TIL a woman had a heart attack on a plane, when the stewardess asked if there was a doctor on board, 15 stood up, they were on their way to a cardiology conference.

I will disagree with that first part, had a 3 day debate with some friends on a similar situation* and we concluded that "An uninvolved individual should not be in anyway held legally responsible for not preventing a death while the moral obligation to do so lies solely on the morals of the individual in question, if they honestly believe they did no moral wrong then they didn't."

  • The situation was:
    -The victim has been tied to a train track in such a way that they cannot possibly escape by their own actions.

-A train is approaching in a direction that will not allow the driver to be aware of the victim before impact.

-The subject can clearly see the situation and if they so wish draw the attention of the victim to themself and clearly communicate.

-There is a lever easily accessible and useable to the subject that will safely divert the train around the victim without significantly affecting the train.

-The lever is clearly signed to explain its use in such a way that leaves no doubt to its authenticity or honesty.

-The train is sufficient distance away that the subject has all the time they need to fully consider the situation and their options.

-No changes can or will happen in the situation other than the train progressing and the subject either pulling the lever, doing nothing, or leaving.

-The subject was completely oblivious to the situation prior to their observation and had no involvement, they were not the person who tied down the victim and have had no prior contact with the victim

In an ideal society should the subject be legally obligated to take action and pull the lever? If so what should the charges be in the case of failure to do so?

Does the subject have a moral obligation to take action?

/r/todayilearned Thread Parent Link - news.bbc.co.uk