What We Do...

Leadership

Innovation

Team Coaching

Sports Coaching

Executive Coaching

Mediation

Change Management

Article

Good Samaritan? Not a Good Idea

28-05-2009

The biblical parable of the good Samaritan address the human quality of altruism, which is about putting oneself out for others, and caring for them. The story surrounding this parable is that a wealthy Jewish man asks Jesus about the true path to “eternal life”. Jesus replies with the story of a Jewish man who is beaten, robbed and has his clothing stolen by criminals and is left to lie by the roadside. This man is passed by two people (both Jewish, one a priest) who do not render aid. I Samaritan happens by. There was a traditional animosity between the Jews and Samaritans and the Samaritan was of a different social class from the man who had been beaten. He renders aid to the man who is beaten and takes him to a nearby inn and pays for his care there. He also visits him later to check on his welfare. This is an example of the “love thy neighbour” principle. Despite differences in race and social class, the Samaritan saw this victim of violence as a fellow human being in need of help.

History is replete with feel-good stories about this endearing human quality. It forms the backbone of that much-vaunted Australian quality of “mateship”.

Last weekend was the Red Shield Appeal. Any military person will describe how the Salvo’s provide non-qualified support for people in harm’s way, often putting themselves in personal danger. The Salvo’s also provide enormous support for others in every day situations.

Just Enough Faith is based on the enthusiasm of one Geoff Gamin. Geoff became a successful restauranteur in Sydney after many years of hard work. He was reflecting morosely on a business problem he was having in The Domain one winter. A homeless man saw him and offered him his blanket (his main and probably only possession). Geoff Gamin reflected on this and developed an organisation called Just Enough Faith. This organisation is a non-religious organisation and feeds hundreds of homeless people in Sydney every day. It is staffed by volunteers. It also finds jobs, medical care and accommodation for homeless people. It is mainly funded from Geoff’s personal resources.

However, in violent situations coming to the aid of others can go horribly wrong. In May 2007 a young Melbourne solicitor, Brendan Keilar aged 43 was killed when he went to the aid of a young woman named Kara Douglas. She was shot by a male who she apparently did not know. A 25 year old Dutch backpacker also went to Kara’s aid. Brendan Keilar was killed in this incident and the Dutch backpacker spent several months in hospital recovering from his injuries. Keilar was married with 3 young children.

A further incident of this type happened this week in Melbourne. A young man, Luke Mitchell went to another’s aid when that person was being assaulted. As a result of his intervention, he was killed. The decision by Luke Mitchell to help was presumably based on an instinctive and impulsive desire to help a fellow human being in distress. Most of us can empathise with this. However, the repercussions were so grave that the issue merits further examination.

All of us face important decisions at some point in our lives. Examples are the choice of career, the place to live, whether to have children, who to choose for a partner, which house to buy etc., etc., etc.

All of these decisions are potentially life-changing. They are usually approached with some care, and some regard for the risks and benefits associated. They are usually discussed with trusted friends or family. Expert advice might be sought. When making these decisions we are applying the sophisticated reasoning section of our brain – the frontal lobe. The frontal lobe has the ability to “hold” large amounts of information, and to use that information to make decisions. The frontal lobe is the main reason human beings have become the dominant species on the planet.

Now, let us imagine being confronted with a violent situation where another person’s life is apparently threatened. If our frontal lobe was in change it would want a lot of information before making a decision to intervene. For example, Who is involved in this altercation? Does anyone here have a history of violence? Are drugs and alcohol an issue here? Is anyone armed and if so with what? If I intervene what are some likely outcomes? Does the attacker have colleagues nearby who I can’t see? What happens after I engage in this situation? Have the police been informed? Could there be long-term physical of psychological consequences for me? Might I be killed? What are the repercussions for the ones that I love?

Clearly there is just not enough time to perform these mental gymnastics in what is perceived as an emergency situation. The section of our brain concerned with the so-called “fight or flight” reaction comes into play. It is concerned with our immediate survival in threatening situations. It uses the neurotransmitter noradrenalin. This more primitive part of our brain processes information from our environment very quickly and prepares us to either engage with a threat or to run away from it. Clearly, there is no concern by this part of our brain for the possible long-term sequelae of our actions. The decisions made by the men mentioned above were based on an impulsive need to intervene where another human being’s safety was at risk. These were undoubtedly acts of “bravery”.

Most awards for bravery are made in the military context. Many of them are made posthumously. Citations concerning particular actions usually describe how the winner of the bravery award had “no concern for personal safety”. Military awards are different from the civilian situation in the sense that military people are at least trained in how to react in dangerous situations.

The streets of any modern city or town present humans with potentially dangerous scenarios, especially where behaviour might be fuelled by alcohol or drugs. The USA has the more pressing variable of firearms. Urban surgeons in USA are experts in the treatment of gunshot wounds. No need to go to Afghanistan. Luckily, we have largely avoided that problem in this country.

So, what to do if confronted by a violent situation?

Our frontal lobes would tell us to leave it to the experts. We should phone for help, or get to the nearest place to find help.
Logic would tell us to avoid personal involvement at all cost, given what we DON’T know. Of course this wouldn’t be possible if the person in danger was a loved one.
Having said all of this, some of the braver or more foolhardy amongst us will act impulsively because of the urgency we see in the situation. Unfortunately, the outcome can be tragic.
For this reasons it is important to at least consider how you might respond to such a situation in the calm light of day. Otherwise you might test the theory of neighbourly love leading to “eternal life” a little earlier than you planned.

This article and others can be viewed on my website www.workfitanalysis.com.au

Latest Articles

19-02-2010
Death in the Luge in Vancouver - Is This a Symptom of Something Else?

22-01-2010
Erwin Rommel - Lessons for Leadership and Management in the 21st Century

09-12-2009
Christmas Business

05-11-2009
Functional Foods, Fads or Pharmacy by Another Name

29-10-2009
Immigration: Populate and/or Perish

Work Fit Analysis

Archive

What We Do...

Article

Good Samaritan? Not a Good Idea

Latest Articles

Newsletter