Enough is enough: What to do when compassion wanes

M. Ali, Manchester, UK

The outpouring of funds, assistance and supplies to help the survivors of the tsunami and begin the process of rebuilding has been extremely moving to witness.

This has been one the worst natural disasters, certainly in modern history, and the world's response has been one of unity to help those hardest hit rebound from the disaster.

Tens of thousands of lives have been lost and thousands of lives have been changed forever through great suffering and the pain of loss. But even with such great suffering and loss, there are those for whom the wellspring of sympathy and generosity is drying up.

The other day, a colleague spoke of how "all this charity will have to come to an end". For him, the act of giving and helping those in need clearly exists within certain limits and those limits, (for him but hopefully not for too many other people), means that a week or two of charities' tsunami appeals is enough.

At first, it is quite easy to be shocked and even angered by such an attitude, but it is worth exploring such thinking and trying to understand it.

Of course, it is tempting to question whether, if he were the victim, he would consider a couple of weeks of giving enough.

He further explained that people are beginning to feel "compassion fatigue" and that they have "seen enough women and children weeping,

"People want to move on to the next news item", he said.

It is perhaps hard to believe that for many people the news is just entertainment and that the next item is probably something as inane as the latest Hollywood wedding or break-up.

But it is interesting to consider his use of the expression "compassion fatigue". What he was referring to is something that some analysts and even social physiologists have referred to as a "phenomenon" whereby people feel exhausted by the terrible images being presented to them in their newspapers or on their TV screens. Effectively they, in the end, "resign from the act of giving".

It would probably be quite accurate to suggest that they are as much resigning from the act of caring as they are from the act of giving. Ultimately, though, it may be that a base and unappealing thought is at the heart of such an attitude -- namely "what is in it for me?"

A perfect example of this could be seen when a group of friends organized a street collection of funds to be sent to the victims of the tsunami. It was decided to make small paper flowers to give to each person that gave some money, but not all of the collectors took along the flowers.

At the end of a day's collecting it was found that those collectors who could offer a paper flower for a donation had collected considerably more than those who had nothing to offer and were simply relying on the donators' goodwill.

The message from this seems to be that if people receive something (even a worthless though touching paper flower) for their giving they are more likely to give. This seems a sad basis for giving, but perhaps it reflects the mind-set of many people and that attitude of "what is in it for me?"

The idea that people might suffer from "compassion fatigue" should, I think, be considered alongside the possibility that people might suffer from another phenomenon, which we might call "greed fatigue". It seems to me that people are far more likely to experience "compassion fatigue" than the greed type of fatigue.

Not wishing to belittle charity efforts for tsunami victims, but those who feel they have reached the point of "compassion fatigue" should stop and think about a few facts that are of relevance to the events and aftermath of Dec. 26.

Of course, as the disaster struck millions of people around the world were still enjoying the Christmas period of their calendars. Statistics from that period illustrate how remote the likelihood of "greed fatigue" is and thus, the greater likelihood of both "compassion fatigue" and the "what is in it for me?" phenomenon.

For example, it is estimated that spending in Britain over the recent Christmas period was in excess of US$40 billion. Of this total, about $5 billion was spent on cosmetics alone, whilst Britain's aid for developing countries for the whole year of 2004 was less than five billion.

Another disturbing statistic from the Christmas season of 2004 was the estimate that around five million British people would suffer stomach problems (mostly from overeating and drinking). Some sympathy might be due here, but their stomach pains pale in significance when we consider that each year over two million people die from diarrheal diseases.

It would be wrong to suggest that Britain or any other country should "cancel Christmas" because of disturbing statistics such as the above. But it is probably appropriate to remind those who think that "compassion fatigue" is a reality that Christmas is supposed to be a time of giving and that giving is not based on the condition of receiving.

We must give and not expect to receive either the same or even something similar in return. We must give and help those in need because it is the right thing to do. Those who are fortunate enough to be in a position to give and help out should see it as a great honor, and even their duty, but they should not give with arrogance and a manner of superiority.

Someday we may need help ourselves -- we may even have to help each other. "What is in it for me?" does not apply. It is all about what is in it for all of us!

The writer is a senior researcher at the Cunningham Research Center in Manchester, UK.