Can a doctor deny helping someone on the street?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
First post but I couldn't really find anything on here about it. If someone is asking for medical help in the street and a doctor walks past them and denies them, what would happen? I ask this because I know that people get set up all the time like that, their car won't start and they need help, someone needs help and they're bleeding out in the ally, you get the gist.

Legally, I don't think doctors are obligated to help people in emergencies. Paging @Law2Doc for an expert perspective just in case.

Morally, @gyngyn said it best

A trained person is morally obligated to provide aid in an emergency.
It should be noted that the primary aid is: calling for help.

@efle and @Lucca can elaborate it further by providing utilitarian and Kantian viewpoints for this moral dilemma :naughty::naughty:

Members don't see this ad.
 
Assuming that a doctor/EMT did have a legal duty to help, wouldn't that law be super hard to enforce in reality?

Like couldn't a doctor/EMT claim that they were not feeling well (or had been drinking), thus rendering the doctor/EMT unable to provide competent care?
Yes, it would be as hard to enforce as laws against jaywalking. So I'd assume that it would be more of a promotion to do the right thing than a law. On the other hand, imagine you are a physician and you frequent your local restaurant, since you are a regular patron, many employees know that you are a doctor. One day, someone goes into cardiac arrest and you refuse to render emergency intervention for whatever reason and the person dies. If there was a law that mandates that you must provide care in an emergency and you don't, those employees can report you.
 
Assuming that a doctor/EMT did have a legal duty to help, wouldn't that law be super hard to enforce in reality?

Like couldn't a doctor/EMT claim that they were not feeling well (or had been drinking), thus rendering the doctor/EMT unable to provide competent care?
Hence why the bystander laws in the 10 states that have them are basically never used. Bystander laws have no particular obligation to physicians, but rather require any onlooker to an injury or whatever to provide reasonable assistance, but prosecutions basically just aren't a thing any jurisdiction has done because it's just too hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Yes, it would be as hard to enforce as laws against jaywalking. So I'd assume that it would be more of a promotion to do the right thing than a law. On the other hand, imagine you are a physician and you frequent your local restaurant, since you are a regular patron, many employees know that you are a doctor. One day, someone goes into cardiac arrest and you refuse to render emergency intervention for whatever reason and the person dies. If there was a law that mandates that you must provide care in an emergency and you don't, those employees can report you.

Right, so I guess you could get charged in that case.

But you could get think of so many excuses (like saying you had been drinking or had not slept in 48 hours and were feeling dizzy) that it would be so hard to prosecute.
 
This is good timing considering the whole discussion mad jack and I were having recently about moral imperative to rescue as a counterargument to natural rights as a moral framework.

The legal system can mostly only react to misdeeds / protect from harm, not force people to do a good thing instead of standing passively by. There are some duty to aid laws but as mentioned above, good luck putting them to use. Very unlikely you'd be punished.

At the moral level, it depends. If you believe right vs wrong = respecting vs violating negative rights, then it is not wrong of you to walk away from someone you know is dying without calling for help. If you think right vs wrong is based on something else (human life, happiness, doing what Jesus would do, etc) then it can be wrong to walk away.
 
This is good timing considering the whole discussion mad jack and I were having recently about moral imperative to rescue as a counterargument to natural rights as a moral framework.

The legal system can mostly only react to misdeeds / protect from harm, not force people to do a good thing instead of standing passively by. There are some duty to aid laws but as mentioned above, good luck putting them to use. Very unlikely you'd be punished.

At the moral level, it depends. If you believe right vs wrong = respecting vs violating negative rights, then it is not wrong of you to walk away from someone you know is dying without calling for help. If you think right vs wrong is based on something else (human life, happiness, doing what Jesus would do, etc) then it can be wrong to walk away.
I think in the natural law sense, you're entitled to walk away.

But I'm a Christian, so I never would, because something something morality something something ancient book something something Jesus.

So yeah, while I would fully protect a person's right to be a horrible human being (since there is no obligation that they not be), I would still find them to be a horrible human being.
 
I think in the natural law sense, you're entitled to walk away.

But I'm a Christian, so I never would, because something something morality something something ancient book something something Jesus.

So yeah, while I would fully protect a person's right to be a horrible human being (since there is no obligation that they not be), I would still find them to be a horrible human being.

There is an interesting line here though.

Clearly the moral imperative to help a bleeding woman on a street is clear. Dropping your life, moving to africa in order to help treat ebola victims is not. There is a very grey line in that hypothetical with lots of different cases. I think that is the clear issue with laws regarding acts of omission
 
There is an interesting line here though.

Clearly the moral imperative to help a bleeding woman on a street is clear. Dropping your life, moving to africa in order to help treat ebola victims is not. There is a very grey line in that hypothetical with lots of different cases. I think that is the clear issue with laws regarding acts of omission
I don't feel like we should force people to do good, merely prevent them from actively committing acts of evil. If they choose not to do good, that's on them. Plenty of people, believe it or not, actually do just ignore things like crimes in progress and such. That's their choice- not the one I'd make, but honestly I don't think they should be beholden to my personal sense of morality in a legal way.
 
