'He who helps the guilty, shares the crime'? INGOs, moral narcissism and complicity in wrongdoing.

Humanitarian organisations often work alongside those responsible for serious wrongdoing. In these circumstances, accusations of moral complicity are sometimes levelled at decision makers. These accusations can carry a strong if unfocused moral charge and are frequently the source of significant moral unease. In this paper, we explore the meaning and usefulness of complicity and its relation to moral accountability. We also examine the impact of concerns about complicity on the motivation of humanitarian staff and the risk that complicity may lead to a retreat into moral narcissism. Moral narcissism is the possibility that where humanitarian actors inadvertently become implicated in wrongdoing, they may focus more on their image as self-consciously good actors than on the interests of potential beneficiaries. Moral narcissism can be triggered where accusations of complicity are made and can slew decision making. We look at three interventions by Médecins Sans Frontières that gave rise to questions of complicity. We question its decision-guiding usefulness. Drawing on recent thought, we suggest that complicity can helpfully draw attention to the presence of moral conflict and to the way International Non-Governmental Organisations (INGOs) can be drawn into unintentional wrongdoing. We acknowledge the moral challenge that complicity presents to humanitarian staff but argue that complicity does not help INGOs make tough decisions in morally compromising situations as to whether they should continue with an intervention or pull out.

Patients struggle to access effective health care due to ongoing violence, distance, costs and health service performance in Afghanistan.

BACKGROUND: The Afghan population suffers from a long standing armed conflict. We investigated patients' experiences of their access to and use of the health services. METHODS: Data were collected in four clinics from different provinces. Mixed methods were applied. The questions focused on access obstacles during the current health problem and health seeking behaviour during a previous illness episode of a household member. RESULTS: To access the health facilities 71.8% (545/759) of patients experienced obstacles. The combination of long distances, high costs and the conflict deprived people of life-saving healthcare. The closest public clinics were underused due to perceptions regarding their lack of availability or quality of staff, services or medicines. For one in five people, a lack of access to health care had resulted in death among family members or close friends within the last year. CONCLUSIONS: Violence continues to affect daily life and access to healthcare in Afghanistan. Moreover, healthcare provision is not adequately geared to meet medical and emergency needs. Impartial healthcare tailored to the context will be vital to increase access to basic and life-saving healthcare.