In the circumstance where (1) is true, AND the only possible way to help the woman is as done, the correct moral thing to do is what was done.
The truth value of two is irrelevant, however, to the moral value of 1. If it is morally correct to help the woman, then it is morally correct. Now, what option to help her is *most* morally correct may draw some argument.
Also, your responses to (1) are all irrelevant. It is morally correct to help someone who needs help if they ask or not. You do not know if she was in danger (likely she was if she went home, or believed she was).
so, to repeat: IF the only way to help was via disobeying the rules (and it is totally irrelevant if the statement is true; so don't argue it) THEN disobeying the rules was morally correct.
Get it? The other actions which could be taken can be cut out; I am only arguing that disobeying the rules is a possibly moral action. Or, more to the point, obeying the rules does not remove your moral responsibility.
So now you're saying that you were only arguing that disobeying the rules is a possibly moral action. I'll concede that. But previously you said he was morally correct or at least morally reasonable. According to the reasoning above, what he did was not morally correct, because the if statement is simply not true.
I'm not arguing that obeying the rules removes your moral responsibility, I'm arguing that how he handled his situation was incorrect. I was wrong in assuming you were defending his actions rather than your assertion, "disobeying the rules is a possibly moral action"
I'd still argue that his actions were 'morally reasonable' on the basis that we don't know how viable other options (such as calling the cops) were in the situation, and the overriding premise should be helping the woman in some way. So the action is 'reasonable' in that it tends to acheive the correct goal, or attempts to achieve the correct goal. 'reasonable' isn't the same as correct, as you have noted. It probably isn't the most correct action, or indeed it probably isn't in the top 5.
I'd like to comment on this discussion if only in a vague way (Morality in general interests me).
Morality is an idea that should very rarely be applied to the real world. It is nice, in a book or classroom, to be able to say things like, "This action was morally correct." or "That action was morally unjust." but the reality is there are far too many forms/contexts/perseptions/ideas/ect... in regards to what "Moral" is for anything to be truely and accurately labeled as such.
Broad Examples:
1) Personal Values.
*What you feel is imporant/"right" is "moral" for you.*
2) Family Values.
*What your family believes is right/wrong.*
3) Society.
*What is acceptable in your culture vs what is unacceptable to it.*
4)Religion.
*Your brand of Religion (or lack there of) heavily sways what is and is not moral for you.*
In RTD's case? My personal views on his "moral" situation are thus...
RTD:
On one hand, it is often seen as moral to help those in need.
On the other, it is often seen as not moral to:
1) Give preferential/special treatment.
*Just this person is helped out, the countless others who where not... Oh well, they didn't envoke enough pity/sympathy/whatever, I guess.*
2) Break an agreement.
*For any reason.*
^*Feel free to mentally add more if you feel like it...*
The Owner:
On one hand, it is often seen as moral to:
1) Enforce rules as they stand/apply to a given situation.
*Being non-bias in judgements hopefully.*
2) Ensure the security of your buissness/establishment.
*Financial or otherwise. This influences a great many people, for example: Customers, Staff, Investores, and Shareholders.*
On the other, it is often seen as not moral to...
I got nothing here personally, but I'm sure someone will find something to argue.
^*Feel free to mentally add more if you feel like it...*
There are possitives and negitives for both sides of the issue and thus why it is hard to say something is "moral". Should you help a woman (or man) in distress? Comman Morality says, "Yes". Should you keep your promise with another as they trusted you to do in good faith? Comman Morality says, "Yes". *Obviously there are many more statements just like those but you get the idea.*
Neither side "wrong" here morally and yet they are at an impass in this situation. So what happens? Do we start ranking moality? X is more moral then Y? Why is X better? Who decided? We go with what the majority agrees on? People went with that last option and those agreements became Laws (or more simply rules and regulations). Do those agreements cover all issues and suit every situation perfectly? No but they still are the "correct" answer.
In the end to sum up:
"Ever been punished for doing the RIGHT thing?" is answered with a "Depends on your point of view". From the punisher's point of view, if you had done the right thing they wouldn't have punished you for it.
~Nim
PS. TIBA, I loved your school examples. Gah, just thinking back on that stuff kills me...
Apparently he made some assumptions about her based on how she looked.
You mean the fact that her face was tear-stained and she had a large bruise on her chest?
That's not actually that big of an assumption.
Are there rules about where you are/aren't allowed to go after being robbed? Why do you assume she was at the hotel "immediately" after getting the bruises. She could be travelling cross country, and was robbed the previous day in another state. Maybe she's trying to get home, was driving and just started crying because she kept thinking about what had happened and she decided to pull over and check into a hotel.
