Truth vs. Blame

Philosophers and theologians devote considerable energy to the subject of unfortunate events, and the question of why bad things happen. Sometimes, an event seems totally outside of human control or influence, and we can only question fate or God or other intangibles. Other times, people can entertain the idea that humans caused or at least could have had an impact on the unfortunate event -- whether or not this is actually the case. I might go so far as to suggest that many people seek to find specific humans to blame for tragedies, and somehow find comfort in the idea that the event was NOT a totally random act of providence.

When such a question arises in a hospital setting -- that is, when there is an unfortunate event that may have been influenced by humans -- many hospitals examine the event in the setting of a "Morbidity/Mortality" conference. While I suppose that each hospital may have their own variations on such conferences, a common, key feature of the "Morbidity/Mortality" conference is that it be totally, one hundred percent, guaranteed confidential, and in no way open to the public. The reason for this feature is that the underlying purpose of the conference is to seek the truth of what happened, and especially to determine whether anything can be done to improve the situation or to keep it from happening again. This becomes much more difficult, if not impossible, if we are at the same time attempting to assign blame or guilt. As long as no one fears being blamed for their actions, ideally each person can come forward with anything they may have done or not done which may have in any way contributed to the outcome of the event.

Now let's imagine that a beloved family member died while in the hospital, and you suspect someone on the hospital staff made an error that led to the death. It is predictable and understandable that you might want to assign blame, and even prosecute the "guilty" staff member. However, your family member is already dead, and there is nothing that can be done that will bring them back. If their death was indeed caused by an error on the part of a hospital staffer, the only thing that can be done that will actually preserve human health and wellness is to figure out what happened, and try to prevent it from happening again. This will be much more difficult if hospital staffers who may have done nothing wrong are afraid to step forward for fear of being found "guilty" of something. Ideally, everyone involved will want to seek the truth, and anyone who DID contribute to the negative outcome will fully come forward, but this is deeply contrary to human nature, especially if we only entertain vague suspicions that somehow we ourselves may have contributed negatively.

Theoretically, the processes of finding truth and assigning blame are not mutually exclusive. In fact, when full truth is known, then blame may perhaps be accurately assigned. The problem is that finding the full truth -- especially when that truth is complicated -- is best accomplished with honesty, open communication, and unbiased full revelation and examination of the facts, which is made difficult if not impossible by the attempt to assign or deflect blame, or to establish or deflect guilt.

Sometimes it is enough to assign blame or establish guilt without fully discerning the total truth of the situation. In the case of criminal activity, such as robbery or murder, probably the most important thing is to establish who is guilty, and punish them, without ever fully comprehending the subtle, complicated truths of the event in question. Other times, I question the underlying goals of a course of inquiry, and what it is we are truly trying to accomplish. I admit that my own bias often comes down in favor of finding truth rather than assigning blame.

One of the best examples of what I am discussing is the US government's "commission" and "hearings" to examine the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. I am generally quite proud to be an American. I cannot recall a time I was LESS proud to be an American than when observing the actions of the nine-eleven commission, which quickly degenerated into an attempt to assign blame, at the expense of ever finding the full truth. This was a case in which the two goals -- truth vs. blame -- were clearly mutually exclusive. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps in this case, assigning blame WAS more important than finding truth, but that is difficult for me to accept.

The subject of truth vs. blame involves a complicated relationship between the past and the future. For me, it often comes down to a question of focusing on the unchangeable past or the unfolding future. While I fully agree with the idea that "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" (most commonly credited to George Santayana), those who choose to focus primarily on assigning blame are often willingly sacrificing their potential more full understanding of the past, limiting the knowledge with which they face future.

Another, more current, example involves the recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. As oil continues to gush into the ocean, with technicians on scene and experts throughout the world working for a way to stop the ongoing catastrophe, the US government is discussing the possibility of criminal prosecutions for wrongdoing. This may score some points politically, especially with those demanding that the government "do something" or "do more", but it is difficult to comprehend how it will help solve this or future problems. It is easy to comprehend the likelihood that criminal prosecutions, while possibly "sending a message" to future oil-drillers, will have the effect of obscuring the truth of what has happened, and making an unfortunate repeat of the event much more likely.

Truth is complicated. I certainly do not claim that one way is always "right" and the other way is always "wrong". I am merely stating that there is often a profound but overlooked difference between finding truth and establishing blame. When you or your loved ones have been wronged, it is fully understandable that your priority may be to punish the "guilty", and I cannot argue with that. Sometimes, though, we should consider the possibility that the most important thing may be finding the truth, and in order to do this we may have to sacrifice blame and punishment.