Hi @maymay, glad I met you. Now we have talked about the weather i’d like to talk business. We are working on setting up a opencare-makerspace and your experience and software could be of great help. (I just read your description now so maybe im inferring too much).
You say you have implemented what I read as an automatic triage ( intake, dispatch, and field support toolkit). Could it be used to ‘filter’ people that could benefit from the initiative?
If I understand right this can be used as an alternative to 112. So Buoy poses a risk and could be identified as ‘responsible’ for causing health damage. Have you measures to protect you from that? Please consider share in my post:OpenCare Legal Evasion Guide: mortal issues for humans helping out
You say you have implemented what I read as an automatic triage ( intake, dispatch, and field support toolkit). Could it be used to ‘filter’ people that could benefit from the initiative?
No, it’s not “automatic,” it’s logistical support, built for communities who take a participatory rather than expert-specialist approach to community needs. It doesn’t filter people, it supports people in self-selecting both what they want to do and who they want to do it with/receive care from. This is the opposite of filtering, but can be viewed as having a similar outcome.
Buoy poses a risk and could be identified as ‘responsible’ for causing health damage. Have you measures to protect you from that?
No, I haven’t. I basically don’t care at all about laws. I am not trying to abide by or interface with them in any way. I view laws primarily as unfortunate obstacles that should be removed, because such a concept as “the law” would not exist in a free society. I am writing free software, and I do not care what laws say. Laws are weapons of a ruling class. My only consideration for the law is to say fuck them, and fuck their laws. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Wait, @rune . Why would Buoy be “causing” health damage?
Suppose I am a Buoy user. I get hurt. I call my friends. They come help me out, but do not do the right thing. As a result, I have some damage, let’s say an ugly scar that could have been less ugly.
Did they “cause” the damage? Isn’t that stretching causality a bit far?
Also, is this not exactly the same problem of people engaging in first aid, for example Community First Responders in the UK? It must have been solved by now, or these schemes would be dead in the water.
Legislation is stretching causality too far everyday
@alberto, I’m have no expertice in that matter and I dont like it, but here is my two cents.
You feel ill, pain i your arm and vomit in the mittle of the nigth (real life example). Instead of calling 112, you use Buoy to call a friend (thereby wasting precious time). Say, your friend takes his time. He sits with you a couple of hours, because it seems like a simple flu. Around noon they pick up your dead body - you had a cardiac arrest.
The judge will say: The provider of Buoy has discouraged that 112 was called, impeding immediate lifesaving intervention from a heart ambulance and could be condemned as culpable homicide and the friend (who could even be a doctor) did not recognize the symptoms (like in the real life example) is also responsible.
Every week the press has stories where ‘Legislation is stretching causality too far’ and to protect OpenCare initiatives against absurd accuses we will need to take constructive measures, but we need some legal people to help us.
Maybe we could even find a way of having a collective insurance (Open?). Could something like what e.g. AirBnB offers be an idea?