In the same time the contemporary society promotes individualism, which often becomes a direct route to egoism. Thus when the person faces situation the Bible's proverb about the Good Samaritan describes, the dillema appears between the two motivations, which are the desire to receive social recognition, and approval and the desire not to cause inconvenience or danger to himself or herself.
The doctors, jurists, human right defendants and social; activists argue severely for whether the duty to rescue should be obligatory, or it would be fair to leave citizens the right to choose whether they desire to commit this or that act and to provide help, assistance and care to this or that person. As with all the dilemmas that involve conflicts between the legal issues and ethical principles, the answer is ambiguous.
"Whatever one might think of the morality of declining to rescue people in trouble, there no legal penalty for merely going about your own business." , says Donald J. Kochan, the author of the article called The Pervasive Duty to Rescue. The absence of this legal basis lets every person who faces this situation decide for himself or herself whether he is able to sacrifice some of his/her time, effort, or money in order to preserve the life or/and well-being of the other human being or just alive creature.
On the one hand it gives people the opportunity to grow morally as they do something good, sometimes even heroic, without being forced to do it. When the person is obliged to save the life of the other person legally, doing so is not heroism; it is merely obeying the law. For the adepts of this viewpoint coerced benevolence devaluates the mere notion of it, as it is natural for them that those kinds of deeds should be performed by the free will.
On the other hand the absence of this law contradicts to the proclamation that is constantly being made by the doctors, politicians and human rights defendants, which is about the main value of our society. They say that what is considered to be the highest value is human life. Those who are against the introduction of this law motivate it by the guarantees of personal freedom that were granted by the Constitution. In this case personal liberty is given more value than the human's life.
An impression is created that some of those who are strongly against the introduction of this law care mostly for their personal convenience. For example, David Schmitdzputs puts a rhetorical question: "if we have a duty to rescue in a local emergency, must we also have a duty to rescue people from chronic famine in foreign countries" Those people are afraid to take even a small obligation, as they feel it would deprive them of the possibility to live the way they like it. For them such a law will seem to be an attempt of the government to take more control on their lives, or even take away some of their freedoms and rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Increasing discomfort is the main fear of this category of people, as they value their personal comfort more than the lives of the greatest parts of dwellers of our planet.
The fact that there is no legal duty to rescue is interpreted in different ways, and some of the social scientists still argue about the meaning of it. Regardless of the controversy of this issue a concept exists that successfully defines its meaning, which's expressed by Lester H. Hunt in his article An Argument against a Legal Duty to Rescue. He tells that: