I'm sorry I wasn't more specific initially. You appear to think I am defending the company's position from a moral position. I'm absolutely NOT doing so.
In the case of the company, I meant they did the "contractually necessary" thing, the "legally correct for the liability of the company" thing. Not the "morally right" thing. That is what this whole discussion is about -- I think their contract is terrible.
It is horrifying to me that a contract can be legally made that requires a person to stand by and watch someone die whom they could save.
Therefore it is the contract that is is invalid and immoral.
I appreciate your concern, but you needn't worry about my guts, as my guts are just fine. I posted the article didn't I? :)
If you didn't have the guts to say it was wrong in the first place....then just can it.