It's certainly not common. But perhaps. In the event that this happened, it would waste a bit of time. Point?
There's also a big difference between suspecting a crime is about to be committed and thinking one might have happened.
Ummm. No, there's not.
The report you're basing everything on has given very little information. Here are some comments you've made:
All of these quotes involve you making assumptions that were not included in the small amount of information we know about this situation.
Okay. These are assumptions based upon the most likely possibility for why a woman is checking into a hotel in tears by herself with a large bruise on her chest. They could be wrong. I'm sure the police aren't going to slap her boyfriend in jail without a trial either way. Again, what's your point? That the assumption could be wrong? So ****ing what? It's not like we're talking about a drastic course of action here. What if the assumption is correct?
Physical abuse is a VERY serious subject. While it's great that people know to look for the signs of it, you really can't go jumping to conclusions every time you want to believe it has taken place. The information we have here definitelty leaves other legitimate explanations possible.
Again: So what? We're not talking about finding her SO and raking him or her over the coals. We're talking about investigating reasonable suspicion of a crime.
not an option as i have said like 4 times. Its tourist season and my hotel changed names and does not have established clients. It IS the only place with in 10 miles to get a room most nights. thats why we had 30-40 walk ins every night.
My only point is that we don't have any real information here to make any true assumptions. Obviously you seem to feel the need to assume the worst. I just feel that we need more info before jumping to any conclusions.
are you saying you dont assume things about people by the way they look? i would say every one does this
Sure, but not everyone risks their jobs based on those assumptions.
Quote from TheInfamousBearAssasin »
You mean the fact that her face was tear-stained and she had a large bruise on her chest?
That's not actually that big of an assumption.
Yeah, it actually kind of is. With the little information he had, there's a lot of possible situations that could all be plausible. Assuming that she was a victim in need of saving is one of them, but hardly the only one.
At any rate, if what you (RTD) assumed about the woman is correct, you did a good thing. Probably not the right thing (which would have been any option that both helped the woman and allowed you to keep your job), but a good thing nonetheless.
Similar thing happened to me. People don't matter, money does. I want you to remember this. Every time I have helped someone out of sympathy, I have lost things. Never again. Things in reality do not work like in the movies. Remember profits before lives. You have to be selfish. You are not a cop or a priest and are not responsible for implicating yourself or endangering your personal comforts for "ethics". Ethics don't put food on the table, or pay the rent.
Op has an active imagination. If your working theory wss that she was a domestic abuse victim, you should have asked her if she needs help, ask about calling police or a shelter, etc.
Your suggestion that you "saved her life" seems like a bizarre stretch. "Heroically" giving her access to one of the owner's hotel rooms was you offering HIS help for an imagined threat based on your own hunch for the cute damsel... not offering your own help.
You might just as well offered her MY car keys, without asking her any questions, based on some tears and bruises. That makes YOU a hero?
Here's a hotly debated topic where you could be punished for doing the RIGHT thing:
EMTs in my area have to take a "special class" to use an Epi Pen (despite the fact it's part of the EMT curriculum and is as simple to use as pull of the cap, jab it in the thigh, and hold it for 15 seconds). If an EMT responds to a call for a severe allergic reaction where the Epi Pen in the ambulance should be used to save the patient's life, that EMT is not legally allowed to use it.
So do you know what that means?
That EMT has to make an extreme judgment call: save a life and be punished or abide by the law and hope someone with "training" shows up before the patient dies.
State law does not mandate EMTs to receive any additional training, at all.
Here's a hotly debated topic where you could be punished for doing the RIGHT thing:
EMTs in my area have to take a "special class" to use an Epi Pen (despite the fact it's part of the EMT curriculum and is as simple to use as pull of the cap, jab it in the thigh, and hold it for 15 seconds). If an EMT responds to a call for a severe allergic reaction where the Epi Pen in the ambulance should be used to save the patient's life, that EMT is not legally allowed to use it.
So do you know what that means?
That EMT has to make an extreme judgment call: save a life and be punished or abide by the law and hope someone with "training" shows up before the patient dies.
State law does not mandate EMTs to receive any additional training, at all.
Put bluntly, a stranger's life is worth more than your job. No matter what the stranger, no matter what the job. If you don't use that Epipen, then morally, you may be responsible for murder.
"Right" and "Wrong" are each based on our own individual perceptions and preferences.
You thought you did the right thing by trying to help the woman, your boss thought you did the wrong thing by breaking the rules.
This is the whole reason we go to war because what we each think is right is different for each one of us and we are constantly trying to force our own opinions and ideals upon each other.
