Rules Versus Life

I just finished reading one of the posts by my co-blogger friend here at Nexxt, and was shocked at the utter craziness that goes on in the name of “rules.” The article I speak of is located here, Save a Life, Lose Your Job and deals with a lifeguard who was fired after saving a man from drowning, because he chose to go save the man outside of the “protected” area under his command.

The company he worked for was contracted to patrol and maintain the area of the beach within a set parameter, which was clearly marked by signs. The area outside of their protected range was marked as “swim at your own risk.” While on duty, lifeguard Thomas Lopez was alerted to a man in distress over in the “unprotected” area, and made the choice to run down and save him. Assisted by an off-duty nurse, they were able to resuscitate him and stabilize him until paramedics arrived and took him to the hospital.

Once an accident report was filed, the company Lopez worked for fired him for leaving the protected area to save another human being. I hope this is as shocking to you as it is to me. The company claims that he broke the rules, and the company could have been sued, so the decision to let him go was made.

So, they say they “could be” sued – not that they “are” being sued. Their action is based on what “could have been” not what is. If Lopez noticed the man, but decided to turn away and ignore it, could he or the company be legally liable? It is a seriously sad day in our land when helping someone could result in a lawsuit. I know it happens, and it is just so ridiculous when it does. We need more judges who would sit up and laugh at these cases and throw them out as stupid, and take away the licenses of those lawyers who attempt to pursue them. Anyway, I digress; back to the subject.

Companies have rules, and rules need to be followed. Rules save lives, they protect people from harm, and they serve the betterment of the company in general. But when rules are made that could in affect harm others, then there has to be a way in place that looks at and understand the letter of the law but does not supersede the intent of the law.

The letter of the law for the lifeguard company is that they are liable for all happenings within their contracted area of coverage. The intent of the law is to protect the citizens in the water. As a lifeguard (just like a medical person), they are trained to protect lives, and that should be without limitations. What would you think of an ambulance that turns around from an emergency because they had reached the limit of their jurisdiction? “Sorry I cannot come across the street to save you, because that is outside our contracted coverage zone.”

To make matters even worse in this case, 1) Lopez was not the only lifeguard on duty, so his departure from the “protected zone” did not leave it in danger, and 2) there were no incidents in the protected area while he was gone. So, what was the actual harm committed? They say they “could be” sued, but are they being sued? How is him leaving the area to save another person any different than if he left the area to take a break? The place was covered – no harm, no foul.

What if he did take a break, and went out to eat, outside the protected zone, and noticed someone drowning, and saved them. He is still employed by the company, though on a paid break – is there liability? If not, then why could the company not choose to just overlook this incident as the same scenario?

It was nice to hear of other lifeguards quitting the company in protest, but honestly, I think the company should be sued for promoting potential manslaughter. If Lopez had stuck to the rules and watched the man drown, rules, contracts or not, Lopez and the company should have been severely punished for the death of the man.

So come on,mangers of companies and board members who make these rules. Yes, rules are needed, but there has to be some rules that have to be flexible in life and death situations. Do not get so hung up in the letter of the law that you forget your humanity; the world doesn’t need any more apathy.

What do you think of this scenario?