@walterallenhaxton I truly try to understand your point, but unfortunately, I seem unfit.
In any case, I percieve the difference in your and my approach somewhat in the same way as I perceive a difference between two following interpretations:
1) When being confronted with an accident victim, in one country a doctor may choose to interfere and has to accept the risk of being sued when his interference doesn’t work out the right way.
2) When being confronted with an accident victim, in another country a doctor may choose not to interfere and has to accept the risk of being sued for not using his skills to at least try to save the victim.
I believe that not interfering in order to avoid harm is not always the best choice. In my mind intent and a commitment to help others when possible should be leading.
I am Dutch, so overall I am from a people that cling to their freedom fiercely. (In many respects I feel the Dutch put higher value to personal freedom than for instance the people in the US,) I do believe though that a government should serve its people and that sometimes means it will have to accept the risk of harm. On top, in real life, sometimes one has to choose between various harms and choose the lesser.