Two misunderstandings of the “do no harm” principle have caused harm. These confusions are not to be taken lightly.
First, some believe the principle focuses solely on the potential harm and negative impacts of an intervention. They believe the principle is unconcerned with how to improve a situation or with positive impacts. This is completely mistaken.
Second, some have used the words “do no harm” to justify their avoidance of action.They have concluded that if there is the slightest possibility that they may do harm, then they should do nothing at all. Again, this is completely mistaken. We do not avoid harm by failing to act. Doing nothing when people are in need is clearly to do harm.
Misunderstanding the project of Do No Harm
The Do No Harm Project has been misunderstood in precisely the same two ways as the Principle has been. It is clear that from the earliest lessons and the earliest publications, Do No Harm has emphasized attention to the positive and that lack of action causes harm.
Every context has Connectors and not only Dividers. Yet thoughtless interventions often undermine and destroy these Connectors. Do No Harm has always been explicit about the need to be aware of Connectors and to support them.
Do No Harm has also been used to justify inaction, in blatant disregard of the lessons of the Project. Inaction is not less harmful than action—though thoughtless action may in fact be more destructive.
Do No Harm has learned how to intervene thoughtfully. This Guide details how.
Previous Page The Project
Next Page The Practice
Related Topics
Misunderstanding the principle of “do no harm”
The Principle
