“And who is my neighbor?", Jesus said.

‘A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. By chance a certain priest was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side. In the same way a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he traveled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with compassion, came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, and gave them to the host, and said to him, 'Take care of him. Whatever you spend beyond that, I will repay you when I return.'

“Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbour to him who fell among the robbers?" He said, "He who showed mercy on him.”

Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise.”

-Luke 10

The bible

The parable of the Good Samaritan is a discussion of defining who our neighbor is in the direction to “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” The lesson implied is that he who is in need must be the object of our kindness and compassion. The Good Samaritan was one of three people passing that acted in this manner, treating another person, outside his social group, as his neighbor. 

The Good Samaritan Study , “From Jerusalem to Jericho” by Darley and Batson looks into factors that can effect helping behavior, in general. It is common to come to the conclusion that the good Samaritan helped because he was inherently good and the the Luddite and the priest lacked this goodness, but perhaps there was something about the situation they were in that lead the good Samaritan to help, rather than his “goodness”?

The Good Samaritan Study investigates variables of consciousness of values and time constraints on compassion.

The study took place in 1973 at Princeton Theological Seminary. The group needed to walk from one building to the next and there was a person in need of assistance on the path between the buildings.

Seminary students were randomly assigned to groups according to two variables: consciousness of values and consciousness of time constraint.

All of the group filled out questionnaires at the first building. Half of the group went on to the the next building to lead a discussion about vocations. Half of the group went on to the next building to discuss the parable of the Good Samaritan. This effectively divided the group according to consciousness of higher values and lack of this. This division resulted in little difference in behavior.

The suggestion is that posting values or requiring reading that promotes a certain set of traits or values has little influence on helping behavior.

The group was also divided into three groups that differed in their time constraint:

1. They were told that they had plenty of time, and could make their way to the next building.

2. They were told that they had just enough time to get to the next building.

3. They were told that they were late and that they would need to hurry to get to the next building on time.

For all of the participants, a person in need was placed on the path from one building to the next. The person was an actor. He would moan and cough twice when participants walked by.

There was a significant effect of time constraint on helping behavior (compassion):

• 1. Plenty of time, low hurry: 63% help rate

• 2. Just enough time, medium hurry: 45% help rate

• 3. Not enough time, high hurry: 10% help rate

The suggestion of this study is that time constraints have a significant effect on helping behavior (compassion). The greater the time constraint, the lower likelihood of being compassionate.

How does this correlate with healthcare?

Our current model of healthcare is productivity driven. The normative feedback that care providers get is in regards to how many patients were seen in general and how many patients are seen per hour. The system requests a “high hurry” scenario. The business model promotes a factory-type vantage point that has prioritized efficiency of the system.

Efficiency is important in a world where we are expected to do more with less. This cannot be denied. My point is, however, that we should use caution because it is human to decrease compassion when we are rushed. In a system whose highest value might be compassion, it may provide conflict to those people working with those in need to place them in a position where they are constantly in a hurry. Perhaps we are inadvertently feeding the wrong wolf?