MelodyLaneGood morning, and welcome back, by the way. It's good to see you again.
Did anyone ever argue that the truth shouldn't be delivered in a thoughtful, careful way? I think that goes without saying, doesn't it?
That's what I think the responsibility is for telling the truth. And, if for some reason, you find yourself unable to BE thoughtful or caring then perhaps you shouldn't be the one to deliver the truth to that particular person.
If you deliver the truth in a way that maximizes devastation, maximizes pain, maximizes the chances that a bad end will result then you were probably better off leaving well enough alone. Which is to state that it might be more
ethical for you to leave the situation alone if you have some barrier (for whatever reason) within you that keeps you from acting responsibly about it (ie, if you're emotionally overwrought and seeking vengance). Truth for the sake of truth ignoring all attempts at compassion, thoughtful, careful manners can be just as harmful as continuing to live in a deception.
That's what I think of when I hear "do no harm." Now, maybe that's not what other's mean.. but that's my interpretation.
LemommanI don't know why the issue of delivery got even brought into this. It is understtod that the kind of truth revelaing would be done with compassion and humanity. Once again, people get more caught up in the messenger than the message. It is my opinion, that that is an error.
Since I was the one that brought it up, I'll answer that question.
The reason I brought up the manner of delivery is because I believe that to be relevent to the 'responsibility' and the 'responsibleness' of the messenger. One thing I remember from when a friend of mine died, is that the hospital called the new widow (23 years old, H committed suicide, tragic) and wouldn't tell her the news until she went down to the hospital and they all but insisted she not come alone.
When I think of responsibility of telling an important truth that might be devastating to someone else I think of things like: 1.) is my information accurate? 2.) can I do due dilligence to prevent as much collateral harm as possible (ie. having someone come down to a hospital rather than telling them over the phone)? 3.) is there any reason that I might not be able to perform my duties as a messenger in an ethical way (ie. I'm too emotionally involved in the situation and I might mix untruths and simple opinions with truths because of my state.)
If the topic is "What responsibilities do you have when telling someone the truth." then those are the responsibilities I would think someone would have. Are they responsible for bad behaviors after they've done due dilligence? I don't think so. Are there times when, ethically, you can understand that you might not be the person to convey the message. Yes, I think so. Is truth telling always compassionate? No. Sometimes, telling the truth isn't the compassionate thing to do. But, as Melody Lane has often said, those are the exceptions and not the general rule. I think most people should examine their boundaries around those types of situations and make sure that it's truly
compassion and not self serving squeamishness that prevents them from doing it. But, yes, occasionally, it can happen.
Mys