This is human nature and will never change. If what you think is right goes against the majority or against the people in power then prepare to suffer for your beliefs. It's stupid but it's true.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Why waste time thinking when you can spend it smashing.
Adding fire automatically makes everything awesome.
Here's a hotly debated topic where you could be punished for doing the RIGHT thing:
EMTs in my area have to take a "special class" to use an Epi Pen (despite the fact it's part of the EMT curriculum and is as simple to use as pull of the cap, jab it in the thigh, and hold it for 15 seconds). If an EMT responds to a call for a severe allergic reaction where the Epi Pen in the ambulance should be used to save the patient's life, that EMT is not legally allowed to use it.
So do you know what that means?
That EMT has to make an extreme judgment call: save a life and be punished or abide by the law and hope someone with "training" shows up before the patient dies.
State law does not mandate EMTs to receive any additional training, at all.
Counties usually have their own training and protocol requirements beyond the the state. Authority for EMS goes State<County<City<Station.
The State sets the foundation, but the county or city may further restrict that (for instance, with certain drugs that can be administered). They may also have training requirements and packets an EMT needs to complete to be eligible to ride equipment there, even though they already have the training. This is a good thing, as there are people who get by in class by can't actually perform the skills outside of training.
It isn't unreasonable do restrict the usage of certain equipment. An Epi-Pen seems a little extreme, as it's pretty clear when it is needed and REALLY simple to use (Pop the cap, Jab into meaty part of thigh, hold for 5-10 seconds, watch person breath again). That is a class that should literally take 30 minutes at most.
However, if the EMTs are already trained to use an Epi-pen, legally they would be justified in using it on a call. Good samaritan laws protect medical practitioners who are trained to provide the services they do, and if the EMT received the training in their basic class, legally they can perform the function in an emergency. The problem comes with the jurisdiction the EMT is operating under, as they could be fired, but there is no reason an EMT would miss a Epi-pen class. It honestly sounds like the EMTs who told you about this didn't feel like taking extra training, but additional trainings are vital to EMTs to keep skills up, especially ones that aren't used very often.
Could you hand the pen to the patient and let them use it themselves ? Most allergy sufferers carry them themselves anyway if they know about the allergy ?
Me personally I'd use the pen on the patient and save their life regardless of job implications but I can't imagine many patients who would object to saying they used the pen themselves even if they hadn't , after you saved their life.
I can't apply a patient's Epi-pen to them. I don't know whats in there, and the ambulance is well stocked enough with Epi-pens for both adults and children that there shouldn't ever be a problem.
I would go ahead with the injection. I doubt there is a review board that will hurt you if you do it properly. If you try to inject it into their neck however... you deserve what is coming.
No sorry to clarify I meant can't you hand an Epi-pen from the ambulance to the patient to use, would that be against the training rules ?
Ah. That would depend on the jurisdiction, but for me, I can absolutely hand the patient one of our epi-pens if they know how to use it. I would help them and make sure they do it properly, though.
Contrary to what some think, there's no Good Samaritan act or Good Samaritan Act but there is a Civil Liability (Good Samaritan) amendment to the Civiil Liability Act. Never mind; I'm being tangential and pointlessly splitting hairs.
There's Good Samaritan legislation to protect people that administer adrenaline via adrenaline autoinjectors or do other stuff that might save a life.
Quote from Some One »
That EMT has to make an extreme judgment call: save a life and be punished or abide by the law and hope someone with "training" shows up before the patient dies.
I think that law or some subset body of laws are moronic. A quick response is crucial to survival.
In not doing anything, EMTs would be prosecuted here.
Doing the "right" thing (e.g., helping bums); do so with wisdom.
I constantly get screwed over by being iceberg-like and self-absorbed (unless required to not be) but otherwise all's fine.
1 - Patients do typically have their own, and this really is an extreme corner case where a person happens to be "deathly" allergic to something and not know it. Without the class, you can assist them with their own...y'know...kinda put your hand over their hand over the Epi Pen.
2 - If you have not taken the "class," then Medical Control does not authorize the use of a squad Epi Pen.
3 - That being said, you can't be "punished" legally for acting within your scope of practice. Sure you will have to deal with the moral consequences if the person dies.
4 - Good Samaritan laws have no bearing in this situation. That might apply if you are an individual who happens to have an Epi Pen and sees someone having a problem & chooses to help them.
5 - Most people are in the boat of "I'm going to use it even though I haven't taken the class. I'm an EMT because I want to save lives."
