This is a particularly interesting, and relevant question. As the writer suggests, there are many factors involved here, not least of which is the so called 'complexity trap'. As a former nurse, I can vouch for the fact that there are times when we can be accused of overstepping the mark. What should be the normal and compassionate response to such a situation has become more complex, with the possibility of legal implications, because in the worst case scenario, intervention could inadvertently lead to the person's death.

Added to this is our present day reluctance to get involved due, at least in part, to the increasing level of terrorist activity. Many individuals have responded to this by becoming increasingly wary, and deliberately refusing to become involved in any type of public intervention.

A third objection may be that in our age of medical specialization, there are quite rigid protocols among both medical and nursing staff as to who is responsible for acting in a given situation. However, that is usually only relevant within the hospital environment, and should not apply in a situation such as this.

And yet, none of these factors are really an excuse for non-intervention. Because, in the end, if we make a conscious decision not to become involved with the problems and misfortunes of others, we will become increasingly isolated and self-centred, making a mockery of the word 'community'. Is that what we want? When we hesitate, chewing over the possible implications of our actions, it may then be too late. I think we need to put to rest the idea that the 'good Samaritan' no longer exists. Certainly there may be repercussions, but in the final outcome I think that prompt action should be our immediate concern.

It's the 'Bystander Effect':

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect

It isn't new and isn't exciting. Please, Santa - or Good Father OLO (whoever is listening) - may I please have an exciting science story in time for Christmas?

Because we have been inculcated with the need for Me, Me, Me, power and money, and just being individualistic, with unfettered ambition and aspiration touted as real honest to goodness positives.

And in so doing, have created a soft and spoiled generation, who always put themselves and their must have desires ahead of every formerly worthwhile good Samaritan deed!

With the occasional exception proving the rule?

There was a time when it was just good manners to get up and offer the oldie your seat!

Now all we oldies seem to get are self indulgent brats acting out as two year olds, smoking wherever they want, putting their feet on the back of your chair and even kicking it, if you have one, and interlacing their puerile chatter with endless expletives and spitting, because they think that looks tough and designed to intimidate?

Sadly, it remains a truism that you can't polish a turd! Or turn a sow's ear into a silk purse!
Rhrosty.

This is a terrible news report of insolent youth and a stricken senior citizen:
The Man from Ironbark - Wallis & Matilda
www.wallisandmatilda.com.au/man-from-ironbark.shtml

It was the man from Ironbark who struck the Sydney town, He wandered over street and park, he wandered up and down. He loitered here, he loitered there, ...

Thanks Toni for including the 'Bystander Effect' Wikipedia reference, which describes it as "a social psychological phenomenon that refers to cases in which individuals do not offer any means of help to a victim when other people are present". While the content is interesting, most of the references are old (1968-2011), and there is no direct comparison between "then and now". In other words, there is no indication as to how responses have altered over recent years, just as society has changed.

I believe human behaviour has changed in this regard, for the reasons I gave in my earlier comment.