number of cases, describing a situation in which a party may be held accountable for failing to come to the rescue of another in jeopardy. In the general legal system, it is rarely formalized in laws that will impose penalties for those who fail to save. This does not necessarily negate the moral duty to save: although the law binds and implements sanctions authorized by the government, there are also separate ethical arguments for rescue tasks that may apply even when the law does not penalize failure to save.
Video Duty to rescue
General legal system
In common law in most English-speaking countries, there is no common task to save others. Generally, a person can not be held accountable for not doing anything while others are in danger. However, the task can arise in two situations:
- The obligation to save arises where a person creates a dangerous situation. If others then fall into danger because of this dangerous situation, the creator of danger - who may never be a negligent abuser - has an obligation to save the person in danger.
- Such obligations may also arise when a "special relationship" exists. As an example:
- Parents have an obligation to save their little ones. This assignment also applies to those who act in loco parentis , such as school or nanny.
- General carriers have a duty to save their customers.
- The company has an obligation to save employees, based on the theory of implied contracts.
- In some areas of US jurisdiction, property owners actually have an obligation to rescue the invitees but not the intruders from all the possible danger in the property. Other jurisdictions, such as California, extend the task of saving all those who enter real property regardless of whether they are classified as invitations, social guests or intruders.
- Couples have an obligation to save each other in all jurisdictions of the U.S.
- In the United States, in 2009, ten states have laws on books that require people to at least notify law enforcement and/or seek help for foreigners in danger under certain conditions: California, Florida, Hawaii , Massachusetts, Minnesota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. This law is also referred to as the law of the Good Samaritan, regardless of their difference from the law of the same name that protects individuals who try to help others. This law is rarely applied, and is largely ignored by citizens and members of parliament.
When a duty to rescue emerged, the savior should generally act with reasonable attention, and be held accountable for the injury caused by the careless rescue effort. However, many states have limited obligations or are removed from rescuers in such circumstances, especially when rescue is an emergency worker. Furthermore, rescue teams do not have to endanger themselves in the rescue.
Maps Duty to rescue
Civil legal system
Many civil legal systems, which are common in Continental Europe, Latin America and many Africa, impose far more extensive tasks to be saved. Obligations are usually limited to doing what is "reasonable". In particular, a helper does not have to endanger their own lives or others.
This can mean that anyone who finds someone who needs medical help should take all reasonable steps to seek medical care and provide the best first aid. Generally, the situation arises in the event of a traffic accident: other drivers and passers-by must take action to help the wounded irrespective of personal reasons that may not help (eg not having the time, haste) or ensure that assistance has been requested from officials. But in practice, almost all cases of rescue should only require rescuers to warn relevant entities (police, fire department, ambulance) with phone calls.
Rules by country
In some countries, there are legal requirements for citizens to help suffering people, unless it will put themselves or others in danger. Citizens are often asked to, at least, call the local emergency number unless it is dangerous, in which case the authorities should be contacted when a dangerous situation has been deleted. In 2012, there are such laws in some countries, including Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Italy , Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Serbia, Spain, Switzerland and Tunisia. Argentina
Argentina has a law on the "abandonment of persons", Articles 106-108 of the Argentine Criminal Code, which includes the provisions of Article 106 that "a person who endangers the life or health of others, either by putting a person in danger or Leaving on their fate, people who can not cope alone who should be treated... will be imprisoned for 2 and 6 years "[emphasis added]. Canada
In Quebec, which uses civil law, there is a general obligation to save in the Charter of Rights: "Every human being whose life is in danger has the right to help... Everyone must come to help anyone living in danger, either personally or asking for help by giving him immediate and necessary physical assistance, unless it involves a danger to himself or a third person, or he has other valid reasons. "Criminal law in Canada is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, resulting in the failure to comply with the Charter in Quebec is not a criminal offense unless in that case a party also violates the Criminal Code.
Other provinces follow common law.
In Canadian air law, it is mandatory to make self and available aircraft to assist search and rescue efforts if the plane is in the nearest area and distress signals are received.
Denmark
Under Danish criminal law, everyone should provide the best assistance of their ability to any seemingly lifeless person or in mortal danger (Ã,§ 253), should alert authorities or take similar measures to prevent disasters which will come which may cause harm. life (Ã, § 185), must comply with all reasonable requests for help by public authorities when the life, health or welfare of a person is at stake (Ã, § 142), and should, if they learn about the planned crime against the state, human or welfare, or significant public goods, exercise all their power to prevent or reduce crime, including but not limited to reporting to the authorities (Ã, § 141), in all cases provided acting will not pose a particular personal danger or sacrifice. Violations can be punished up to three months (Ã,§ 142), two years (Ã,§ 185 and Ã,§ 253) or three years (Ã,§§ 141) in prison.
French
Anyone who fails to provide assistance to someone in danger will be found accountable before the French Court (civil and criminal liability). The penalties for this violation in the criminal court are imprisonment and fines (under articles 223-6 of the Criminal Code) while in a civil court a judge will order payment of monetary compensation to the victims.
The photographers at the Diana fatal car crash site, Princess of Wales, were investigated for violating French law "non-aid ÃÆ' personne en hazard" (failing to provide assistance to anyone in danger), which could be punished up to 5 years in jail and a fine of up to EUR75,000.
German
In Germany, the Hilfeleistung unterlassene (failure to provide assistance) is a crime under section 323 (c) of the German Criminal Code: every citizen is obligated to provide assistance in the event of an accident or general danger if necessary and usually immune from prosecution if help given in good faith and following a reasonable human understanding (or regular ordinary man) about the necessary actions is dangerous. Also, the rescuer or responder is not responsible if the action to be taken to help her is unacceptable for her and she can not act (eg when she can not act when she sees blood). In Germany, knowledge of basic emergency measures and first aid and CPR certification is a prerequisite for the granting of a driver's license.
Greek
In Greece, citizens are required by law to provide assistance to anyone who asks for it in case of tragedy or public danger, while providing assistance does not endanger him personally. According to article 288 of the criminal code, not providing assistance in such cases could impose a prison term of up to 6 months.
Russian
In Russia, Article 125 of the criminal law prohibits deliberately leaving people who are in a life-threatening or health situation when it says that people can not restrain themselves. Yet it is only binding people who are either legally obliged to care for those who are said to or who have themselves put people in situations that threaten life or health. The maximum penalty is 1 year in prison.
Serbian
In Serbia, a citizen is required by law to provide assistance to anyone in need (after such a major car accident) while providing assistance does not endanger him personally. Serbian criminal law Articles 126 and 127 state that a person must leave a helpless and/or unlawful person to a needy person, a person may receive a jail sentence of up to one year. If the person died of injury because no assistance provided by the observer, up to 8 years imprisonment can be imposed.
Spanish
In Spain, a citizen is required by law to provide or seek assistance to anyone in need while providing assistance not harm himself personally. Not doing so is a crime under Article 195 of the Spanish Penal Code
Ethical justification
Legal requirements for rescue jobs are not related in all countries, states, or regions. However, moral or ethical duty to save may exist even when there is no legal obligation to save. There are a number of potential justifications for such a task.
One justification is general and applicable regardless of role-related relationships (doctors to patients, firefighters to citizens, etc.). Under this general justification, people have an obligation to save others in distress on the basis of their humanity, regardless of the special skills of the savior or the nature of the suffering of the victim.
This would justify the case of rescue and even make such a salvation a duty even among strangers. They explain why the philosopher Peter Singer states that if someone sees a child drowning and can intervene to save it, they must do so, if the cost is moderate for themselves. Damage to their clothes or shoes or how late they may make for meetings is an insufficient reason to avoid assistance. Singer goes on to say that one should also try to save a distant stranger, not just the children nearby, because globalization has made it possible to do so. Such common arguments for rescue work also explain why after Haiti earthquake in 2010, Haitians dug family members, friends and strangers out of the rubble with their bare hands and brought injured people into whatever medical care was available. They also explain why, while covering the same earthquake, journalist and physician Sanjay Gupta and several other MD journalists began acting as doctors to treat injuries rather than remain uninvolved in their journalistic role. Likewise, they justify the efforts of Anderson Cooper journalist to lead a wounded young man away from some of the "difficulties" nearby after the Haitian earthquake.
Specific arguments for the task to be saved include, but are not limited to:
- The Golden Rule: treat others the way you want to be treated. This assumes that everyone wants to be saved if they are in distress, so they must save those who are in distress with their best ability. What is considered a distress that requires rescue may, of course, differ from person to person, but trapped or at risk of drowning is an emergency situation where this position assumes all humans want to be saved from.
- Utilitarianism: utilitarianism holds that those actions are right that maximize happiness and reduce suffering ("maximizing goodness"). Utilitarian reasoning generally supports rescue actions that contribute to overall happiness and lessen suffering. The rule of utilitarianism will be seen not only in whether the individual's rescue actions maximize the good, but does certain types of action do it. It then becomes a person's duty to do such an act. Generally, having a stranger save those who are in trouble of maximizing goodness during a rescue effort does not make matters worse, so a person has an obligation to save the best of himself or his abilities as long as it will not make things worse.
- Humanity: the rules of humanity suggest that the essence of morality and right conduct tends toward human relationships. Therefore, the virtues (the desired character) such as compassion, sympathy, honesty, and loyalty must be admired and developed. Acting sympathetically and sympathetically often requires rescue where one needs. Indeed, it will not be compassionate to ignore one's needs, although the way to meet those needs may vary. In an emergency, rescue will be the most benevolent action compared to letting a person remain trapped in ruins.
There is also an ethical justification for specific specific or specific tasks for rescue as described above under the discussion of the US General Law. In general, this justification is rooted in the idea that the best salvation, the most effective salvage, is done by those with special skills. Such people, when available to be saved, are thus even more necessary to do it ethically than ordinary people who may only make things worse (for a utilitarian, a rescue by a skilled professional in a relevant field will maximize the good even better than rescue by ordinary stranger). This particular ethical argument makes sense when considering the firefighters' ability to get themselves and the victim safely out of a burning building, or health care personnel such as doctors, nurses, physician assistants, and EMT to provide medical rescue.
These are some of the ethical reasons for the rescue task, and they may apply to ordinary citizens and skilled professionals even in the absence of legal requirements to provide assistance.
Case law
United States
In a case of 1898, Buch v. Amory Mfg. Co., 69 NH 257, 44 A. 809, 1897 NH LEXIS 49 (NH 1898), The Supreme Court of New Hampshire unanimously declared that after an eight-year-old boy neglected to place his hand on the defendant's machine, have the right to be rescued by the defendant. Beyond that, the boy who entered without permission can be held accountable for damage to the defendant's machine.
In the case of 1907, v. Beardsley, Mrs. Beardsley, Blanche Burns, fainted after an overdose of morphine. Instead of seeking medical attention, Beardsley instead told a friend to hide it in the basement, and Burns died a few hours later. Beardsley was tried and convicted of murder for his negligence. However, his conviction was reversed by the Michigan Supreme Court that Beardsley had no legal obligation to him.
German
In 2016, an 83-year-old man collapsed in the bank lobby in Essen and later died. Some customers pass by without giving help. With the help of security camera footage, these customers were identified and sentenced to a fine of several thousand euros for failing to provide assistance. A customer calling for emergency services is not charged, as he is considered to have provided sufficient assistance.
See also
- Bystander Effect
- Good Samaritan law
- Negligence (criminal law)
- People v. Beardsley
- Rescue doctrine
References
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments