And about the doctor's oath - it's more of a ritual than an obligation. There are medical institutes (faculties of medicine) where it is not accepted.
article 60 of the OPOZ says that the fact of taking an oath is certified by a note in the diploma ... but the oath itself is not a condition for issuing a diploma (a diploma is given after successful delivery exams, etc.), that is, you can refuse to take an oath (some graduates refuse for religious reasons). and if it is not yet in all medical institutions... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif) then it turns out that the condition for the onset of criminal liability is an oath, which, in principle, can not be given.
Previously, I was always sure that the doctor's oath has more a moral and ethical aspect than a legal one, but recently I carefully read this law and realized that it is still legal. Article 60 of the OZZO states that a doctor is liable for violation of an oath, as provided for by the legislation of the Russian Federation
here's another trick: "... to be always ready to provide medical care ...", is it equal - to provide medical care always and everywhere, at any time of the day or night ... on vacation ... retired, especially without any means of protection, like gloves, a bathrobe. despite the fact that you don’t know what this potential patient is sick with (maybe he has hepatitis and he’s bleeding here), and even under pain of criminal liability ...
therefore, if in a particular case a sly lawyer proves that "to be ready = always provide", then PPC (IMG: style_emoticons/default/sad.gif) but it seems to me that these concepts correlate something like this: to stand at the start in front of the line when running on hundred meters and run this hundred meters. So, FILIN let me disagree with you
about the fact that conscience will not allow to pass by - is another question. I think that let the doctor himself decide whether to call an ambulance or act on his own.
and one more thing: the article is called the doctor's oath .... hmm ... but what about nurses, paramedics?
This article is difficult. And the opinions of jurists are different.
"Oath" is just that "special rule" that is mentioned in the disposition of the article.
So the respected Tolstoy correctly brought her.
Even if we make the assumption that the oath is just a special rule (well, I don’t agree with this yet), then what to do with such a moment. the doctor has a certificate for one type of activity, and the patient on the street under a tree is clearly not in his profile. Then what? to provide non-certified assistance? I do not understand the amount of assistance in such situations. if we make the assumption that we are talking about first aid, then the doctor should not be more responsible than an ordinary citizen who undertook to do artificial respiration ...
oh, I'm all confused
Or 04-07-2006 12:57
I thought of posting it in the Legal Consultation, but I decided to ask the specialists (doctors) first. If the moderator deems it necessary, you can move the topic.
Question: Is a doctor obliged to provide first aid to the victim, regardless of the place of the incident, time (being at work or out of it) and other conditions? Or is there another way to help?
Interested in the situation in the Russian Federation. The need to call the carriage on 03 is already clear. But the victim must be kept afloat "until the ambulance arrives. Is there such an obligation (namely an obligation) for persons with a" medical education "?
Or 04-07-2006 13:37
Perhaps there is a need to explain with a hypothetical example:
The doctor sits in the polyclinic at the table - he works. Suddenly a man bursts in: "Doctor, a man is dying in the street!" The call to 03 is understandable. But is the doctor obliged to take off and run to help the victim?
Cazador 04-07-2006 14:24
The doctor must. Failure to help the patient criminal offense- Article 124 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (if we are talking about Russia) "Failure to provide assistance to the patient."
And not just a doctor. article 125 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation "Leaving in danger" - "Knowingly leaving without the help of a person who is in a state of danger to life or health ...".
If you are interested in details, I can tell you more.
Or 04-07-2006 16:50
Let's get the details.
124 and 125UK know.
Question: where is it written that the doctor is obliged?
Cazador 04-07-2006 19:16
I'll post the details tomorrow
Hvost 04-07-2006 20:47
This article applies to all citizens. If a child is drowning in a pool that is waist-high, then referring to the fact that the ice cream tray cannot be thrown without supervision will not help.
Doctor - the official status of a specialist who has special training. This implies his ability to provide assistance - he passed the state examinations for the right to provide it. And it imposes obligations to provide it everywhere within reach. Links to planned patients do not roll, except that the surgeon cannot move away from the table.
The court decides by comparing the facts with the law using common sense. Could you leave the appointment? Could. I could not even report to the authorities - then I would explain. Did you have information about the dangerous condition of the victim? Had. It remains only to prove that grave consequences would not have come if he had helped. For example, the victim bled to death, but not instantly, but due to bleeding that was not stopped in time, say, from a venous or from a small artery. Those. He lived and his condition was reversible in the course of time sufficient to reach him and provide this assistance.
You better show me the doctor who will calmly stay where he is if he was told that the victim needed help. He can be angry at the whole world, earn money by killing, but to provide emergency assistance is a huge positive emotion, this is a moment of triumph over death. This is what everyone who enters honey and not only secretly dream about. And he will stay at the reception, listen to complaints about hemorrhoids?
lexabez 04-07-2006 21:20
First aid not for any condition, but for a condition that threatens life or could lead to grievous harm health. And developed in close proximity to the doctor.
PaulBaumer 04-07-2006 21:37
It's all bullshit! It is very difficult to prove non-provision of assistance, and as we were taught, only 5 situations fall under this article:
- especially dangerous infections
- abandonment in childbirth
- non-stop external bleeding
and something else, I don't remember...
- In short - we are not obliged to breathe "Mouth-to-mouth" to any drug addict dying from an overdose ...
But I'm more concerned about something else:
Does a doctor fall under the article if, being "not on duty", he tried to provide assistance, and the victim died precisely as a result of it. Well, for example, a certain young doctor, having heard a lot of heroic stories, tried to impose a tracheostomy in the field and got bleeding, or injected some analgin and got anaphylaxis ...
At work - of course, everything is recorded by the medical history, your official qualifications, position ... And outside of work ???
lexabez 04-07-2006 21:49
Easily. But, rather, they will establish what happened, as medical error and released from liability.
Hvost 04-07-2006 23:25
Error due to lack of information - if anaphylaxis. Not medical. But if, instead of a tracheostomy, the doctor damages a large vessel, and anatomically it is not located atypically, it is unlikely to be written off so simply. But Paul Baumer is absolutely right - such cases are very difficult to prove.
Gladiator 05-07-2006 12:23
I can tell you a completely real case that happened to my doctor friend. Who did NOT provide first aid to the victim and was acquitted.
True, he had extenuating circumstances. One of them - the victim was his mother-in-law
Nerd 05-07-2006 02:49
Or am I out of touch with life?
What kind of doctor is this?
What kind of doctor is this?
Gladiator 05-07-2006 12:56
quote: Originally posted by Nerdy:
And unless the doctor will pass by the person who needs the help?
Or am I out of touch with life?
What kind of doctor is this?
What kind of doctor is this?How can he then call himself a doctor?
And how can you pass / drive by if a person needs help?
Everything is right, everything is fair!
But the comrade asked about the legal aspect of the issue of non-provision of medical assistance, and not about the moral ...
Or 05-07-2006 15:45
Article 124. Failure to provide assistance to a patient
1. Failure to provide assistance to the patient without good reason the person who is obligated to provide it in accordance with the law or with a special rule, if this entailed, through negligence, causing moderate harm to the health of the patient,
Article 125. Leaving in danger
Knowingly leaving without help a person who is in a state of danger to life or health and deprived of the opportunity to take measures for self-preservation due to infancy, old age, illness or due to his helplessness, in cases where the perpetrator had the opportunity to help this person and was obliged to take care of him or himself put him in a state dangerous to life or health, -
That. no need la-la that any citizen is obliged to save someone or provide first aid (this is about an ice cream tray).
The question is how to determine the circle of these "obliged persons". More precisely, in accordance with what NPA, the doctor is the "obliged person" to provide first aid (of course, medical).
If we take the example of a doctor from a clinic. He will also have to explain to the management why he thwarted the work (for which he is paid money) and it is better to explain this with a duty under the law than with his subjective right (extreme necessity). Usually, the words "duty" and "UK" reach the leadership better than "helping someone in trouble."
Not to mention the fact that the situation can be complicated by material costs for the clinic: both direct (administration of official medicine to the victim) and indirect (failure to receive paid patients).
lexabez 05-07-2006 16:28
Following the letter of the article, the Minister of Health in Moscow (Zurabov) is obliged to help the homeless in Khabarovsk, choking on vomit.
What is not? Reread st.124 above.
Or 05-07-2006 16:46
But what about
"without good reason", and even intent is needed.
Hvost 05-07-2006 20:35
away. let's drag the letter of the law back and forth. The decision will still be made by the court in a particular case. Do you want an instruction with all possible cases in life - when you must / do not have to? Do you believe this is possible?
AND common sense and moral law inside you are no longer a sufficient tool for making a decision?
Or 06-07-2006 11:11
You'll have to ask the lawyers.
NDK 06-07-2006 11:34
You better show me the doctor who will calmly stay where he is if he was told that the victim needed help. He can be angry at the whole world, earn money by killing, but providing emergency assistance is a huge positive emotion.
No comments.
Hvost 06-07-2006 20:25
quote: Originally posted by Or:
It is clear that doctors do not know their duties. (or duties)
Cazador left for the details and did not return, apparently the store is closed.
You'll have to ask the lawyers.
As details, only law enforcement practice will roll here. Specific cases and decisions and clarifications of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. By definition, they are single and do not cover the entire legal field. If you are ready to deal with this - probably lawyers can merge? Or take a good legal database. The legal field is so arranged that there is regulations and common sense. The gaps are filled by the judge in SPECIFIC SITUATION. A decision that has entered into legal force is a law. Then the experience is summarized by the Supreme Court and, possibly, by the legislator.
Hvost 06-07-2006 20:31
quote: Originally posted by NDK:When my sister and several other children drowned, some of them were pulled out by the men. When the doctor was informed that the children were drowning, she reacted calmly and did not immediately raise her fat ass. Only after a while she leisurely went to the seashore. And she said to the mothers of drowned children, "Well, you go home, as soon as you know, we will let you know."
Saved people 6. Three drowned.
I sympathize.
I can only quote myself "Doctors are people like everyone else. Somewhat spoiled by the amount of death they've seen - like soldiers."
She probably couldn't swim, at least not fast enough. So I decided that there was no point in running. And the rest is, of course, her callousness, perhaps, as defensive reaction on experiences from work. Whether it is not enough deaths at the surgeon happens.
NDK 06-07-2006 20:39
Yes, to hell with her. Three deaths to some extent remained on her conscience.
Even after such antics to the doctors, I have a very positive attitude. It's just a pity for the kids. My sister was only 12.
Egor 07-07-2006 01:37
I'll give an example:
A good friend of mine was asked to drive a workmate to the hospital when he had a heart attack.
While carrying - a comrade died.
My friend was tried and given a suspended sentence - 1 year.
Second example:
He himself judged the guy who left the man at the scene of the accident (he knocked him down and he died from hitting his head on a steel bar sticking out of the curb).
The deceased was at fault for the accident.
So, just for leaving - they gave him 3.5 years.
Therefore, legally, you need to EXACTLY know your duties and responsibilities, and they vary for everyone depending on the specific circumstances.
Additionally:
I'm driving with a friend in his car.
Stops the traffic cop, checks the documents.
A friend says: I'm in a hurry, I'll be late for duty at the hospital.
Earned a protocol for the fact that the car does not have a red cross, indicating that the driver is a doctor.
Hvost 07-07-2006 01:55
Can you elaborate on what specifically gave the driver a year of probation? He drove, did not refuse.
And another clarification - any doctor is obliged to draw kr. cross on your car? If so, where and what size?
Egor 07-07-2006 14:08
quote: Originally posted by Hvost:
Can you elaborate on what specifically gave the driver a year of probation? He carried, did not refuse ...
I don’t know the details, and it was a long time ago (1979), but precisely for the fact that I was carrying in inappropriate conditions (not lying down, etc.), that is, I had to refuse - to wait for an ambulance.
Interestingly, the relatives of the deceased sued him.
By the way, according to the court, he paid them something else.
We (drivers) are considered to be trained people, as evidenced by a driver's license and a training certificate, so we must know what to do to provide emergency assistance.
The hearts should be left lying in a comfortable position with a low pillow under their heads and the region of the heart open until a qualified doctor arrives.
The corpus delicti is formulated in Part 1 of Art. 125 (part 1 of article 127) as “failure to provide a person in a life-threatening condition with the necessary and clearly urgent assistance, if it could have been provided by the guilty person without serious danger to himself or other persons, or failure to report to the appropriate institutions or individuals in need of assistance.
The object of this crime is human life. Assistance is not provided to a person who is “in a state of danger to life” due to his helplessness.
The most common are the physiological causes of helplessness: infancy, decrepitude, illness. However, in some cases, outside help is needed and healthy man. For example, a person cannot get out of a burning building on his own. Helpless is also the one who is in such a state that he does not feel the danger approaching him: sleeping or deaf-mute, located on the rails along which the train moves; drunk in severe frost, etc.
A person who has been subjected to a socially dangerous attack, which he cannot resist, is also helpless. The Criminal Code of the Supreme Court of the RSFSR found the composition of endangering the behavior of Sh. and others, who saw L. chasing K-, hit him twice on the head, which caused K. to die, and did not prevent the commission of this crime. "Although such cases are not uncommon in life, the prosecution of such persons is almost never found. Between
172 ■ . " ■
Therefore, such indifference, when it was possible, without serious danger to oneself or other persons, to stop the violation and save the life of a person, forms the corpus delicti of the crime in question.
It is not the cause of helplessness that is important for the composition of non-provision of assistance, but the fact that a person whose life is in danger cannot take measures for self-preservation.
Failure to provide assistance is expressed in the failure to provide physical assistance to a person whose life is in danger by providing transport, calling a doctor, etc. In some cases, a crime may be expressed in failure to provide financial assistance. So, for example, on September 21, 1953, 150 km from the village, a party of prospectors, making their way through the taiga, unexpectedly approached the wide and stormy Upper Turukhan River. Two prospectors, Maksimov and Kruglov, successfully crossed the river, and the third, Polikarpov, had his clothes knocked out of his hands by a stormy current and carried away. Maximov and Kruglov, not sharing clothes with the injured comrade, although they could "do it without any danger to themselves, left him without clothes and food in the snow-covered taiga. 2
Part 1 Art. 125 (Part 1, Article 127) equates to failure to provide assistance to the failure to inform the appropriate institutions or persons about the need to provide assistance. This is explained by the fact that the legislator makes lesser demands on strangers than on persons who are specifically obliged to take care of the dying.
However, in itself, the communication of a danger threatening another person is not tantamount to providing assistance. If the abandoned person needs immediate assistance, the failure to provide which may lead to his death, then the mere notification of the appropriate persons about his condition does not exclude responsibility. Such a person is not held liable only if he was able to warn other persons in such a timely manner that the latter provided or had the opportunity to provide the dying person with the necessary assistance.
The message referred to in Part 1 of Art. 125 (part 1 of article 127) must be done by institutions or persons specially obliged to take care of the abandoned. Who exactly should be put in such cases in the
depends on the state of the perishing person and, therefore, what kind of help he needs. In one case, it is necessary to call a doctor, in another - the fire brigade, in the third - parents, etc. From the wording of Part 1 of Art. 125 (part 1 of article 127) it follows that the very fact of timely notification of the danger to the mentioned persons indicates the fulfillment of a legal obligation by such a person.
There will be no non-provision of assistance if someone, in order to save another person, did not wish to give, even without prejudice to his health, blood for transfusion or skin for transplantation.
Man in the physiological sense is his living body, and while it is alive, no one can tear away any parts from it: neither tissue (including liquid tissue - blood), nor organs. This is the elementary guarantee by society to a person of his essence - bodily integrity. It is worth abandoning it - and the strong threads that unite people in society will be broken and the hostel will hardly be possible. Forcibly tearing away from a person of his bodily part is an extreme expression of inhumanity, regardless of why and who does it. Therefore, the giving of blood, tissue, even without damage to oneself, cannot be forced, but should be encouraged. In the conditions of Soviet reality, when blood or skin is needed to save a person's life, one has only to announce this - and a mass of volunteers appears.
