4 ms·
That's not a serious issue and, going by US law at least, you're never obligated to intervene to save someone unless you created the situation that threatened t
by munk-a 2y ago
That's not a serious issue and, going by US law at least, you're never obligated to intervene to save someone unless you created the situation that threatened them, have a specific special relationship with that person (i.e. parent), or have accepted a role where duty to rescue is part of your obligations (i.e. firefighter).
As an uninvolved third party witnessing some harm you will face no penalty for not intervening.
It is, of course, encouraged to intervene and laws have been written to ensure that a reasonable effort to intervene won't cause you legal issues but you are never obligated to do so.
- ternnoburn 2y agoI'm angling more towards health care and less towards good samaritans.
- munk-a 2y agoOh - well in that case a health insurer has a contract to provide reasonable care... but I think it's pretty clear (especially with UHC's absolutely insane 90% inaccurate rejection bot) that there are bad faith actors involved here. To be slightly more depressing - before AI auto-rejectors existed companies would just hire doctors and pay them in a way that encourages (I'd hazard to say intentionally) doctors to deny claims as quickly as possible - Cigna was recently caught[1] doing this to an extreme. There is a deep rot here. 1. https://www.propublica.org/article/cigna-pxdx-medical-health-insurance-rejection-claims https://www.propublica.org/article/cigna-pxdx-medical-health...