In-group Solidarity and Out-group Ignorance?
This past Shabbat I spent some of my time with a Rabbi who, I am told, considers himself to be a fundamentalist. While walking with him from Shul to his home for lunch (hey, he might be a fundamentalist but he and his family are very welcoming and friendly to guests!) he began to talk to me about the services in his local community for fellow religious Jews. One about which he spoke at length involves a man who will find you or your loved one the best possible medical attention from Toronto's available medical resources (hospitals, doctors, clinics, etc). Surely he has a reason to be happy about this. His wife desperately required medical attention in the past and, to the credit of this service about which he spoke, she got it.
What I'd like to figure out is the ethics behind this. Is it better for a community bound by certain interests (e.g. Faith group, Ethnic Group, etc) to serve itself, in the assumption that they are not going to be served as well by the outside world, or should they be focused on helping people outside their group as well?
I have a feeling that helping people, regardless of group affiliation, because one wants to, makes one an even better human being than one who helps one's own. Sure, if one of my family members was ill I would help if I could but there are always additional people that need help. There may even be ways that one can help other people through what you learn by helping 'your own'.
Baycrest, a geriatric care centre, is a good example of this. Although it is in a primarily Jewish area of Toronto, they do lots of good research on aging and the brain that can help people anywhere in the world.
So what is the answer? I'm more inclined to agree with the Baycrest model, but might something different be better?
Bio-ethically,
- Inkhorn
posted by Inkhorn @ 9:55 AM
2 comments
2 Comments:
It depends on whether the preferential treatment comes at someone else's expense.
We are taught that we must provide first for our families, then for our communities, then for neighboring communities, and so on. And we all do to some extent; you'll work harder on behalf of your family member than for an anonymous person halfway around the world. A natural extension of this is that "help" might take the form not of direct help (e.g. medical treatment) but rather indirect help (matchmaking). It's perhaps sleazy if there's money involved, but it sounds like this is someone who's donating his services. He can't help everyone, so he gives priority to his community. Nothing wrong with that.
If, on the other hand, he's (say) an insider at a hospital, who can get you moved to the head of the queue for treatment based on your connections, that would be a problem because he's harming the people already in the queue.
Just my opinion.
"If, on the other hand, he's (say) an insider at a hospital, who can get you moved to the head of the queue for treatment based on your connections, that would be a problem because he's harming the people already in the queue.
"
That's one of the things that bothers me about what this Rav was telling me. The fellow will ensure that you get the best possible medical attention, more than one would normally expect. Apparently a really good doctor was going to be leaving his wife's case to tend to other business. The man of which we speak got the doctor to stay on the case, even though he was apt to leave.
It's a problem of haves versus have nots in my mind. Is it right to be able to get so much without giving back at the same time? On the surface this it looks like it to me. Deeper down I imagine someone utilizing this service might offer me the counter-argument that they in fact are giving back to the world by being good Jews.
What do you say to that imaginary responder?
Post a Comment
<< Home