Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] (OT) Ethical dilemma

Subject: Re: [OM] (OT) Ethical dilemma
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:29:47 -0700
On 6/6/2012 10:19 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
> ... 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, Apostolic Pest Control? :-)

> 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.

And yet, as Charlie says, she could have called the EMTs. They are trained to 
deal with the issues involved (Probably 
especially there.) The pastor could then have dealt with them, they would have 
followed his wishes, and she would have 
no unmet ethical obligations to either parties. She could then have continued 
with her documentary project with a clear 
conscience, as well. I do think she was wrong, and so does she, or she wouldn't 
be having all the second thoughts.

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.

> 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.

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.

> 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.

Yet, that is not at all the situation here. The original danger was created 
through an act of human will, and extended 
through further acts of human will. As above, an effort to manipulate God for 
human purposes. I believe this old story 
applies:

"You remind me of the man that lived by the river. He heard a radio report that 
the river was going to rush up and flood 
the town, and that the all the residents should evacuate their homes. But the 
man said, "I'm religious. I pray. God 
loves me. God will save me." The waters rose up. A guy in a rowboat came along, 
saw him in a second story window and 
shouted, "Hey, hey you, you in there. The town is flooding. Let me take you to 
safety." But the man shouted back, "I'm 
religious. I pray. God loves me. God will save me." A helicopter was hovering 
overhead as he stood on the roof, his feet 
awash, and a guy with a megaphone shouted, "Hey you, you down there. The town 
is flooding. Let me drop this ladder and 
I'll take you to safety." But the man shouted back that he was religious, that 
he prayed, that God loved him and that 
God will take him to safety. Well... the man drowned. And standing at the gates 
of St. Peter he demanded an audience 
with God. "Lord," he said, "I'm a religious man, I pray, I thought you loved 
me. Why did this happen?" God said, "I sent 
you a radio report, a helicopter and a guy in a rowboat. What the are you doing 
here?"

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.

> 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.

Gotta disagree here. On point one, she was there as a photographer, not a 
counselor. Without that training, knowledge 
and experience; different professional rules apply. Who were the professionals? 
The EMTs.

Point two. What trust? How about her trust in them, not to put her in such an 
ethically difficult position? Calling EMTs 
doesn't break any trust, at least not any that should apply, for the simply 
reason that he would still have the right to 
refuse treatment, but from someone trained to deal with the situation.

To my mind, the 'trust' she would have broken doesn't stand up to letting 
someone die. Someone, to my mind, who doesn't 
really want to die, just to prove a point. Turn it over to the professionals

> 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?

Overall, I don't disagree with you. In the specific case at hand, I do. Not 
that medical assistance should be forced on 
the man, but the responsibility for that decision shouldn't reside in a 
photographer. 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.

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.

> 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.

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?

When my mother was dying, I intentionally abused her trust. I had her health 
care directive, with DNR and power of 
attorney. I used it to maintain enough care that my youngest brother and his 
wife could fly in, interact with mom, come 
to understand not only mentally, but emotionally, what was happening. I knew 
them well enough to know that otherwise 
they would have been unsure, possibly even convinced that I had not done the 
right thing, let her die unnecessarily, 
whatever. Sometimes, it's best to do what's right for those who will live on.

OK, I exaggerated a little. Once I had forced her into the ambulance and ER, 
she was in an ICU, and in a little better 
mental shape, she understood what I was doing, approved, and agreed to hold on 
if she could. Once everybody had come to 
agreement with her, the modest support was removed. A few hours later, with 
those from far away in attendance, she came 
briefly to consciousness just long enough to say "I love you." and stop 
breathing. How can one compare that experience 
to a phone call "Mom died!".

Serious consideration should be given to the future situation of those who will 
survive the crisis.

Compassionate* Moose

* To a fault? OK, I can live with that.

-- 
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
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