To: Carolina
As the only neurosurgeon available to treat a patient with a severe brain injury, Gupta said it was his moral duty to help. But it raised questions about the blurring of roles between doctor and journalist. What this really says is: journalistic ethics do not permit a journalist to distinguish between what is or is not moral. In this case, apparently "ethics" state that a journalist MUST NOT act to save a life.
This is Bullsh*t, of course.
3,011 posted on
04/03/2003 1:36:55 PM PST by
r9etb
To: r9etb
I don't think there was a moral dilemma but there could have been one. If the injured individual happened to be a U.S. Soldier, then assisting would have been helping the U.S. War effort, which would be an ethical problem for a journalist.
Gum
Would it have been an ethical dilemma if it was an Iraqi soldier?
3,016 posted on
04/03/2003 1:38:51 PM PST by
ChewedGum
(tag line amnesia strikes again...)
To: r9etb
. . . apparently "ethics" state that a journalist MUST NOT act to save a life. You know, maybe that is an accurate statement of journalistic "ethics."
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson