This is not hypothetical.

For the last week I have been burdened with the knowledge that someone I know is lying in a hospital bed facing the very real possibility of life-long paralysis. The don't want this known, and they don't know that I know (I have my means).

At my disposal is a network of significant community members who could bring to bear much needed support and resources. And believe you me I know what impact and complications impaired mobility can bring to bear upon a life, not least of which are matters of self care and the threat of choking during sleep, let alone diminished community participation and reduced social interaction.

I could act to aid this person and diminish the jeopardy they face, but in doing so I will make their current circumstances public and thus bring unwanted attention (and in their opinion, shame) upon them, the very thing that motivated their demand for silence.

"Do no harm."

There is one axiom, among others, that should be rooted deeply in the heart of all ethics: Do No Harm.

By not acting upon a set of circumstances, facts, or conditions, that one knows will lead to harm, one is indirectly causing harm by proxy, fait accompli.

But in this scenario taking action, no matter how benevolent the intention, harm will be done both psychologically and socially.

It is within my power yet it has not been asked of me, and I cannot claim implied consent, regardless of any ostensible piety or nobleness that may be conferred upon the trumpet call to bannermen in the time of need. It would simply be a selfish act to salve my sense of justice or care for others.

So, I ask you.

"What would you do?"

- Pixabay image by Pixel2013, used under CC0 Creative Commons