Talk:Good Samaritan law

message: This article has been extensively reworked, expanded and referenced.  All major statements have been referenced, using appropriate sources, with plenty of examples of state and provincial Good Samaritan Laws referenced, along with some very interesting commentary on those laws from major journals. I would normally have included images to illustrate, however, in this case I could find nothing that seemed particularly relevant.  Specific references have been made to Japan, for civil law, and to Australia, as another example of English Common Law.  Given that the article is based in a priniciple of English Common Law, and one which not all Commonwealth countries have on the books, at that, it is unlikely that we are going to get any more global than the article already is.  The globalize and facts disputed tags at the head of the article have been removed, since both have been more than satisfied.  I'm submitting the article for re-evaluation, and hope to get it from its' current 'Start' status to a 'B' status, based on the changes made.  Emrgmgmtca (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hate to shake up your law prof on this one, but he may be talking about a local reality.  The general principle in law is called 'abandonment', and while you may not be charged criminally (as with criminal negligence) your failure to act is certainly accountable in a civil court.  If you have the ability or special knowledge (as with a physician or paramedic) to assist someone and you drive by without helping, and that person becomes aware of what you have done...you might very well be successfully sued!  This is one of the main reasons why doctors stopped getting license plates with MD prefixes and paramedics stopped putting stickers all over their personal cars.  Some medics (who don't wish to stop at accidents for example) have deliberately stopped carrying any type of patient assessment or care equipment, so that they can legitimately say that they had no tools or protective equipment to help with.  Hard on the docs too, though...when they stop to help, the risk of malpractice suits goes WAY UP, but they can also get sued if they get caught not stopping...damned if you do, damned if you don't!  Emrgmgmtca (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

text: History shows exactly two revisions, both by me.  Are you sure you didn't preview and forget to save? Tokerboy 04:51 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)
Checking web server logs:
*153.18.155.64 - - [08/Jan/2003:03:27:08 +0000] "POST /w/wiki.phtml?title=Good_Samaritan_law&action=submit HTTP/1.1" 200 12100 "http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Good_Samaritan_law&action=edit" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Mac_PowerPC)"
*153.18.155.64 - - [08/Jan/2003:03:27:54 +0000] "POST /w/wiki.phtml?title=Good_Samaritan_law&action=submit HTTP/1.1" 200 12073 "http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Good_Samaritan_law&action=submit" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Mac_PowerPC)"
Is this you? (Connecting from a different machine if so.) These were both previews; I see no saves on this article. (A save would have resulted in a redirect, so a return code of '302' instead of '200'.) Either 'save' didn't get pushed, or some external factor prevented it from happening correctly (network error, your computer crashed, etc). --Brion 05:08 Jan 10, 2003 (UTC)
The website in the link doesn't seem to say that you'll get sued for giving aid.  It simply advises tourists not to give aid, probably because it might be dangerous for them to attempt.  The same would apply to anyone giving aid without the proper knowledge.  The sentence just strikes me as silly; litigation may be a problem in the US, but this statement is unsupported and mean-spirited, IMO.--68.100.24.73 19:11, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: OK, no objections, I'm taking it out--68.100.24.73 21:17, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: I removed the following fragment from the article, still I thought it's at least worth keeping it at the discussion page:
:This version of a Good Samaritan law was the subject of attention in the final episode of the Seinfeld television sitcom (which is set in New York City), where Jerry, George, Kramer, and Elaine were sentenced to a year in prison for failing to assist a carjacking victim. In fact, they videotaped the incident, for their humor, which was used as evidence against them in their trial. The video showed them laughing at the victim and calling him insulting names while the crime was taking place.
::Thank you wikipedia, I had no idea this was real. OMG --68.9.193.246 00:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fiction. But the remaining paragraph does not make a whole lot of sense and certainly does not throw any light on the good Samaritan law itself, criminal or civil or duty-to-rescue.  193.113.57.165 (talk) 10:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to ''Seinfeld'' 

message: as this is still unreferenced, i removed it from the article.  Some of it is redudant, other parts are unsubstantiated, but mostly it's unreferenced.  Not to mention long.  Text below.  JamieJones  talk 23:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Good Samaritan Law Report 

message: It seems that there are two types of GS laws in this article - those that require a person provide some level of assistance, and those that merely protect people who voluntarily act.
The Ontario Good Samaritan Act (similar or identical to the one quoted) merely protects voluntary providers of first aid from liability. I think this is distinct from the "Seinfeld" type law which most or all of the intro of this article discusses - that people are obligated by law to assist (minimally, such as calling for help). I think the intro should be retooled to make this distinction. TheHYPO 16:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences? 

