Any help with the following questions? This is all the info I have.

1. what is the common law's traditional viewpoint concerning a bystander's duty to come to the aid of a person in need? How, if at all, is that duty different today? How might it differ depending on who the bystander is?
2. Discuss theChildscase with your classmates. Why do you suppose the hospital did not have a physician present or immediately available to assist in its ED? Why would a physician not come to the hospital and personally examine a woman in labor? What were the motives of the parties involved?
3. Describe a hospital's duty to a person who comes to the ED requesting treatment. Is this duty the same if the person is indigent?
4. In theArringtonopinion regarding what it means when someone "comes to the hospital," the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth District wrote approvingly of HHS's position that "it would defeat the purpose of EMTALA if we were to allow hospitals to rely on narrow, legalistic definitions of 'comes to the emergency department' or of 'emergency department' to escape their EMTALA obligations."⁶⁵Which is the more "legalistic" interpretationthat of HHS and the court or that of the person who reads nuances into the plain words of the statute? The case is an excellent example of how seemingly simple language can create serious problems of interpretation. How might you have written the statute to avoid the kinds of ambiguities seen in these cases?
5. IsArringtonthe work of "activist judges" who are "making law," as some critics claim about decisions they do not agree with?
6. What are the liability hazards of requiring all members of the medical staff to take ED duty?
7. What effects have Good Samaritan statutes had on the duty to render aid in an emergency?