Title: The Legal and Ethical Controversy over the Drowning of a Swimming Instructor
Body:
Recently, an incident of accidental drowning of a 25-year-old swimming coach has attracted widespread attention. According to reports, at the time of the incident, a female colleague filmed the entire accident process and did not carry out rescue. After the incident was exposed, netizens questioned whether the female colleague's behavior was suspected of breaking the law. This article will analyze the legal and ethical controversies behind this incident.
The incident is as follows: Recently, a 25-year-old swimming coach drowned while teaching in the swimming pool. It is understood that at the time of the incident, the coach was instructing the trainees to practice swimming. Suddenly, the coach slipped and drowned. What is shocking is that during the whole process, a female colleague actually filmed the whole process without rescuing the coach. After the video was exposed, it aroused widespread attention from public opinion.
Regarding the behavior of female colleagues, netizens expressed anger and doubts. Some people believe that a female colleague who failed to lend a hand in time after witnessing the drowning of the coach is suspected of committing a crime. However, it was also argued that the female colleague was not a professional rescuer and that she might not know how to administer first aid, so she could not be blamed for not doing so. For a time, there were different opinions in the field of public opinion, and whether the behavior of female colleagues was illegal became the focus of controversy.
Before discussing whether the behavior of female colleagues is illegal, let's first understand the relevant legal provisions. According to Article 138 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, "A person who has an obligation to rescue shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than five years or criminal detention if he fails to perform his or her duty to rescue another person in danger of endangering his life, resulting in the death of another person." In addition, the Tort Liability Law of the People's Republic of China also clearly stipulates that any person shall bear tort liability for the damage caused by his own acts.
In a similar situation, how to determine the liability and legal basis? First of all, we need to make it clear that female colleagues, as witnesses at the scene, do have an obligation to help. However, when judging whether she has violated the law, the following aspects need to be considered: first, whether the female colleague has the ability to rescue, second, whether she is aware of her obligation to rescue, and third, whether her behavior after the incident constitutes intentional failure to help.
Looking back on this incident, we can find that the female colleague did not immediately take rescue measures after witnessing the drowning of the coach, nor did she call 120 for help. From a moral point of view, this behavior is clearly inconsistent with the values of caring for life. However, from a legal point of view, whether it constitutes a violation needs to be further investigated. Because at the time of the incident, the female colleague may not be aware of her rescue obligations, and may not know how to administer first aid. In such a case, it cannot simply be found to have committed an offence.
In fact, this is not the first such incident. In recent years, there have been many controversies on the mainland caused by witnessing others in distress and failing to rescue them. The outcome of these cases varies, reflecting the complex interweaving of ethics and law in real life. Here, let's take an example to compare.
In 2018, a man suddenly fainted in a Wuhan subway station, and passengers around him watched but no one rescued him. Later, the man tragically died. In this case, although the passengers at the scene did not carry out the rescue, their actions were not suspected of breaking the law. Because according to mainland law, ordinary citizens do not have professional rescue capabilities, and in a similar situation, dialing 120 for help is a reasonable choice. In this case, the female colleague did not call 120, which may be a place for her to reflect morally.
Based on the above analysis, we can conclude that although the behavior of the female colleague in this swimming coach drowning incident is morally controversial, whether it constitutes a crime needs to be further investigated. The enlightenment brought to us by this incident is that whether in life or at work, we should enhance our safety awareness, abide by laws and regulations, and care for life. At the same time, we must also learn to lend a helping hand in a timely manner, pass on positive energy, and jointly create a harmonious and loving social environment.