Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Feat first isn't the ideal attitude for climbers

By Margaret Somerville - posted Friday, 2 June 2006


That bonding also explains, in part, why physicians tell us they have much more difficulty withdrawing treatment than withholding it, even though both are justified and the ethics of each situation is the same. In withdrawing treatment, they must breach that bond; in withholding it, the bond is not established.

You will notice that I haven't asked yet: Could Sharp's life have been saved? That's because the affronts to ethics and values are present regardless of the answer to that question.

It brings to mind that we now teach medical students that it's wrong to tell patients: "There's nothing we can do for you." Although that may well be true in terms of curing the patient, it is never true in relation to caring for them. Even if Sharp couldn't be saved, he could have been cared for as well as was possible in the circumstances.

Advertisement

Now, Sharp's predicament may have been been largely his own fault; he seems to have taken clearly unwarranted risks in not being properly prepared. But that does not excuse or justify failure to respond to his plight as best one could. That would be like saying that people who develop illness as a result of what are seen as lifestyle choices should not have access to publicly funded health care. That would be unethical.

The ethics of what we and others do or don't do must be put in context or it is just moralising, and most of us will never know, from first-hand experience, the context of "the roof of the world". But if we are to be ethical in our discussion, we must keep in mind the truism that good facts are essential to good ethics, especially to our subsequent ethical judgments.

We admire people such as climbers for their courage, fortitude and willingness to struggle and suffer. Never to give up, no matter what the odds. These are all manifestations of the best of the human spirit and they give us hope that we can nurture the same traits in ourselves to bring out the best in ourselves and others.

The problem in this case is that we sense there may have been a loss of humanity, a loss of soul. It seems that courage, fortitude and willingness to struggle and suffer would have been most powerfully manifested by turning away from the summit rather than moving towards it.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

First published in The Australian on June 1, 2006.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

16 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Margaret Somerville, an Australian, is founding director of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law in Montreal, Canada.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Margaret Somerville

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Margaret Somerville
Article Tools
Comment 16 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy