Scouting, the Law, and You

[dScouter15 11]

In regards to the thread that this is spun from, I've been contemplating the role of "the law" in Scouting.

 

As Beavah and I both alluded to in the other thread, it seems like Scouters have a tendency to refer to various "state laws" and such, with little regard as to whether such a law actually exists, and how it (doesn't) apply to the situation being discussed. I would agree with Beavah that a lot of Scouters like to come across as sounding knowledgeable and authoritative, and spouting off legal "mumbo jumbo" is a good way to create that impression. A technique I've been using when I've encountered such "mumbo jumbo" is to simply ask the person to provide me with some sort of reference to the actual law, so that I can review it. As far as I know, all of our laws are written down somewhere, and most seem to be searchable on the Internet. So, if "state law" prohibits me as an adult leader from storing a scout's medication in the health lodge at camp, just point me to the section of the written law that prohibits that. Ironically, this seems to be the same technique that many experienced Scouters use on these forms when confronted with a BSA "Urban Myth." But then, on another thread, these same Scouters will propagate "urban myths" pertaining to medications and medical care, or some other topic only incidentally related to Scouting.

 

But, I think that there's a couple valid perspectives on this issue. To start with, a core belief of our Scouting program is that "A Scout is Obedient." We teach Scouts that we obey our communities laws. If we disagree with a law, we work to change it in a respectful and responsible manner, we don't just ignore it. We should be teaching this by setting the example. For this reason, I get a little frustrated when people adopt the attitude that they can ignore legitimate rules, laws and regulations because they "know better." People often justify their actions by saying its "common sense," or that its unlikely that anyone would prosecute them for it. A couple questions, then: Do we typically obey the law out of fear of punishment? Or do we typically obey the law because its the right thing to do, and because we believe that obeying the law will help keep our communities safer, happier and healthier? To those who believe that common sense is superior to the law, I would remind them of all of the examples we see of Scouters who believe that their "common sense approach" to the uniform method, to the patrol method, to youth protection, etc, is superior to the BSA guidelines. How often do we criticize these leaders, and defend the BSA policies as ultimately being the better practices, even though the reasons for the policies might not be immediately obvious, or might be more "work" to comply with?

 

On the other hand, its often pretty easy to understand why this group holds these views. Its easy to become cynical and sceptical of our country's legal system when one reads about some of the ridiculous laws on the books, and ludicrous outcomes from trials and court proceedings. (Especially when one mostly hears about such things through the filter of a sensational news media, or through stories heard 2nd- 3rd- or 4th- hand, which have themselves become urban legends.) Perhaps there are occasions when common sense should trump the law, when following the letter of the law would actually jeopardize safety, or represent a truly exorbitant about of extra, unnecessary work for those involved. How, then, do we reconcile this view with what I've discussed above?

 

However, there's also a sizeable portion of Scouters who do make an effort to comply with every applicable rule, regulation and law. This group probably has some variety of motivations - a desire to do the right thing, a fear of punishment, a fear of jeopardizing health and safety, or just a desire to "dot the I's and cross the T's." Unfortunately, this group of Scouters often becomes an eager, gullible audience for the first group I discussed, who seem enjoy citing laws with may or may not actually exist. People then get all worked up worrying about HIPPA and whether they're allowed to look at what allergy medication little Johnny's taking at scout camp. I think the intentions of this group are good, but its clear that its not always the most practical approach.

 

So, I know this has been a long, philosophical post, and I hope I didn't put anyone to sleep. I guess my question is - what's the best way to balance the above factors? Is there anything that the BSA or a local council could be doing to provide more guidance and support for volunteer leaders struggling with these questions?

[Frank17 10]

As an attorney, I can also tell you people often get confused about to whom a law pertains. For example, as a private individual, it is perfectly legal for me to discriminate based on race, creed, gender, or sexual orientation. It is only when I represent someone other than myself as a person that I may be breaking the law. For medical records, HIPAA, The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 is the one most often cited, and it is only applicable to private practice doctors acting within their practice, hospitals, clinics, insurers, etc. It has nothing to do with you as a Scout leader, even if you are a doctor, as you are not acting within your practice on a scout outing. This is separate from scout campy hired medical staff which may maintain a camp clinic. So many of the urban myths come from the mis-application of this law.

[shortridge 184]

I think HIPAA is a special case. Because it's so far-reaching and widespread - every pharmacy has a notice on the wall; every doctor's office has a privacy policy form you have to sign - it's grown into an easy-to-blame boogeyman, even for medical professionals who should know better. Far better to err on the side of caution and keep everything as private as possible, the thinking goes. And I really can't blame that line of logic, however incorrect.

[Horizon 97]

I will stick to Scouting first.

 

I think that part of the problem is not knowing WHY some rules exist.

 

Let us take the sheath knife issue. From the BSA: "Avoid large sheath knives. They are heavy and awkward to carry, and unnecessary for most camp chores except for cleaning fish." With this we know that a sheath knife is NOT prohibited. We also do not have a definition of "large." When I talk to my Scouts, I discuss the Rambo knives of the 80s that everyone wanted but that were typically made of cheap materials and could not hold an edge. However, a true Bowie knife is a great blade, and can be used as a wood chopping device as well. So in reading the BSA guidelines, I find that they are not specific, the justification is arguable, and that the application in the field is full of urban myth moments. Once a rule is found to be questionable, that can lead to people questioning other rules as well.

 

Questioning the rules is a form of being Mentally Awake, IMHO.

 

With the web, I think that the BSA is doing a good job of slowly filling in the blanks on WHY we have certain rules. The more people understand why we have a rule, I think we will have more people follow that particular rule. Even better, they will apply that rule to all situations, instead of just to the narrow definition.

