My husband is a physician and volunteers extensively at a rural clinic for uninsured patients. He recently won a local award for his service there. Around the same time, the large nonprofit hospital where we both work informed him that they had overpaid him for the past two years and will reduce his future pay to recover the difference. But they very generously offered to lower the repayment amount based on the number of days he spends volunteering at the clinic — essentially paying him for this work.
If we agreed, we would donate back to the clinic the amount the hospital ‘‘pays’’ him; financially we’d be fine, and we’d be helping the clinic. Even so, my husband doesn’t want to be paid for something he regards as volunteer work. Because he recently won the award, we also worry that if word got out about his being paid for the work, it might smear his good name. Yet the clinic would benefit greatly from such a large donation and wouldn’t thank us for turning down the hospital’s money on principle. What to do? — Name Withheld
From the Ethicist:
What’s at stake for your husband is what kind of person he wants to be — and yes, what kind of person he wishes to be seen as. In the biomedical-ethics course you would have taken in medical school, you both were probably introduced to the utilitarian ideal of doing what will produce the most net good. You’re wondering whether you can square a concern for character with a concern for consequences.
What seems obvious is that accepting the money needn’t be conceived as being paid for volunteer work, given that only the clinic would benefit. So should we dismiss his unease as vanity masquerading as ideals? Not necessarily — it may reflect his understanding that the perceived authenticity of charitable work has real implications for the broader culture of service. If people begin to doubt whether celebrated volunteer work is truly uncompensated, it could discourage others from pitching in.
The point is that the good we do isn’t just a matter of immediate consequences; it can involve sustaining social institutions over the long term. Given your worries, your husband could urge the hospital to donate the relevant amount directly to the clinic instead. This would maintain the purely volunteer nature of your work while benefiting the clinic, reconciling character and consequences.
We’re almost ready to unveil our Love and Sex issue and, with it, an Ethicist package focused on these topics. The first week of February, we’re publishing newsletters featuring these “love letters” — questions about marriage, polyamory, infidelity, sex work and a slew of other subjects. We’ll send the usual newsletters on Wednesday and Saturday and a special one on Monday, February 3.
Readers Respond
The previous question was from a reader with. She wrote: “What is the rule about looking at women in public? As a red-blooded male, I would like to stare, but of course that’s rude and possibly antisocial. In the past, when I’ve taken a quick glance and got caught, I was given sharp, disapproving looks from the woman and, often, some bystanders. I’ve always been a loner, so I didn’t always get clued in on proper etiquette. When I married, I asked male co-workers what to do about looking at women, considering my new status. One said, ‘‘You’ve got to smell the roses along the way.’’ I took that to heart and continued to ogle women. This eventually led to my divorce. When women wear tight pants, it seems unfair: They are very sexy, but men are not allowed to look. What do women prefer in this situation? I want to do the right thing.”
In his response, the Ethicist noted: “It’s clear that you’ve sometimes looked at women in a way that made them feel uncomfortable. Glancing at someone in a public place is always permissible; there’s often a fleeting moment of mutual acknowledgment — perhaps a slight nod or smile — before both parties look away. This momentary connection is part of how we experience our shared social world. No doubt if you find the person attractive, your glance may well linger involuntarily for a moment. But prolonging that moment further can cross a line. We can’t control our initial notice of others; we can control our subsequent choices. I suspect your ‘‘quick’’ glance wasn’t so quick. … When it comes to men looking at women, in particular, there’s a broader social context in which women often experience unwanted attention or feel unsafe. The sexual etiquette I’ve described allows men and women to enjoy public spaces as equals. That’s why we wrong strangers when we fail to respect these rules. Such everyday courtesies are part of what it means to share a world.” (Reread the full question and answer here.)
⬥
The letter writer has a lot of work to do regarding his attitude, approach and beliefs about women. Staring to the point of making women uncomfortable and impacting his marriage is a symptom of deep-rooted misogyny. Women do not wear tight pants for his pleasure, amusement or commentary. Until he understands this and does the work, averting his gaze is merely a Band-Aid. — Lara
⬥
Most men check out women in public. It’s natural. I suggest the letter writer try the “take a picture” method that I use: I try to quickly take a mental picture of a woman I find attractive, and then I look away. But I try to save the picture in my mind so it can be appreciated after I’ve looked away. That way she doesn’t have to feel ogled, and I can enjoy what I’ve seen. It’s a win-win. — Andrew
⬥
“Seinfeld” covered this. As Jerry said to George: “Looking at cleavage is like looking at the sun. You don’t stare at it — it’s too risky! You get a sense of it, then you look away!” Still, a woman may take offense at even the quickest peek. A woman may dress provocatively, making an unwitting glance at her almost inevitable, and claim to be shocked — shocked! — when the glance comes. It’s a conundrum. — Donald
⬥
As a red-blooded female, admittedly of advanced age and predisposed to moderation, I empathize with the reader’s confusion about the “correct” way to look at women. I’m beyond glad that we have evolved past the point where men feel entitled to ogle and wolf-whistle and make unwanted passes, and then to shame women who respond with annoyance. At the same time, I truly rue the extremely revealing dress choices many young and sometimes older women make — in emulation, no doubt, of the way celebrities present themselves. I also feel it’s self-serving and somewhat naïve to think that it’s simply a matter of individual preference and no one else’s business. I especially feel for adolescent young men who are struggling all their waking hours to control their easily aroused hormones while being surrounded by scantily dressed girls and women. I’m not excusing unwanted looks and advances, but I understand why one might wonder if a woman who dresses provocatively really enjoys the attention it brings her. For the record, I’ve discussed this with members of my family and many friends, and I have found no consensus. Some agree with me that it’s an unfortunate and potentially dangerous way to present oneself, while others feel it’s the right of young girls and women to dress however they want, and men just have to deal with it (to me, another manifestation of the pre-eminence of narcissism and the sad decline of our sense of mutual responsibility to one another). All that being said, I agree with the Ethicist that it’s always better to err on the side of being safe (i.e., respectful) than sorry (i.e., unrestrained and mutually embarrassed). — Betsy
⬥
There’s a very simple test the letter writer can use to determine what to do in this situation. As a presumably straight man, you don’t want sexual attention from random men, correct? So you can simply ask yourself, Would I like a man to do this to me? If the answer is no, don’t subject women to it. We don’t want sexual attention from strange men anymore than you do. (If you’re bisexual, you’ll have to use a different test.) — Sarah
⬥
I generally agree with the Ethicist and must give the letter writer some credit for asking rather than assuming. Since my teens, men have looked at me and made comments about my appearance. In a vast majority of circumstances, these actions were taken in a way that was observational and not threatening; the interaction ended quickly after it began. There is a subtle line between flattery and being creepy. The letter writer must strive to keep his looks to a level that does not make a woman feel threatened or uncomfortable. As a straight woman, I can’t say I haven’t sneaked a glance at a handsome man and then moved along. I wouldn’t fault straight men for the same. — Camille
The post Can Accepting Money for Volunteering Be the Right Thing to Do? appeared first on New York Times.
