Interesting Article Thread v.2

[MrTwosheds]

Ill put to one side your apparent need to blame your government for absolutely everything, as it just seems quite irrational and politically motivated to me. I have difficulty believing that any court would permit a person to be sued by someone else for taking actions intended to save their life, but I can see that the woman's employers have deliberately put her in a position where that could indeed happen (by telling her to not do it) and it seems to me that it is they who should be in court under a corporate manslaughter charge. (for instructing their staff to not perform CPR on their clients)
If you still had a free press (?) they should really now be in the process of publicly destroying that care home company, as it is clearly not a place that anyone who wishes to live would want to be a client of. But no doubt the press are just running scared of the law firms and their own corporate owners too.

[Roscoe]

Some states have good samaritan laws, but those are enforced by the government, and therefore evil.

[Nielk1]

Ill put to one side your apparent need to blame your government for absolutely everything, as it just seems quite irrational and politically motivated to me.

Putting words in my mouth, or more exactly, thoughts in my head. Not only are you wrong, but the very fact you said this weakens any points you could have.

I have difficulty believing that any court would permit a person to be sued by someone else for taking actions intended to save their life, but I can see that the woman's employers have deliberately put her in a position where that could indeed happen (by telling her to not do it) and it seems to me that it is they who should be in court under a corporate manslaughter charge. (for instructing their staff to not perform CPR on their clients)

Failure to render aid is not illegal except for a few oddball places. As such, it is the safest legal path. I explained why and there are numerous examples of this occurring, all one need do is search.

If you still had a free press (?) they should really now be in the process of publicly destroying that care home company, as it is clearly not a place that anyone who wishes to live would want to be a client of. But no doubt the press are just running scared of the law firms and their own corporate owners too.

We have a free press. The press is free to do whatever it wants, it just so happens that the structure of the companies in control of the news cause them to have vested interests. The news corps are now some of the biggest lobbyists their are, they just work on the level of the population. They are supposed to be impartial, but they are not. Further more, this is common practice among most companies and thus every single one of them would take a massive hit. This is the standard legal practice, what you often don't hear about is people losing their jobs for breaking these rules, which as it is a legally valid thing to enforce, is done nearly unopposed.


EDIT:
No government is not a solution, lean government is. The issue sits with the low information of the population, the vested interest of the media to keep the population low information, and the ever expanding political power over all. I fail to see a single fact that can not be refuted as conjecture or hogwash used to bolster any of the claims you have made for the majority of your time making political statements on this board. You love to try to demean the others you talk to, belittling them as parroting talking points or having simplistic 'all government is bad' points of view. You disgust me. Find an actual argument.

[Ded10c]

Nielk is right, MTS. The anti-corporation horse is not the one to be on this time, no matter how high.

[Roscoe]

Ill put to one side your apparent need to blame your government for absolutely everything, as it just seems quite irrational and politically motivated to me.

Putting words in my mouth, or more exactly, thoughts in my head. Not only are you wrong, but the very fact you said this weakens any points you could have.

You're like a caricature of a teenage Ayn Rand zealot, and you express your hatred for government at any opportunity. You must not pay much attention to what you write.

Ultimately your rebuttals all boil down to "You hurt my feelings, therefore I don't have to defend my statements, and I win." Again, and again, and again. Then you're perplexed and enraged that people "just don't get it". This attitude among many Libertarians is why people make the crazy sign whenever they identify one, and why Libertarianism is going nowhere.

[Ded10c]

Successful troll is successful.

[Nielk1]

Roscoe, I was hoping for a joke from you, not, whatever that was... was it a joke? If so you failed pretty bad.

[Iron_Maiden]

Keep it civil gentlemen

Also, big scientific news:

http://news.yahoo.com/type-bacteria-rep ... 52174.html

[Ded10c]

http://news.yahoo.com/furious-over-sanc ... 13643.html

[MrTwosheds]

Failure to render aid is not illegal except for a few oddball places. As such, it is the safest legal path.

I feel a care home should be one of those oddball places, as looking after people is what their business is. It is not a failure to render aid, it is a policy intended to prevent aid from being given, or at least accept any responsibility for the consequences of it being given.

You disgust me. Find an actual argument.

I appreciate It may be difficult for you to get your head around the idea that I am not an American and so cannot really be expected to fully understand your very localised political viewpoint(s), but I don't understand them and you never seem to quite fully explain them. I must also say that you do not seem to understand my viewpoint either, you seem to think I am something that I am not and that I hold opinions that I do not. Well I am not an American Liberal or an American Democrat or an American Libertarian or an American Republican. I am a British freethinker and I don't care if that disgusts you.

[Ded10c]

Failure to render aid is not illegal except for a few oddball places. As such, it is the safest legal path.

I feel a care home should be one of those oddball places, as looking after people is what their business is. It is not a failure to render aid, it is a policy intended to prevent aid from being given, or at least accept any responsibility for the consequences of it being given.

I highly doubt such policy exists to prevent aid from being given. Hippocratic oath and all that.

[Nielk1]

Failure to render aid is not illegal except for a few oddball places. As such, it is the safest legal path.

I feel a care home should be one of those oddball places, as looking after people is what their business is. It is not a failure to render aid, it is a policy intended to prevent aid from being given, or at least accept any responsibility for the consequences of it being given.

I highly doubt such policy exists to prevent aid from being given. Hippocratic oath and all that.

Do no harm does not mean you must aid. People are free to not help.

[MrTwosheds]

I highly doubt such policy exists to prevent aid from being given. Hippocratic oath and all that.

Discussion is being based on the article that started it, I read it.

[Ded10c]

Discussion is being based on the article that started it, I read it.

The article says the policy exists, but so far as I can see it does not say why.

[MrTwosheds]

No, the why was a best guess by somebody, fits the circumstances perfectly. You have to spend some time working in a large well established organisation to really understand how everyone, from cleaner to CEO, only really have one major priority, making sure their own arse is covered until they make it out of the door with their pension package intact.