The essay discusses Good Samaritan virtues on the basis of negligence—and two are specified and extensively explained: ordinary negligence and gross negligence. The ethical obligations of Good Samaritans can motivate them to do the right thing—and sometimes, maybe that’s enough. As present society’s judgment increases, professionals now have the prerogative of assessing people based on their behavior while not considering the rights that they deserve.
Dachs and Elias explain that the concept of duty, given on the basis of a physician assisting a patient with health risks with considered fatalities, is subjective but central to Samaritan law. Doctors, teachers, health professionals are responsible and held accountable whenever those under their care and stricken with unexpected inflictions. While the American Code of Ethics suggests that except in emergencies, a physician is free to choose who he serves, in real life the chances of anyone coming in to help is a likelihood. A Good Samaritan Immunity is duty implicit and is given to people who have the capacity to revive the situation. This does not make those who are not qualified less protected—however, position in the organization or leadership that the event is under must hold you accountable should anything happen.
In some states, people are not required to have a Good Samaritan law, because of its circumstantial elements but confines itself to the following limitations:
- If aid is given, it need be stabilization only – the person is given the opportunity to achieve their vital signs dependent on the ability of the professionals giving care.
- The recipient of aid must not object to aid being rendered; implied consent exists if the victim lacks capacity to consent – Right to life is directly given to the person regardless of their reputation, background (social status, ethnicity)
- Physicians acting as Good Samaritans generally have legal immunity to claims of ordinary negligence, but not too gross, willful or wanton negligence. – qualified individuals are assumed to exercise the best efforts to make sure that the traumatized are revitalized.
In the following paragraphs of the expository, momentum starts in building a series of scenarios beginning with an on-plane emergency incident that resulted in the passing of a passenger despite resuscitation. Other day-to-day circumstances given were accidents in varied locations such as the playground, office and crises. Produced for the purpose of guiding workplace behavior, consideration for the good done is context-based—however judgment is more of something that is instilled in someone that no matter what the environment, it is less likely to change. Sometimes emergency situations do not have the best outcomes: there comes injury and loss. It should be understood that in spite of this prerequisite, the instinct of duty should prevail. That being said, a Good Samaritan Immunity protects a facilitating professional during the time when the accident happened.