Responsibility for failure to provide assistance arises if the accused has the opportunity to provide assistance. This possibility always exists when there are no irresistible forces preventing actions, or when the subject was not in a state of emergency.
In resolving the issue of the possibility of providing assistance, it is necessary to establish what the accused, who did not provide assistance, could do to provide it. Sailors X. and L., in front of whom a man accidentally found himself on a cargo ship fell overboard, did not take measures to save him. They are subject to liability, because they swam well and could provide assistance.3 In the same situation, persons who could not swim could throw a life buoy, a rope. If a person is deprived of the opportunity
If it is necessary to personally provide assistance, it is obliged to call on other persons to do so.
The inability of a certain person to provide assistance or call on others to do so is a reason for inaction that excludes liability. However, this does not mean that the mere fact of being able to act makes failure to provide assistance a criminal offense. If, in order to save the perishing person, the subject had to sacrifice himself, but he did not do this, he cannot be held criminally liable for his inaction. The legislator does not oblige under the threat of punishment to self-sacrifice.
Risk is different from self-sacrifice. The question arises whether it is possible to recognize in all cases as a valid reason for inaction the unwillingness to risk one's own interests in any way. The bourgeois criminal law doctrine answers this question in the affirmative. N. S. Tagantsev noted that in order to be responsible for not rendering assistance to a dying person, it is necessary that assistance could be provided without any danger to oneself, “... and, of course, the issue of danger can be discussed from the point of view of the accused person.”4 And I-Foynitsky wrote: "It is impossible to demand obligatory help from a person, to his neighbor, if from that there is any danger to his own blessings." five
Such views, expressing bourgeois individualism and egoism, are alien to communist morality. AT Soviet literature It is generally accepted, and this is indicated in all textbooks of criminal law, that the known risk and danger associated with the provision of assistance does not exclude the obligation to provide it.
The question of the extent to which a person must risk his own interests in order to save the perishing one depends both on the nature of the obligation to act that lies on him, and on his involvement in the danger created. The greatest demands may be placed on persons who, by virtue of their profession, must rescue human lives, as well as "to persons who created a dangerous situation for another person (part 2 of article 125 of the Criminal Code).
The consequences of failure to provide assistance are beyond the scope of the composition under consideration. Responsibility already arises for the very fact of failure to fulfill the obligation to provide
assistance, regardless of the consequences.6 It also does not matter whether the assistance, if provided, could have prevented the consequences.
The fact that the consequences of the composition under consideration go beyond its scope does not mean at all that the fact of their occurrence or non-occurrence is of no importance. When imposing punishment, it is impossible not to take into account whether the victim is still alive.
Failure to provide assistance constitutes a corpus delicti if there has been deliberate abandonment without assistance. An indication of deliberate abandonment without assistance means that the accused is aware that the person left is in danger, directly threatening his life. The absence of such consciousness excludes responsibility.
X., flooding the Russian stove with straw, went to fetch water. During “her absence, a fire broke out, as a result of which two children of X., who were left in the room, died. The Supreme Court of the USSR recognized X.’s conviction for leaving children in danger as wrong. “At that moment,” the board’s ruling said, “when X. left her home, there was no condition dangerous for the life of her children, since the fire broke out after she left.Therefore, there could be no deliberate leaving of her children without the help of her children in such a state. 7
“Knowingness” is a necessary feature of the composition under consideration in those codes where there is no direct indication of “knowledgeability”. In order to be able to do this, one must at least know that the victim needs help, that is, be aware of the state in which he is. Ignoring this circumstance may lead to incorrect application of the rule in question.
In this regard, the case of K. and S. deserves attention. They and other persons, being in A.'s house, at 11 o'clock in the evening sent K. for vodka. On the way, K- met his friend D., who added money to him, while K-saw that D. had 1,100 rubles. (in old money). Having bought vodka, K- and D. went to A.'s house, where they drank it together with others. After that, B. and G. took D. out into the street, who was very drunk, and put him on a bench.
