• Breadcrumb navigation uses Javascript

---

Society has built-in responsibilities

by Simon Longstaff

With good fortune, most people will pass their lives without tragedy. Yet, for some, their existence will be blighted by events that defy understanding and explanation. It might be the unexpected death of a child or the loss of all one's possessions in a flood, or injury sustained simply from being in the wrong place at the wrong time (as happened when an attempted suicide broke his fall by landing on and permanently injuring an acquaintance of mine as he walked through London).

In these circumstances we are naturally inclined to look for someone or something to blame. This inclination to blame others for our misfortune is strong enough to persist even when we are largely responsible for our poor circumstances. It is virtually irresistible as an urge when we appear blameless.

In times past there used to be a host of convenient scapegoats. For example, you might find a pantheon of malign spirits ready to make mischief with the human condition. Non-conformists were also a ready source, often labelled as being in the service of dark powers. Bad luck also could be explained by reference to karmic debt in which the consequences of misdeeds in one life are played out in the next, or determinism (in which all events can be explained in terms of an unending and fixed chain of cause and effect).

Whatever the specific pattern of blame, it often reflected a common sense that some things were beyond the control of individuals. Taken to an extreme (as it sometimes was) this approach allowed people to escape the consequences of their actions, excused on the grounds that ultimate responsibility lay elsewhere.

However, a different temper pervades this day and age. Its focus is the autonomous individual and its signature is the assignment of blame – not necessarily where actual fault lies, but where the capacity for compensation is greatest. This is the context in which Sian Powell's discussion (The Australian, 12 December 2000) of a doctor's refusal to render medical aid to a stranger needs to be considered.

Any person who takes seriously the idea of a profession (defined by the practitioners' commitment to set aside self-interest in favour of the interests of others) must reject arguments seeking to excuse doctors from helping the sick and injured lest they suffer financial loss in the courts. Yet, while we may not excuse doctors from fulfilling their professional obligations, we might re-examine the institutional settings in which they do so.

This will require us to challenge the contemporary assumption that every evil is owed a remedy and that the burden of making good should fall on to the shoulders of those involved in the circumstances leading to suffering. For example, Western Australia and NSW have in place schemes that limit the liability of occupational associations such as engineers, surveyors, accountants and so on. Liability is capped on the recommendation of an independent statutory authority (the Professional Standards Council) that requires each group to have minimum levels of insurance, proper procedures in the areas of risk management, professional development, complaints handling and so on.

Approved schemes provide for the kind of balance outlined above. Those who have suffered loss are assured of support through the operation of adequate insurance. Consumers are protected from poor conduct as a result of the focus on preventative measures that enhance professional conduct and competence. Members of the schemes are assured that they are exposed to defined and manageable risks.

The law is not yet perfected and even elements in the NSW Government seem determined to undermine it. Furthermore, it does not cover cases of personal injury (so doesn't help doctors, nurses, dentists and so on). But for all its limitations, the parliaments of NSW and Western Australia have found an innovative way to balance competing expectations and may offer a way ahead in other jurisdictions.

What they have not done is address the deeper issue of how blame is apportioned in our society. Perhaps the urge to blame the individual and extract the pound of flesh can be linked to a palpable loss of our sense of community. If the person who suffers is not our neighbour, then why not leave them to bleed on the side of the road? If we do not feel like a community, then how can we be motivated to share the cost of helping those whom life has wounded? And if the butcher, baker or candlestick maker is a stranger to us, then why not let them individually pay the price of any mistake they might have made?

In such circumstances, if an arsonist uses a candle to burn down a house, even the hapless candlestick maker is liable to be sued.

The unhappy truth is that when bad things happen it is not always because someone is at fault. One option may be to vent our fury at whatever or whoever comes to mind. Another might be to recognise our interdependence and give life to our sense of community. Rub-a-dub-dub; we're all in this tub.

discuss this article

---