Saving a life - ongoing responsibility?

[KathySFSD]

I have heard it said that if you save someone’s life, you are responsible for them. Anybody think this is true? I don’t think it is true in the sense of providing for them, but is there a moral obligation of some sort - especially if you know the person is troubled?

 

[stephe1987]

I don’t think you are responsible for anyone but yourself and any underage children you have.

I think you have a moral responsibility to save someone whose life is in danger. But to provide for someone?

I think if a person has ongoing problems, they need to seek mental help. It is likely the case that there is some sort of chemical imbalance in their brain that is making them behave so strangely. An evaluation, counseling, and/or medication are the only ways to treat those kinds of problems.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I have heard it said that if you save someone’s life, you are responsible for them. Anybody think this is true? ,

As I recall that is the belief of one of the Asian religions; Buddhism or Hindu I think.

 

[JimG]

No. Saving someone’s life does not impart an ongoing responsibility for them. I know a teenage lifeguard who saved a life at a public swimming pool. Saving lives, if necessary, is part of her job. Taking over responsibility for the rest of their lives is not.

 

[phoenixrrt62]

Eek. If you were just doing your job…(I.e.-in a code) and the person survived…that’s an awful lot of people to be responsible for.
Just sayin’
When I worked in acute care…well, not only did we have our fair share of full codes…we had a lot of respiratory codes…so. Mind, that’s our job. That’s what we get paid for:0).

 

[vera_dicere]

I have heard it said that if you save someone’s life, you are responsible for them. Anybody think this is true? I don’t think it is true in the sense of providing for them, but is there a moral obligation of some sort - especially if you know the person is troubled?

I’ve heard this, but not with the concept of “responsibility” rather, ownership. You save someone’s life, their life is now your’s to do with as you see fit - ie. they become your slave.

Such a concept is immoral.

With regards to the concept of “responsibility”, it seems more damaging to their life, if they end up having to depend on the person who saved them.

Best to just shake their hand, wish them well, and part ways, unless you’re friends or relatives.

 

[Gloria1]

If you save someone’s life spiritually, then it is your responsibility as a Christian to help them understand the Christian faith and to help them remain in faith. For example, if you are able to convince a drug addict to follow you to church, it is your responsibility as a brother or sister in Christ to help the addict understand the Christian faith and why drug abuse isn’t good. However, if you save someone’s life physically, you are not responsible for them. If you are fire service man and you rescue a child from the flame, you have done your part.