Sole Morality

Unstoppable force, meet immovable object

A very quick post. I would love to research this more and write up a big long post, but I just do not have the time right now.

First, a quick intro to "Good Samaritan" laws. They are laws enacted to protect those coming to the aid of another from prosecution for any harm that may come to a person due to emergency care rendered. These laws vary from state to state regarding whom they protect and in what ways. Here is an excerpt from California's via this article from the LA Times whic has a story about the incident I am going to bring up:

"No person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency shall be liable for any civil damages resulting from any act or omission"

Enter a case out of California. Lisa Torti saw her coworker in a car crash. Her coworker, Alexandra Van Horn, was paralyzed in the car crash. Torti claims to have seen smoke and liquid coming from the vehicle and feared an imminent explosion[1]. She ran to the car and pulled an unconscious Van Horn from the vehicle, yanking her from the car "like a rag doll"[2].

Van Horn sues. Torti appeals. They end up at the state supreme court. The court hears both sides and concludes in a 4-3 decision that the above law did not protect Torti because pulling Van Horn from the car did not qualify as "medical care."

In a dissent written by Justice Marvin Baxter, the minority deemed “illogical” recognition of legal immunity for nonprofessionals administering medical care while denying it for nonmedical actions, like saving a person from drowning or carrying an injured hiker to safety.

"One who dives into swirling waters to retrieve a drowning swimmer can be sued for incidental injury he or she causes while bringing the victim to shore, but is immune for harm he or she produces while thereafter trying to revive the victim," Baxter wrote. "Here, the result is that defendant Torti has no immunity for her bravery in pulling her injured friend from a crashed vehicle, even if she reasonably believed it might be about to explode."

I gotta say that I side with the dissent here. But the problematic aspects of this ruling aren't why I am writing this.

Let's contrast this with Vermont's Good Samaritan's law:

A person who knows another is exposed to grave physical harm shall, to the extent that the same can be rendered without danger or peril to himself or without interference with important duties owed to others, give reasonable assistance to the exposed person unless that assistance or care is being provided by others.

In case you didn't catch it, Vermont requires you to help. Remember Seinfeld's series finale? Yeah, that kind of requires.

So let me ask, what would happen California had the same type of requirement? Or what if Vermont had a judge who ruled similarly to this California ruling?

You can't not help but you can be sued if you do.

Think it can't happen? I wouldn't hold my breath...

So what do you think about mandatory help laws? The California ruling?

*****
[1] Chances are that what she saw was some liquid, probably antifreeze and the "smoke" was actually steam from the antifreeze hitting the hot engine. Doubtful if there was any real danger of explosion at all, but I used to be in emergency services and have learned about this stuff. The general public has not and only knows what they see on TV. I could talk for a while about the ways in which ridiculously unrealistic cinematic special effects have warped the ability for the public at large to react to real life situations, but that is a different subject entirely.

[2] I heartily object to this phrase as it implies carelessness. How easily and carefully could you be when pulling an unconcscious adult from a car? Would they be limp and flop around?

Bystander Apathy: Good Men Doing Nothing

One of my favorite phrases has always been "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." That saying and its numerous other versions have been erroneously attributed to Edmund Burke.

Authenticity and origin aside, I find the sentiment very true. Evil is an ever progressing force in the world and evil acts will always be attempted and committed. One can either sit idly by or take an active role in fighting against it. And no, complaining to your neighbor or friend about something doesn't count as "doing something."

One horrible form of this has been termed "bystander apathy." There is an article at uncommon-knowledge.co.uk that gives a good introduction to the phenomenon. I refer to it as a phenomenon as it is a measurable reaction that can be replicated. It is not isolated incidents.

Put simply, it boils down to the fact that if you are in a group of people when someone needs aid, you are less likely to do something. According to a study conducted shortly after the Kitty Genovese murder, which first brought bystander apathy to light, you are 54% more likely to receive aid from somone if they are the only one there than if they are in a group of four or more. In other words, the more people around you, the less likely anyone is to help.

Bystander apathy seems to stem from the idea that someone else will help, someone more qualified or better than them. This social phenomenon is technically referred to as "diffusion of responsibility" and another version of it is the "I was just following orders" justification that many Nazis used to explain their horrible actions in the Holocaust.

This bystander apathy has been seen again and again. There's this account of a stabbing on the upper level of a London bus. The author of the article admits to hearing the screams for help repeatedly over a period of time and just sitting there.

There's a report from just last August of a rape and stabbing, this one in the St. Paul, MN area that took place in an apartment building hallway. Five to ten people saw the attack and did nothing. The Associate Press coverage of the attack notes one witness walked up to see what was going on and then just pulled the hood of their sweatshirt up, turned around, and walked away.

Perhaps the most disturbing, at least to me, is from last July. A stabbing victim was laying on the floor of a convenience store. Five store customers simply step over her to continue with their shopping. Not turn around or walk around, they step over her. If that isn't appalling enough, one of them stopped and took a picture of her with a cell phone camera and still continued shopping.

To me, this is unbelievable. Where is the sense of moral decency in these people? Where is any semblance of concern for their fellow man? The apostle Paul certainly called this when he foretold that in the last days that "men shall be lovers of their own selves" and "proud."

To be fair, bystander apathy isn't a new development. Christ's parable of the good Samaritan shows two examples of apathetic bystanders who happen upon a man in need of medical care. Both pass by and leave the man for dead. Thankfully, a Samaritan does choose to help.

While there are no shortages of bystander apathy examples in our society, it is nice to hear about the occasional story of a good Samaritan. Such is the case coming out of Salem, OR that occurred in the early morning hours a week and a half ago. A 22 year old woman on crutches was making her way down the road when she was attacked and nearly raped by a 37 year old man. A van with five people in it stopped and three men from the van jumped out, pulled the attacker off of the woman and then held him for police.

I would hope that the last story is an example of the rule and not the exception to it, but I wonder. Are the cases of bystander apathy in the news more because they are the exception or are they really more common? Is concern for one's fellow man really so far gone in our society or are these isolated incidences? And then I have to wonder if our country's general trend of demanding that the government fix all of our problems is an extension of this bystander apathy. But that would be another post entirely.