When B. and G. wanted to call ambulance In order to bring D. to his senses, K. reassured them by saying that he would take D. to his home. When B. and G. left, K. and S. took the drunken D. to the pit, took off his jacket, took away his money, and, wrapping him in a coat, left him lying in the snow, and the air temperature was two degrees below zero. Waking up, probably from the cold, D. went down to the bottom of the pit, got tangled in the wire, fell into the water and drowned at a shallow depth.
K- and S. were convicted 9 not only of stealing someone else's personal property, but also of premeditated murder. The verdict was changed by the Supreme Court 10. Based on the fact that the convicts “did not want D. to die, but did not help him sober up, that is, they acted frivolously and carelessly in this regard,” the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the BSSR reclassified the actions of the perpetrators to an article on liability for failure to provide assistance .
For the corpus delicti under consideration to exist, it was necessary to establish that the defendants, leaving D. on the street, were aware that his life was in danger. However, in this case, at the time of leaving the victim after his robbery, no danger to his life threatened. A slight frost was not this danger, and the defendants did not foresee that D. might freeze. The fact that the victim, having woken up, went not along the path that existed there, but to the bottom of the pit, could not be taken into account by the accused. Moreover, they could not foresee that D. would get entangled in the wire, fall into the water and drown at a shallow depth. The decision of the collegium correctly states that “there is no evidence in the case that K- and S. deliberately assumed that D. would get up and go not along the path to the exit from the pit, but inside the pit, fall into the water, definitely catch on wire and drown. Consequently, in this case there was no awareness of the danger threatening the life of the abandoned person, and in the actions of K- and S. there is no corpus delicti of the crime of failure to provide assistance.
The motives for not providing assistance do not matter: unwillingness to bother yourself, hostile attitude towards the victim, etc.
The subject of this crime is a person who is not specifically obliged to take care of the abandoned. If
Part 2 Art. 125 (part 2 of article 127), which determines liability for failure to fulfill the special obligation to take care of the abandoned, proceeds from the fact that such an obligation is established by certain acts, then part 1 of art. 125 (Part 1, Article 127) directly determines this duty itself. This obligation is legal, since the criminal law requires everyone, under threat of punishment, to provide assistance to a person whose life is in danger.
Many persons can be eyewitnesses of the danger threatening another person at the same time. This raises the question of the circle of persons responsible for the failure to provide assistance to the perishing.
Characteristic of the bourgeois criminal law doctrine is the artificial limitation of this circle. N. S. Tagantsev pointed out that responsibility for the failure to provide assistance on the part of persons who are not specifically obliged to provide it does not arise if the person who did not provide assistance “was only one of the spectators.”11
The German jurist List also ruled out liability if the person who did not help “had reason to expect with certainty that the abandoned person would be picked up by other persons.” him.”13 From the above statements it is clear that in the presence of a group of persons who were eyewitnesses to the danger threatening another person, impunity is guaranteed for everyone, even though he could help, but did not act. According to this point of view, it turned out that a single spectator who did not help the dying person was liable, while the inaction of several persons who had the opportunity to save the dying person more easily and quickly by their combined efforts excluded their responsibility. So, the pre-revolutionary lawyer N. Ti-mashev directly writes: “Why am I obliged to help, if only I can do it, and no one is obliged, if twenty people can do it.”14
These views are not random statements of individual authors. They follow from the foundations of bourgeois morality.
More than 100 years ago, K-Marx and F. Engels in the "Manifesto of the Communist Party" said that
that “the bourgeoisie, wherever it has achieved dominance ... has left no other connection between people than naked interest, a heartless “chistogan” ..., “that it has drowned human relations” in the icy water of selfish calculation.”15
Greed, greed, wealth, wealth and once again the wealth of an individual is a measure of duty, a measure of attitude towards human life, a measure of attitude towards saving a person from the danger that threatens him. The misfortunes of some are here a source of profit and welfare for others. The owner of large stocks of grain is interested in the fact that there is a drought - this will raise the price of bread; the doctor is interested in having more patients - this increases his income; "for the same reasons, the priest is interested in more people dying, and the architect - so that fires occur more often.