message: I've removed the christian imagery from the top of the page. While I appreciate the relevant connection, I don't think it lends to the article except to unnecessarily emphasize a minor connection between a name given to the collective statutes and a bible story. The link to "Good Samaritan" is provided and I imagine that is sufficient. CheshireKatz 19:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed image 

message: The intro and the "In the United States" section state that the US version(s) ARE to protect those who give aid, not to require people to give aid, with no exception mentioned... then the Seinfeld reference goes on to say how Massachusetts has a requirement. Is this wrong? Is Mass. the only exception? Are there more? It should be mentioned before the Seinfeld section either way I think. Msgohan 08:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US: which is it? 

message: I removed 
: While this traveller (a Samaritan) had no national, cultural, or religious affiliation to the injured man (in the story, assumed to be a Jew, with whom the Samaritans had had a long history of enmity), in compassion he aided the injured man, and did all in his power to ensure his welfare and recovery.
which is too detailed for this article (the HatNote lk should do the needed job), and botches the facts: 
: The religion of the Samaritan ethnic group involved having taken on what they understood to be the obligations of Jews, during the exile to Babylon, and many Jews of Gospel times regarded them not just pagans but effectively as having a heretical relationship to Judaism.  I'm pretty sure there's a scriptural reference (epistles? Sermon on the Mount?) to not quibbling about whether to worship JHWH in the temple in Jerusalem or on the mountain in Samaritan country. In any case, the parable contrasts a Jew of Pharisee inclination (and someone else) with the Samaritan, implying that some self-proclaimed Jews didn't understand who the "neighbor" referred to by the Ten Commandments was, as well as did one Samaritan. "All in his power"? I think not, tho extremely generously.--Jerzy•t 21:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation to Samaritans 

message: I have created an Ireland entry, under Europe. I've limited the text considerably, as there's potentially a lot to discuss here? (IANAL) Two discussion points:
* The Irish Law Reform commission report is relevant, and potentially a good research starting point for all common law countries in this area.
* How large / detailed should Nation-specific sub-section get. I have matched size of the other country's entries, approximately.
segurador (talk) 13:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nation-specific sub-sections 

message: First, the summary starts out with pointing out that good samaritan laws are not to be confused with duty to rescue. That's fine, but why then elaborate on a duty to rescue law in Argentina in the second paragraph instead of confining oneself to good samaritan law?
Second, the first paragraph starts out with stating that Good Samaritan laws offer legal protection. This assumes that the reader is familiar to the reason why good samaritans would need protection at all, which is a concept that people unfamiliar with compensation culture may not immediately understand. However, I expect this is not the case for many readers, in particular those residing in Europe. If this article is to be taken as a reliable source on the worldwide situation, the legal protection for good samaritans is only an issue in north America and China. I propose that this paragraph be altered to first explain why legal protection is needed. 2.243.114.236 (talk) 08:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  summary issues 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Good Samaritan law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070213002307/http://www.canlii.org/on/laws/sta/2001c.2/20051114/whole.html to http://www.canlii.org/on/laws/sta/2001c.2/20051114/whole.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205022031/http://www.essortment.com/all/goodsamaritanl_redg.htm to http://www.essortment.com/all/goodsamaritanl_redg.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070213002307/http://www.canlii.org/on/laws/sta/2001c.2/20051114/whole.html to http://www.canlii.org/on/laws/sta/2001c.2/20051114/whole.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article gives the impression that it needs to be another person, with no mention of themselves ("bystanders", "help a stranger"). Some (not all) locations allow someone like a drug user who believes to be overdosing to call 911 without facing prosecution. 
I am not sure if this topic should be split into a different article? Pennsylvania’s Good Samaritan Act allows a person overdosing to call 911 without prosecution. 
Canada's Bill C-244  (42,1) would amend (not yet passed, but close) to  Controlled Drugs and Substances Act - since there is no country-wide GS law (it's handled per province). The "Short Title" for the act is "Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act". http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Bill=C224&Parl=42&Ses=1
I found a page on the web that talks about "911 Good Samaritan Fatal Overdose Prevention Law" .. but could not find a Wikipedia article.
http://www.drugpolicy.org/911-good-samaritan-fatal-overdose-prevention-law
Fact sheet with list of 32 US states http://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Fact%20Sheet_State%20based%20Overdose%20Prevention%20Legislation%20%28January%202016%29.pdf
Here is a proposed amendment to the current Pennsylvania law.
http://fox43.com/2017/04/25/proposed-bill-overdose-victims-must-seek-treatment-within-30-days-after-receiving-emergency-assistance-to-avoid-jail/
Should this be on Wikipedia? In this article? New article? 32 states have the law.. and we don't mention the self-Samaritan aspect in the article. 
--CoolCanuck eh? 04:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drug Overdose Prevention? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Good Samaritan law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080723133002/http://home.mesastate.edu/~jerry/gmnc/Colorado%20Good%20Samaritan%20Law.htm to http://home.mesastate.edu/~jerry/gmnc/Colorado%20Good%20Samaritan%20Law.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050828144432/http://www.cprinstructor.com/legal.htm to http://www.cprinstructor.com/legal.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified