[it was a difficult question, and one she had wondered, looking at the syringe that had ever been her companion. would using it hurt someone else? would it cause them strife, to seal another's wounds? but at the same time, she knows she's selfish enough to do so. to say that her patients, who gave their lives to her hands, deserve to live. and she'll heal more and more wounds to make up for the damages.]
I think it depends on what the ratio ends up being in fear to aid. Causing a jolt of fear to a crowd in exchange for the power to save someone's life, that's something I could live with. No lasting harm done, while preserving those that seek our help. Where it grows less clear is weighing the concept of power over what might cause harm to multiple. Even if they may heal in time, and it is less dire than what we face, is the guilt something we can shoulder, if done with the best of intentions? Only the individual can answer that - whether one robs Peter to pay Paul, or so the saying goes.
Personally, I cannot deny there are times in which even the most well intentioned rules can be broken.(I am entirely aware of the individual in our department who can help death be avoided.) I think that at least somewhat, we should be aware of how much we rely on certain things, and adjust for their potential absence.
Alternately, there is a different course of action I can think of, though one ADI may not entirely approve of. Those who would willingly offer themselves to undergo that fear, to live through the horror, knowing that giving of themselves would enable others to do better and be more of aid. I strongly suspect, given the host of personalities in our organization, there might be those willing to test themselves and undergo such for the greater good. The struggle then lies in whether consent excuses what occurs.
It's not a question there's a single good answer to, though.
no subject
I think it depends on what the ratio ends up being in fear to aid. Causing a jolt of fear to a crowd in exchange for the power to save someone's life, that's something I could live with. No lasting harm done, while preserving those that seek our help. Where it grows less clear is weighing the concept of power over what might cause harm to multiple. Even if they may heal in time, and it is less dire than what we face, is the guilt something we can shoulder, if done with the best of intentions? Only the individual can answer that - whether one robs Peter to pay Paul, or so the saying goes.
Personally, I cannot deny there are times in which even the most well intentioned rules can be broken.(I am entirely aware of the individual in our department who can help death be avoided.) I think that at least somewhat, we should be aware of how much we rely on certain things, and adjust for their potential absence.
Alternately, there is a different course of action I can think of, though one ADI may not entirely approve of. Those who would willingly offer themselves to undergo that fear, to live through the horror, knowing that giving of themselves would enable others to do better and be more of aid. I strongly suspect, given the host of personalities in our organization, there might be those willing to test themselves and undergo such for the greater good. The struggle then lies in whether consent excuses what occurs.
It's not a question there's a single good answer to, though.