I don't feel like we should force people to do good, merely prevent them from actively committing acts of evil. If they choose not to do good, that's on them. Plenty of people, believe it or not, actually do just ignore things like crimes in progress and such. That's their choice- not the one I'd make, but honestly I don't think they should be beholden to my personal sense of morality in a legal way.
How about rewarding people instead as the gov't does with fuel efficient car rebates. It does not impose any obligations on to you and promotes helping your fellow man.
 
How about rewarding people instead as the gov't does with fuel efficient car rebates. It does not impose any obligations on to you and promotes helping your fellow man.
I think that should also be on citizens, if they want it, and not the government. When someone does good for a reward, it's greed that happens to cause good, not good itself. I feel like incentives often corrupt things that should be good. Trust me, if you create an incentive, someone will abuse it.

Look at patient lifestyle change panels in primary care- they were created to make sure you were keeping your patients on track to get healthier (80% of your patients had to be following through with certain recommendations each year). However, many physicians have taken to booting noncompliant patients to boost their percentages and make more money without actually doing any good at all.
 
I don't feel like we should force people to do good, merely prevent them from actively committing acts of evil. If they choose not to do good, that's on them. Plenty of people, believe it or not, actually do just ignore things like crimes in progress and such. That's their choice- not the one I'd make, but honestly I don't think they should be beholden to my personal sense of morality in a legal way.

What if it was rephrased in such a way that ignoring the needs of others in poor countries is evil? Does that change your position.
 
What if it was rephrased in such a way that ignoring the needs of others in poor countries is evil? Does that change your position.
Why would it? I don't think we owe any other country anything, particularly when we've got so many of our own problems to fix. Plus foreign aid often does much more harm than good (do some reading on the USAID program and how it completely destroyed local economies by flooding them with American food all in the name of good during famines, destroying farmer's livelihoods and perpetuating famine due to their no longer being any local food suppliers), but that's a topic for another thread.
 
What if it was rephrased in such a way that ignoring the needs of others in poor countries is evil? Does that change your position.
According to Kant, the moral action is one that arises out of one’s duty, and the motivation for the action determines whether the action was right or wrong. In other words, Mad Jack has the duty to help people since he is by definition a trained healer; however, he may ignore the poor's needs, assuming you meant medical needs, because he holds beliefs against helping the poor.
 
I think in the natural law sense, you're entitled to walk away.

But I'm a Christian, so I never would, because something something morality something something ancient book something something Jesus.

So yeah, while I would fully protect a person's right to be a horrible human being (since there is no obligation that they not be), I would still find them to be a horrible human being.
I think this is what we arrived at last time too - you and sb don't actually think natural law is a complete and morally correct system, just the one you think should be legally enforced. It seems to me like nonsense to say the wrongness of leaving an injured person to die is a different kind of wrongness from robbing them, I can't find peace with a moral logic that doesn't condemn both.
 
Why would it? I don't think we owe any other country anything, particularly when we've got so many of our own problems to fix. Plus foreign aid often does much more harm than good (do some reading on the USAID program and how it completely destroyed local economies by flooding them with American food all in the name of good during famines, destroying farmer's livelihoods and perpetuating famine due to their no longer being any local food suppliers), but that's a topic for another thread.

Well that was an example. How about poor people in America then.
 
I think this is what we arrived at last time too - you and sb don't actually think natural law is a complete and morally correct system, just the one you think should be legally enforced. It seems to me like nonsense to say the wrongness of leaving an injured person to die is a different kind of wrongness from robbing them, I can't find peace with a moral logic that doesn't condemn both.
I don't believe the purpose of the law is to do good, it is to establish order in as minimal of a way as possible so that society can function at some basic level. It is the responsibility of individuals to do good, if they so choose, not the law or the government.
 
Well that was an example. How about poor people in America then.
The same argument still holds, just on a smaller level. Why should an individual be obligated, morally or otherwise, to look after the poor when they have friends, family, and neighbors that also could be served via their assistance? Do you not have a greater responsibility, morally and otherwise, to those you know than those that you do not? Again, it's all hypothetical- I'm a pretty giving guy myself. Excessively so. I just believe that should be my imperative, not the government's. I could do much more good with my income than they do with it in regard to helping those in need, and also myself in regard to SS and Medicare.
 
Certain comments in this thread remind me of a parody on a certain British TV show.



"If you purchase our PEM-2 care package, we will treat you promptly. However, if you purchase our PEM-1 care package, we will not only treat you promptly, but we will also cure you and give you a luxury hospital bed. No money? Too bad!"
 
Last edited:
you would think that this type of situation is what we had emtala for. wonder what happened there?

Kid was shot in the alley adjacent to the hospital. Friends dragged him to within 30 feet of the ER entrance but staff would not come out of the building nor loan the friends a gurney. Police on the scene for another issue were dumbstruck. I guess EMTALA doesn't kick in unless you are on the doorstep.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Kid was shot in the alley adjacent to the hospital. Friends dragged him to within 30 feet of the ER entrance but staff would not come out of the building nor loan the friends a gurney. Police on the scene for another issue were dumbstruck. I guess EMTALA doesn't kick in unless you are on the doorstep.

Poor kid. Wonder what kept his friends from making the final 30 feet then.
 
Top