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 12:19:53 -0500
Chuck, I tend to agree with your analysis. It's actually a lot like
bee stinks. There are people who will die with just one sting, others
can take thousands. But even those who work with bees who have managed
nicely around them for years and years may become victim to just the
very next sting. Maybe the person ate the wrong breakfast food or
something that morning.

I was very disappointed and wrote my displeasure in the responses
about the general comments and attitudes of the "enlightened". In this
"post-modern" world, it is now acceptable behavior to ridicule
Christianity, but ONLY Christianity. Other religions are fine or
neutral, but it is perfectly sporting and even encouraged to place a
target on those who call themselves Christian. Meanwhile, the moment
anybody pokes at YOU about something about YOU, watch out! But
Christians are fair game. Screw that, folks. Open your trap condemning
somebody else and I'll shove that garbage right back down your own
throat. Fair enough?

So, we have this preacher who is definitely out there on the fringes
of society. But don't blame his beliefs. He happened to be a minister
who ministered to a group of people who were also on the fringes of
society. He was very clear about the purpose of the snakes in his
ministry. It's called marketing. One thing this guy was not and that's
a huckser or shuckster. He happened to be the real deal and not just a
showman. The showmen don't die from bites because their snakes have
been "modified".

I have some theological differences with this group of people because
the KJV term "take up serpants" in the Greek actually was meaning to
"remove" not "play with". So, the whole basis of the belief, to my
understanding, is wrong. However, they back it up with a few other
scriptures which possibly could be used to back up the context of
their beliefs. Sometimes this gets into circular logic, though.

So, the question of the ethical delemma. Really, there is none. She
was there doing a very specific job. She was a GUEST, not an active
participant. She had her own job to do, they had theirs. The fact is,
snake bites happen at these events. People don't usually die. They
aren't wringing their hands over this, only she is.

Is it wrong for these practicioners to not use medical help? Actually,
yes it is. The premise of their belief is such that in this specific
situation their faith in God's protection is what it is all about.
It's ALL about this aspect. Again, I have an issue with the context
and premise of this form of belief when used voluntarily, but do
believe that "God" (or whatever positive energy form you happen to
believe in) is capable of performing healing or protection when
absolutely no other option is available.

I've been in a few situations through the years where I've had to make
a decision to NOT act. It's not always my fight. We deal with that all
the time in counseling. You can make suggestions and even tell the
people what to do, but it's up to them to do the right thing. Once in
a while, we are required to call the authorities about something
(child abuse, incest), but knowing that somebody is involved in a
criminal enterprise doesn't give us the authority/responsibility to
break the trust when this information is attained through the
counseling. One thing I learned many years ago is that EVERYBODY has a
secret. We have other ways of dealing with stuff other than the
obvious. Yet, professionalism has to reign. Had this photojournalist
acted by calling the EMTs, she would have broken two rules: First of
all, she would have become an active participant in the story.
Secondly, she would have violated the trust between the people and
her.

Had I been in that exact situation, I would have observed the overall
mindset of the people involved. Are they thinking and acting in a
rational manner or are they in full-blown panic mode. Asking two
questions would have been all that is required to know if your action
is required or desired.

We had a situation at our church recently. A couple year old boy had a
seizure out in the lobby. The parents were in total panic, the
relatives were praying over him like crazy, and one off-duty EMT
calmly assisted while another person dialed 911. Meanwhile my wife
kept preaching. Why? To maintain crowd control until the ambulance
left. All was well, but a system is in place.

I mention this because in the case where this snake handler preacher
died, they also had a system in place. They've been there, done that
before. As a casual observer, you may not see or understand the
"system", but it was there. It's when the sytem breaks down because
people panic that there is an issue. So what if this guy dies. That's
part of it. If nobody died, where is the risk? Without risk, where is
the reward? Without the reward, what's the reason for even being
there?

Hey, look at it this way--we're ALL terminal. With rare exception,
people don't leave this world alive. We get all stupid about spending
millions of dollars in medical costs to keep somebody alive a few
weeks longer. My boss lost his battle with lung cancer last month.
Diagnosed in November, dead in April. The chemo that kept him alive
for the six final weeks cost over $700,000. So, this preacher took the
risk with a snake, lost the bet and checked out a few years early. No
biggy, he knew he was eventually going to die anyway. Just as my boss
voluntarily subjected himself to the risk of lung cancer by smoking.

OK, I'll shut up now.

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