so if a person finds a person in need of emergency care, such as just suffered a heart attack, gone unconscious, bleeding, or drowning, do you think they need to get a signed form of consent before giving this person care? how much of a difference does it make if the person helping is a private person or a government official? is it more wrong if a government official saves someone's life? if we just had private business, and one saved a persons life without having a contract first, would that be wrong?
what do you think? and why do you think it? and what are the possible downsides to your proposals?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
do you think they need to get a signed form of consent before giving this person care?
Only if they EXPECT compensation.
how much of a difference does it make if the person helping is a private person or a government official?
Quite possibly, a lot. A private person who does this without a contractual obligation by the patient to pay can likely expect that there will be no means to get compensation through legal force. A government official may acquire compensation through force by means of taxes. Thus, the government might force the burden of payment upon people that did not receive the medical attention.
is it more wrong if a government official saves someone's life?
The saving of a life isn't morally wrong. The legal theft (taxation) from people not involved to pay the provider of care is morally wrong (theft is never moral, IMO).
if we just had private business, and one saved a persons life without having a contract first, would that be wrong?
No, because without a contract, there is no requirement for the patient to pay (just like there is no requirement for a private person to provide services, free or otherwise, without a contractual obligation). This would be called charity.
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
ok, if this is about compensation and the money involved and obligations. looks like some see it as a good act paid for by bad acts.
i think communities can get together and volunteer to pay for a service and then make deals with each other on how to handle situations. if there is a outsider that needs help, they can save the outsider and perhaps the outsider would like to donate or be grateful for the work done to save his life, but it does not put a obligation to pay on him or the rest of the community, as all funds will be put in voluntarily through trade or donation.
allowing a system of voluntary purchase of service or voluntary donation is a solution that avoids the cognitive dissonance i have over a system that would do good by saving lives, yet also does bad by forcing a system of payment or compensation on people. i want people to treat each other because they see it as a value to help others, and that means no obligations towards adults.
i would want to live in community that takes care of each other and works together to help each other in emergency situations and values that enough to give money to those to train and enable people to save each others lives. that's part of society running to have a willingness to create reciprocal win win relationships with people that includes contributing to each others help out of a desire and pleasure to do so. having virtue and good will run a society creates a healthier society than having people provide what they don't want to provide and provide it inspire and feel violated that they had to provide . we can only give by giving, not by taking.
One of the reasons why signed consent is needed is to prevent lawsuits from "unofficial" medical care. If you don't get a signature and your treatment goes awry then the person might try to sue you.
Well, absolutely! Most would want to live in a community where people voluntarily give charity to an organization that will then pay out to those that provide service to those in dire need/emergencies. In fact, it is very likely that that would happen in a free society. Churches used to take care of these situations before government mandates and high taxes. Possibly churches and other charitable organizations were better funded because people had more money (due to less taxes). It's easy to see that the higher the taxes are, the less extra money people will have to give charitably. So it's highly likely that there would be communities that had a working system like you describe, one based upon voluntarily giving (charity) and not forced theft (taxation).
Signed consent is pretty difficult to obtain in emergency situations on a regular basis. In terms of the current system, signature is obtained to verify that the patient authorizes the provider to be compensated through private billing, or by their insurance or equivalent government program such as Medicare or Medicaid. It also verifies that the patient has been informed of the provider's privacy practices. In terms of authorizing the medical care, the ordering physician's signature is considered the important one. The patient's signature on intake documents would not preclude their being able to sue for having received treatment they did not want.
I sort of think that admission to a facility in the first place implies consent for treatment and acceptance of the institution's privacy practices and billing procedures. If the patient was unconscious on admission, the individual who assumed responsibility for them and arranged for the admission would be at fault if they made a bad decision. In that case, the patient could to a reasonable extent expect their caretaker to accept responsibility for consequences like unwanted bills, especially if the patient had specific wishes regarding emergency care that were previously documented and ignored by the caretaker.
Businesses like hospitals routinely write off bills just like other types of businesses, as a PR effort as well as in cooperation with various charitable organizations. There's no reason to think a hospital in a libertarian society would not evaluate accounts for the same reasons.
This is somewhat related:
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/rock-center/48347105
Lady Saiga: I sort of think that admission to a facility in the first place implies consent for treatment and acceptance of the institution's privacy practices and billing procedures. If the patient was unconscious on admission, the individual who assumed responsibility for them and arranged for the admission would be at fault if they made a bad decision. In that case, the patient could to a reasonable extent expect their caretaker to accept responsibility for consequences like unwanted bills, especially if the patient had specific wishes regarding emergency care that were previously documented and ignored by the caretaker.
I thought this might had been a theoretical situation, so I didn't give it a second thought. Then I came across this link:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/lifeguard-gets-2-600-bill-rescuing-boy-surf-130832240.html
Question: What is the legal scenario in the State of Washington (or within the United States) where a lifeguard can be charged the medical bills for someone he rescued?
In the above link, the lifeguard saved the boy's life and there were no apparent injuries.
By legal scenario, I mean in reality though the U.S. legal system, not a theoretical ancap construct.
Edit: I misread the article. The lifeguard himself had a headache after the rescue, so it seems the lifeguard received medical treatment as well.
i think the story shows how doners will get together and help people they feel did a good thing. people will be able to weigh situations better and only use services if it makes more sense. fact of the matter right now is that if neither the family of the rescued person nor the lifegard paid, the bill would be passed on to taxpayers or people with insurance rather than being written off. there is a big oppurtunity cost when a ampulance is used when a taxi or friendly driver could have taken them to the hosital if it was even needed.
scenario seems to be is this is not a onduty lifeguard and there was no priar contract with the lifegaurd, the boy, and emergency services.
in this case the rescue person did receive medical care and services
Fuck the contract, save a life, deal with money later.
Its like those stupid idiots who sue people who rescue their life. It would never go down in a private court; common sense rules in private courts remember that.
If we degrade down to the level of bureaucrats where we need a contract to save someones life, aren't we holding the risk of liability more precious than saving a person's life? That seems wrong to me.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
I'm in ER care. It's not needed. There is such a thing as implied consent. It's a pretty intuitive custom that would arise in a culture that has a category of ER care if you ask me.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
common sense rules in private courts remember that
That's not an objective fact.
Thats true. You never know some courts might have irrational judges etc.
But in general they do.