So now you're saying that you were only arguing that disobeying the rules is a possibly moral action. I'll concede that. But previously you said he was morally correct or at least morally reasonable. According to the reasoning above, what he did was not morally correct, because the if statement is simply not true.
I'm not arguing that obeying the rules removes your moral responsibility, I'm arguing that how he handled his situation was incorrect. I was wrong in assuming you were defending his actions rather than your assertion, "disobeying the rules is a possibly moral action"
I'd still argue that his actions were 'morally reasonable' on the basis that we don't know how viable other options (such as calling the cops) were in the situation, and the overriding premise should be helping the woman in some way. So the action is 'reasonable' in that it tends to acheive the correct goal, or attempts to achieve the correct goal. 'reasonable' isn't the same as correct, as you have noted. It probably isn't the most correct action, or indeed it probably isn't in the top 5.
Morality is an idea that should very rarely be applied to the real world. It is nice, in a book or classroom, to be able to say things like, "This action was morally correct." or "That action was morally unjust." but the reality is there are far too many forms/contexts/perseptions/ideas/ect... in regards to what "Moral" is for anything to be truely and accurately labeled as such.
Broad Examples:
1) Personal Values.
*What you feel is imporant/"right" is "moral" for you.*
2) Family Values.
*What your family believes is right/wrong.*
3) Society.
*What is acceptable in your culture vs what is unacceptable to it.*
4)Religion.
*Your brand of Religion (or lack there of) heavily sways what is and is not moral for you.*
In RTD's case? My personal views on his "moral" situation are thus...
RTD:
On one hand, it is often seen as moral to help those in need.
On the other, it is often seen as not moral to:
1) Give preferential/special treatment.
*Just this person is helped out, the countless others who where not... Oh well, they didn't envoke enough pity/sympathy/whatever, I guess.*
2) Break an agreement.
*For any reason.*
^*Feel free to mentally add more if you feel like it...*
The Owner:
On one hand, it is often seen as moral to:
1) Enforce rules as they stand/apply to a given situation.
*Being non-bias in judgements hopefully.*
2) Ensure the security of your buissness/establishment.
*Financial or otherwise. This influences a great many people, for example: Customers, Staff, Investores, and Shareholders.*
On the other, it is often seen as not moral to...
I got nothing here personally, but I'm sure someone will find something to argue.
^*Feel free to mentally add more if you feel like it...*
There are possitives and negitives for both sides of the issue and thus why it is hard to say something is "moral". Should you help a woman (or man) in distress? Comman Morality says, "Yes". Should you keep your promise with another as they trusted you to do in good faith? Comman Morality says, "Yes". *Obviously there are many more statements just like those but you get the idea.*
Neither side "wrong" here morally and yet they are at an impass in this situation. So what happens? Do we start ranking moality? X is more moral then Y? Why is X better? Who decided? We go with what the majority agrees on? People went with that last option and those agreements became Laws (or more simply rules and regulations). Do those agreements cover all issues and suit every situation perfectly? No but they still are the "correct" answer.
In the end to sum up:
"Ever been punished for doing the RIGHT thing?" is answered with a "Depends on your point of view". From the punisher's point of view, if you had done the right thing they wouldn't have punished you for it.
~Nim
PS. TIBA, I loved your school examples. Gah, just thinking back on that stuff kills me...
You mean the fact that her face was tear-stained and she had a large bruise on her chest?
That's not actually that big of an assumption.
It's certainly not common. But perhaps. In the event that this happened, it would waste a bit of time. Point?
Ummm. No, there's not.
Okay. These are assumptions based upon the most likely possibility for why a woman is checking into a hotel in tears by herself with a large bruise on her chest. They could be wrong. I'm sure the police aren't going to slap her boyfriend in jail without a trial either way. Again, what's your point? That the assumption could be wrong? So ****ing what? It's not like we're talking about a drastic course of action here. What if the assumption is correct?
Again: So what? We're not talking about finding her SO and raking him or her over the coals. We're talking about investigating reasonable suspicion of a crime.
not an option as i have said like 4 times. Its tourist season and my hotel changed names and does not have established clients. It IS the only place with in 10 miles to get a room most nights. thats why we had 30-40 walk ins every night.
are you saying you dont assume things about people by the way they look? i would say every one does this
Sure, but not everyone risks their jobs based on those assumptions.
Yeah, it actually kind of is. With the little information he had, there's a lot of possible situations that could all be plausible. Assuming that she was a victim in need of saving is one of them, but hardly the only one.
