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.
The principle of do no harm is a holistic perspective that is equally focused on both harm and benefit. The concept of “harm” in the phrase has no meaning without an effort to provide benefit. The warning of the words “do no harm” reminds us to think before rushing to do good, not to stop us from considering the good altogether.
The result of this belief is that people and organizations who claim to be using do no harm as a principle miss the important and crucial positive factors that exist. This ignorance leads to interventions that disable and destroy local capacities. This too is harm of the worst sort.
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.
Previous Page The Principle
Next Page The Project
Related Topics
Misunderstanding the project of Do No Harm
The Principle
The Practice
Where does this Guide come from?