 

When we teach Scoutcraft, we try to explain the WHY. The boys appreciate it, and are more likely to follow the rules, guidelines, suggestions, etc.

[Beavah 205]

So, I know this has been a long, philosophical post, and I hope I didn't put anyone to sleep. I guess my question is - what's the best way to balance the above factors?

 

Yah, I reckon that a few (shelves of) books have been devoted to that question, eh? Philosophy of Law and all that.

 

For me, I always try to remember that da law is a human-made thing that is meant to serve people, not the other way 'round. Only one law deserves true Obedience, and that's Divine Law. Yeh don't steal because stealing is wrong, not because it's against the laws of your state. And even when stealing isn't against the law (like makin' complex derivatives and sellin' 'em as investment grade stuff ala Enron or Goldman or AIG), it's still wrong.

 

So obey divine law. Da rest is all subject to the dictates of personal conscience. Like Frank17 says, some laws are serious and should be followed almost all the time (no committin' homicide), while others are just minor infractions that yeh might choose to violate for practical purposes and pay an additional tax (like lettin' your parking meter run out). Some laws have good intent (like a weapons-free school law), but still need to be ignored in some cases in order to be just (like when the kid brings a butter knife to school). Some laws don't apply to everyone (like HIPAA), and some things just aren't laws (like BSA program materials) and shouldn't be treated like they are.

 

I like Horizon's bit. We want scouts to develop well-informed personal consciences, eh? That means we have to talk to 'em about WHY we do things, and how to make good judgments. One must always exercise some degree of judgment about obedience to any human or human-propagated law.

 

As for BSA stuff, I reckon I've been around too many decades. I've seen the program materials change too many times to keep count, and I've been involved with too much international scoutin'. There's no one right way to do scouting well, and even da BSA is constantly rethinkin' things and changing them up to respond to conditions. That's because we're about service to boys. If yeh focus on service to boys and follow divine law, yeh can't go too far wrong.

 

Beavah

 

[Eamonn 61]

dScouter15

Somewhere along the line you lost me!

I have to the best of my knowledge never picked up a law book in my life.

Everything I think I know about the law is stuff that I've been told or I have been led to believe is the law.

Even when I'm driving I see the posted speed limit and most times follow it, because I think it is the law.

I do carry a State photo ID which has a red band on it, which I have been told when there is a state of emergency allows to to drive faster than the posted limit.

I haven't ever taken the time to look this up. But being as I was informed of this in an email from Pennsylvania Sectary for Corrections (My big boss!) I'm happy to take his word for it!

I like to think I'm a person who uses common sense.

I know and am aware that sometimes there is some risk in this.

If a Lad at summer camp came to me telling me that he had diarrhea, I'd more than lightly offer him the right sized dose of OTC medication that would help.

I think in 99.9999% of most cases he would either get better and everything would be fine or if he didn't we would seek professional help and he'd get better and again everything would be fine.

There is I suppose a risk that he might not know and I defiantly wouldn't know that he was allergic to the medication and something bad might happen.

In a perfect world I should have contacted his parents and got their OK before giving it to him! But for the sake of this post! Lets say I didn't!

I have heard that I might be guilty of all sorts of things!

Truth is that I have no idea what I might be guilty of!

I do know that I'd never knowingly harm or hurt a Scout. So there would be no intent on my part.

The BSA might have something somewhere that says I shouldn't do this (So far I've yet to see it and I guess I might be willing to ignore it anyway!)

So as things are right now, I don't think I would have broken any laws.

If the Lad had some nasty things happen to him because of my giving him the medication, I suppose his parents could file a suit against me and there is a good chance that they would win.

In fact I think they should win.

(In this new information age, I would try and contact the parent to cover my tail.)

 

I'm not saying that I know what the law is or isn't.

I'm not trying to set myself above the law.

I might be taking a risk.

I would never tell anyone that they should be willing to take the same risks that maybe I'm willing to take.

I think at the end of the day each of us knows how much risk we are willing to bear.

Some people want to have every last piece of information and know all the ins and outs before they are willing to make a move.

That's fine, if that's how they want to go about things.

Some people are so worried that something bad will happen that the end up doing nothing. I think that's a shame but in some ways I do understand it.

While it might be good that someone is willing to explain to me the risk I might be taking.

The last thing I need is some sanctimonious poop who knows as little about the law as I do, quoting chapter and verse about something he or she has no knowledge of.

Ea.

[Scoutfish 16]

Speaking of law...let's really stir it up.

 

About 15 years ago in NC a few various laws were passed to take effect the following Jan 1st.

 

On Jan 2nd, most newspapers printed an article that basically stated that a law concerning fishing, was slipped into a bill that had absolutely nothing to do with fishing. When the bill was passed and ratified into law, so was the item.

 

The item? A proposal to make gigging flounder illegal.

 

Who noticed it or reported it to the right people is beyond me, but it made the papers and tv news. The state representative who handles or oversaw that kind of stuff( Marc Basinight of NC) was on the news saying that : The NC Marine Fisheries Dept as aell as the NC Wildlife Commision would not enforce that law under authority of the NC house and senate.

 

So what is my point?

 

Well, on the books was a law that was voted on and pased and written in the books, but had no validity or worth.

 

Had you needed to research it, it would be written down plain as day..right in front of your face - but was not in fact a law.

 

So If you and I argued that law on Jan first....who would be right?

 

So agin, what is might point?

 

My point is>..Even if you KNOW the law, you might not know it!

 

Eamon, In NC, we have the Good Samaritan law.

As long as you, in good faith are trying to help somebody in ditress or danger, you are protected from lawsuits or charges of neglect.. If a person wrecks their car, flips it and it catches on fire, and you pull that unconscious person out, but turns out they had a neck injury which was worsened by your help...they cannot sue you. You were trying to save their life.