I think it is clear that no-one in society would have an interest in there being such a convention.
On the one hand, anyone who thought that they might someday need saving wouldn't favor the policy, since it could mean at the moment of danger that a potential saver would feel inhibited from actually doing the saving, out of concern about the burden arising from the extra responsibility that the policy entails. Thus, before or even during the moment of danger, the would-be saved person, worrying that they might not get saved, would prefer society to abandon the policy.
On the other hand, a person who just wants to save another person's life at that moment wouldn't want to be burdened with the extra responsibility of looking after them forever onwards, and hence would also prefer to abandon the policy.
A more logical policy, perhaps, and one which also sometimes appears in the popular culture venues you mention, calls in contrast for the saved person to have some lifelong duty towards the saver.
Answer from JDH on Stack ExchangeI'm a middle aged man and can't believe that I thought this quote was real until I tried searching for its origin today (reason why below). The closest thing I could find was a Caine quote from "Kung Fu" along with some terrible Yahoo Answers and finally one person explaining how this was a Mcguffin to explain some exotic Asian responsibility.
Can anyone confirm or refute this?
The closest saying that's real seems to be, "Saving one life is akin to saving the world." Which reminds me a lot of Heroes' "Save the Cheerleader, save the world."
Why I was searching for it: I live in Phoenix, AZ and noticed a stray dog in the neighborhood. Took her in when the temp hit 120 and nobody claimed her. Got her a wellness check and found she's going to need $$$$ worth of surgery. I could drop her off at a shelter or at county but I feel responsible for her cuz this damn quote kept going through my head.
I think it is clear that no-one in society would have an interest in there being such a convention.
On the one hand, anyone who thought that they might someday need saving wouldn't favor the policy, since it could mean at the moment of danger that a potential saver would feel inhibited from actually doing the saving, out of concern about the burden arising from the extra responsibility that the policy entails. Thus, before or even during the moment of danger, the would-be saved person, worrying that they might not get saved, would prefer society to abandon the policy.
On the other hand, a person who just wants to save another person's life at that moment wouldn't want to be burdened with the extra responsibility of looking after them forever onwards, and hence would also prefer to abandon the policy.
A more logical policy, perhaps, and one which also sometimes appears in the popular culture venues you mention, calls in contrast for the saved person to have some lifelong duty towards the saver.
To me it looks like a false dichotomy that stems from improper inversion of the 'opposite' concept that not saving somebody's life if you have the chance to makes you responsible for his death.
So, looks more like typical Hollywood fiction.