When another famine broke out in Russia in 1906, the issue of allocating money to help the starving became a subject of trade between the Cadets and the government. At the heart of this trade lay the struggle for the mastery of ministerial portfolios. Exposing the Cadets and calling the government a "government of pogromists", Lenin, ironically, said: "Give in to us, gentlemen, pogromists, appoint Muromtsev as prime minister instead of Yermolov, and we will give in to you and give you maybe 15, or maybe all 50 million to help the starving without the “dangerous” (both for you, the pogrom-makers, and for us, the landlords), resorting to the “free institutions” of the people.”16
During the flood in England in February 1953, the alarm was given only in some cities. Almost all English newspapers at that time drew attention to the fact that the population was not warned of the impending disaster, although there were alarming reports from the meteorological service. In most places, therefore, the inhabitants were taken by surprise, and many of them died before they could get out of the flooded houses.
During the earthquake of 1953 in the Greek city of Argostoli, the prison authorities, despite the desperate calls of political prisoners, continued to keep them in their cells so that they were destroyed, and on the island of Zakynthos, when on August 12 the prison building collapsed and
Wounded and maimed political prisoners tried to get out of the ruins, they were fired upon by machine guns.
On April 3, 1954, the Greek fishing vessel "Georgis" was caught in a strong storm. The car was damaged, and the ship headed for the Turkish coast. The Turkish Coast Guard soldiers, who saw the distress signals, instead of rushing to help, opened fire.
Bourgeois reality is rich in such examples.
However, in capitalist society, bourgeois morality is opposed by proletarian morality - the morality of the conscious part of the working people. In the struggle against the capitalist system and its misanthropic morality, the working people are forging the principle of mutual assistance and cooperation, concern for the individual. If in bourgeois society heroism and selflessness in saving people are not uncommon, then they take place mainly among the working people.
During a severe flood in the province of Rovigo in November 1951, the communists of Rovigo and other cities, at the call of the Communist Party, took first place in the ranks of the rescue teams. The Secretariat of the Italian Communist Party has decided that helping the affected population is at this moment the most important duty of all communists, of all honest citizens.17
In connection with the floods in Holland in February 1953, the secretary of the United Trade Union Center of Holland, Brandsen, declared: “Everywhere ... countless victims could have been avoided if the government had turned to the people. This is evidenced, in particular, by the successes of numerous fishermen, athletes and workers who acted on their own initiative. For example, young athletes from one of the yacht clubs, who were told that the authorities did not need their help, acting on their own initiative, saved 286 people.”18
Many examples of courage and selflessness were given by the common people of Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and other countries, saving sick and wounded Soviet soldiers who had escaped from captivity at the risk of their lives. The whole world knows the feat of the Italian peasant Cherry and his seven sons, who saved the beggars in their house.
reaped from the fascist camps of prisoners of war of the allied armies.19
Most of the criminal codes of bourgeois states contain articles on responsibility for failure to provide assistance in times of danger by an outsider.20 Such norms are a tribute to universal morality, but they do not agree with the foundations of bourgeois morality. Introduced into codes for demagogic purposes, they have no practical value. And a certain role in nullifying these norms was played by the above and similar comments on them, given by bourgeois scientists.
The unacceptability of limiting the circle of persons responsible for not rendering assistance to a dying person is obvious to socialist criminal law.
Part 1 Art. 125 (part 1, article 127) does not directly resolve the issue of the circle of persons witnessing the danger, and refers in this part to the norms of socialist morality. The presence of a group of eyewitnesses to the danger threatening someone indicates a greater possibility of joint efforts to save the perishing. Therefore, everyone who had a real opportunity to provide assistance without serious danger to himself should bear criminal liability for inaction - failure to provide assistance in the presence of a group of witnesses to the danger. Such a demand stems from the foundations of socialist morality and is in the best interests of protecting the lives of Soviet citizens. Analyzing the norm of the Criminal Code of the Polish People's Republic, similar to Part 1 of Art. 125 of our code, K-Bukhala, in full accordance with the requirements of socialist morality, writes: “If in any particular situation a group of persons is near the victim who is in danger, then the duty to provide assistance lies with everyone. None of them will be able to justify themselves by the fact that, in his opinion, others will help.21.