At any rate, if what you (RTD) assumed about the woman is correct, you did a good thing. Probably not the right thing (which would have been any option that both helped the woman and allowed you to keep your job), but a good thing nonetheless.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
Your suggestion that you "saved her life" seems like a bizarre stretch. "Heroically" giving her access to one of the owner's hotel rooms was you offering HIS help for an imagined threat based on your own hunch for the cute damsel... not offering your own help.
You might just as well offered her MY car keys, without asking her any questions, based on some tears and bruises. That makes YOU a hero?
EMTs in my area have to take a "special class" to use an Epi Pen (despite the fact it's part of the EMT curriculum and is as simple to use as pull of the cap, jab it in the thigh, and hold it for 15 seconds). If an EMT responds to a call for a severe allergic reaction where the Epi Pen in the ambulance should be used to save the patient's life, that EMT is not legally allowed to use it.
So do you know what that means?
That EMT has to make an extreme judgment call: save a life and be punished or abide by the law and hope someone with "training" shows up before the patient dies.
State law does not mandate EMTs to receive any additional training, at all.
Put bluntly, a stranger's life is worth more than your job. No matter what the stranger, no matter what the job. If you don't use that Epipen, then morally, you may be responsible for murder.
You thought you did the right thing by trying to help the woman, your boss thought you did the wrong thing by breaking the rules.
This is the whole reason we go to war because what we each think is right is different for each one of us and we are constantly trying to force our own opinions and ideals upon each other.
This is human nature and will never change. If what you think is right goes against the majority or against the people in power then prepare to suffer for your beliefs. It's stupid but it's true.
Adding fire automatically makes everything awesome.
Counties usually have their own training and protocol requirements beyond the the state. Authority for EMS goes State<County<City<Station.
The State sets the foundation, but the county or city may further restrict that (for instance, with certain drugs that can be administered). They may also have training requirements and packets an EMT needs to complete to be eligible to ride equipment there, even though they already have the training. This is a good thing, as there are people who get by in class by can't actually perform the skills outside of training.
It isn't unreasonable do restrict the usage of certain equipment. An Epi-Pen seems a little extreme, as it's pretty clear when it is needed and REALLY simple to use (Pop the cap, Jab into meaty part of thigh, hold for 5-10 seconds, watch person breath again). That is a class that should literally take 30 minutes at most.
However, if the EMTs are already trained to use an Epi-pen, legally they would be justified in using it on a call. Good samaritan laws protect medical practitioners who are trained to provide the services they do, and if the EMT received the training in their basic class, legally they can perform the function in an emergency. The problem comes with the jurisdiction the EMT is operating under, as they could be fired, but there is no reason an EMT would miss a Epi-pen class. It honestly sounds like the EMTs who told you about this didn't feel like taking extra training, but additional trainings are vital to EMTs to keep skills up, especially ones that aren't used very often.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
I noticed that too, but after 3 or 4 posts I figured it was going to be back for a while.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
I can't apply a patient's Epi-pen to them. I don't know whats in there, and the ambulance is well stocked enough with Epi-pens for both adults and children that there shouldn't ever be a problem.
I would go ahead with the injection. I doubt there is a review board that will hurt you if you do it properly. If you try to inject it into their neck however... you deserve what is coming.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Ah. That would depend on the jurisdiction, but for me, I can absolutely hand the patient one of our epi-pens if they know how to use it. I would help them and make sure they do it properly, though.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Contrary to what some think, there's no Good Samaritan act or Good Samaritan Act but there is a Civil Liability (Good Samaritan) amendment to the Civiil Liability Act.Never mind; I'm being tangential and pointlessly splitting hairs.There's Good Samaritan legislation to protect people that administer adrenaline via adrenaline autoinjectors or do other stuff that might save a life.
I think that law or some subset body of laws are moronic. A quick response is crucial to survival.
In not doing anything, EMTs would be prosecuted here.
Doing the "right" thing (e.g., helping bums); do so with wisdom.
I constantly get screwed over by being iceberg-like and self-absorbed (unless required to not be) but otherwise all's fine.
1 - Patients do typically have their own, and this really is an extreme corner case where a person happens to be "deathly" allergic to something and not know it. Without the class, you can assist them with their own...y'know...kinda put your hand over their hand over the Epi Pen.
2 - If you have not taken the "class," then Medical Control does not authorize the use of a squad Epi Pen.
3 - That being said, you can't be "punished" legally for acting within your scope of practice. Sure you will have to deal with the moral consequences if the person dies.
4 - Good Samaritan laws have no bearing in this situation. That might apply if you are an individual who happens to have an Epi Pen and sees someone having a problem & chooses to help them.
5 - Most people are in the boat of "I'm going to use it even though I haven't taken the class. I'm an EMT because I want to save lives."