Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] (OT) Ethical dilemma

Subject: Re: [OM] (OT) Ethical dilemma
From: Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 16:24:08 -0500
> So, Apostolic Pest Control? :-)

Actually, this is quite likely. There's a lot of aspects to the Bible
which deal with rather practical and mundane issues. Snakes have
historically been quite a problem in that region.


> And yet, as Charlie says, she could have called the EMTs.

Along with anybody else in the room. That is where the assessment of
others comes in. If they are all in a panic or operating in an
unrational manner (like this is rational in the first place?), then
she could have taken the initiative. Otherwise, abiding by the wishes
of the group was the proper action, I believe.

In reality, the ground rules of engagement should have been known
ahead of time. You mean to tell me that during the interview process
she hadn't already asked the 'what if" questions? Maybe her greater
sin is her incompetence as a photojournalist?


> AND, "When the pastor finally gave his permission to summon help, it was too
> late.", it would more likely not have been
> too late. A very different ending to the documentary, too.

Unknown. Each situation is unique. We don't know how many organs shut
down by that point.


> And, to me, a misunderstanding and misuse of God's way of working in the
> world. It seems to me to be an act of hubris,
> trying to force God to perform a miracle, and thus publicly show that they
> are better favored by God than others. Here,
> "Pride goeth before a fall." became literal.

Between you, me and the list, I pretty much agree with you. But this
also gets down into the nuts and bolts of apologetics, doctrines and
theologies. A slippery slope where we start comparing our weird
beliefs with somebody else's weird beliefs. At least mine aren't as
weird as yours. ;) To a person who has no beliefs whatsoever, any
belief is weird. The classic "thinnest kid at fat camp" scenario.
Meanwhile all the fat kids think everybody else is like a starving
refuge covered in flies.


> Out in the wild, proper snake boots on, proper attention paid, a rattler
> gets you anyway, no cell service? Then we can
> talk about Divine Providence, the power of prayer, etc.

EXACTLY! Deuteronomy 6:16 and Matthew 4:7 come to mind. We're not
supposed to put God to the test. Not a wise thing to do. Gideon's
fleece being an exception. But rule #1 in coming up with doctrines or
theologies is to never base it on just one instance of it in the
Bible--especially when the context may not be applicable today, nor
when there are other writings that can counter it. Of course, context
is extremely important--something that most critics can't fathom.


> Point two. What trust? How about her trust in them, not to put her in such
> an ethically difficult position?

Again, this shouldn't be a problem. As a photojournalist--technically
a reporter, it is her job to have covered these bases ahead of time.
By agreeing to be there, she assumed a level of risk. This entire
scenario should have been thought through ahead of time. I'm calling
this a "duh" item. Absolutely no excuse for her to have not already
known what the plan was.


> There is a public system in place.
> She could have invoked it, and done so without infringing on the church's
> system or the individual's rights.

Except she would have called on the "public system" to a "private
situation". There could be some inherent issues there. We don't know
how opposed to the government these people were either. That could
have gotten really ugly. Again, it's important to know the terms of
engagement before stepping foot into that situation.


> And finally, there is still "When the pastor finally gave his permission to
> summon help, it was too late." You haven't
> addressed that. Their system wasn't prepared to address such a failure of
> will - or realization that what worked before
> wasn't going to work this time.

Actually, it does address the failure of healing, but I don't think it
does for failure of will. As to the death, they shrug their shoulders
and say "it was just his time to go". No biggy.


> Yup, yup, yup. But why does such a decision need to involve an innocent,
> untrained, possibly panicky, bystander? How
> will her psychological/emotional life be affected? Now she may need
> counseling. Will the church pay?

Obviously, she isn't a true professional photojournalist. Or she's
such a newbie that this was her first death. Ask any first-responder
or medical professional about the trauma of their first death. Then
the second, third, fourth. If she wasn't prepared to see the potential
of somebody dying, she shouldn't have been there. Sorry to be a bit
callous over it, but she made the decision to be there and not be
adequately prepared.


> When my mother was dying, I intentionally abused her trust...

Ah, but you didn't actually violate the purpose of her directive. You
made the decision to keep her alive for the express purpose of
everybody being able to say goodbye. Not keeping her in a coma because
it's too upsetting to pull the plug.

AG
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz