Banty wrote:

I don't know what specifics would be decided - but a parent would be required to
take whatever steps they could. Parents do have affirmative responsibilites to
their children.

I'm not arguing that, they clearly do. However, I'd think there'd be
some limits to what the law would require even of a parent. If rescue
attempt is extremely likely to be fatal to the parent and extremely
unlikely to offer benefit to the child, i.e. the child's life is most
likely not preservable, I'd think it wrong for the law to require the
parent to act. I don't know what the law does think though.

In point of fact most of us who have kids would do it anyway, becase a)
we'd be moving before all of this logical cost/benefit analysis could
take place and b) the emotional burden of having let a child perish
while staying inactive would be crushing, even if it was the logical
decision. I'd just think it would be wrong for a failure to do so to
be prosecutable (again, in the situation I described where the rescue
attempt is probably both futile and extremely dangerous, not in normal
situations).

As described, child in raging flood waters and adult who can't swim,
I'd say a requirement for even a parent to act would be overboard.

Leaving the whole question of the unrelated woman aside (that will be
overturned), for the parent, it's an awful situation where one doesn't know what
would create the optimal outcome. Other than that it's a fairly good guideline
that professional help should be sent for first. And to be grateful that in
our society any particular individual would only rarely have to make those
decisions.

For sure.

Beth