The Missing Ethic: Safety’s Core Challenge
by Simon Renatus
For a pursuit that claims to protect lives, Safety is surprisingly quiet about the lives it influences. Unlike professions such as nursing, where respect, kindness, and relational responsibility are core values, Safety remains focused on procedures, rules, and objective hazards. Despite being dedicated to protecting people, Safety lacks a comprehensive ethical framework that prioritises human worth and compassionate care. This absence of an ethic leaves Safety unable to qualify as a true profession.
The difference is also reflected in the language used: while nursing tackles risk, a human and subjective concept, Safety centres on hazards—objective factors detached from the human experience. This paper explores how Safety’s lack of an ethical foundation limits its ability to cope with complex, people-focused challenges and argues that adopting a human-centered ethic could transform Safety into a genuine profession.
Ethics provide the philosophical backbone of any true profession, guiding how professionals make decisions and engage with the people they serve. They extend beyond compliance, offering a reflective approach to dealing with complexity. Compliance tells us what we must do, but ethics, particularly normative ethics[1], ask how we ought to act in situations that are morally and emotionally complex, where over-simplified procedural solutions fall short. Without an ethical framework, a field remains mechanistic, treating people as objects rather than as individuals with inherent worth.
Professions like nursing, which constantly operate in the world of wicked problems[2]—complex, multifaceted issues with no clear solutions—rely on ethics to provide necessary depth and flexibility. For example, nurses balance physical, emotional, and social needs in high-stakes environments, ensuring that every patient is treated holistically. This ethical foundation allows nursing to navigate ambiguity while prioritising human dignity and compassionate care.
Safety, however, remains procedural, focusing on compliance with regulations and the control of hazards. It fails to acknowledge the complexity of the human experience, overlooking the subjective and relational aspects of risk. Without an ethic of care and relational responsibility, Safety cannot fully engage with the challenges it faces, leaving it unable to evolve into a true profession.
The Importance of Relational Dynamics
When the unexpected happens, Safety’s lack of an ethical framework becomes clear. Safety systems attempt to keep randomness and chaos at bay, but when those forces break through—as they will—there is no ethical foundation to guide a response. Unlike nursing, which relies on a relational ethic to navigate unpredictable, high-stakes environments, Safety remains procedural and ill-equipped to handle sudden complexity.
Relational dynamics refer to the interactions and connections between people, shaped by trust, communication, and mutual understanding. In nursing, these dynamics are critical for creating a compassionate, adaptable care environment. In contrast, safety systems often neglect the importance of these human relationships, treating workers as isolated elements within a larger system rather than as part of an interconnected social structure.
While nursing professionals navigate risk—a concept that is human, subjective, and shaped by relationships—safety systems focus on controlling hazards, treating them as objective threats to be managed. This linguistic shift from risk to hazard reveals a deeper problem: Safety overlooks the human aspects of risk, reducing it to something mechanistic and detached.
In practice, this means that safety practitioners treat workers as passive objects within a system designed to minimise harm. Procedures and rules are imposed with little consideration for the subjective experiences of workers or their capacity to contribute valuable insights into the processes that affect them.
Without an ethic of care, Safety remains narrowly focused on compliance and control, rather than fostering meaningful engagement with workers. This leaves it ill-equipped to handle the complex, multifaceted challenges it faces, especially when it comes to balancing the physical and psychosocial needs of workers. To evolve into a true profession, Safety must adopt an ethical framework that values the relational, subjective aspects of risk, empowering workers to become co-creators of their own safety reality.
Quality of Care vs. Compliance Focus
Nursing is driven by a commitment to the quality of care, ensuring that the well-being of patients extends beyond the procedural. Nurses focus on holistic care, addressing the physical, emotional, and social needs of each individual. This emphasis on quality means that patient care is not just about meeting regulatory standards but about ensuring that patients are treated with compassion and respect.
In contrast, Safety’s primary focus is compliance—meeting regulatory requirements in an attempt to control the uncontrollable. This compliance-driven approach results in a focus on box-ticking rather than addressing the deeper, long-term well-being of workers. Safety systems are built to meet required standards, rather than striving for the higher goal of improving workers’ overall quality of life.
A human-centered ethic, similar to nursing, would shift Safety’s focus from merely complying with rules to prioritising the well-being of workers, recognising that absolute certainty in risk management is impossible. This reflects the difference between quanta—the measurable, procedural outcomes—and qualia, the subjective experience of dignity and well-being. Safety could evolve into a profession that not only protects workers from harm but also enhances their overall well-being by treating them as individuals with worth and complex needs, rather than as objects to be managed.
Respect and Kindness vs. Dehumanisation
In nursing, respect and kindness are fundamental values. Patients are treated as whole individuals with dignity and agency. Nurses do not just follow procedures; they engage with patients on a relational level, recognising the inherent worth of each person they care for. This approach fosters a deeper connection and a more compassionate care environment.
In Safety, however, workers are reduced to hazards that need to be managed, treated as objects within a system focused solely on mitigation. This dehumanising approach strips workers of their agency and reduces their role to passive recipients of safety measures. Procedures are imposed upon them, with limited opportunity for individual consideration or engagement.
By adopting a framework that values respect and kindness, Safety could transition from a system of control to one that genuinely cares for the people it seeks to protect. Workers would be seen as active participants in their own safety, bringing their insights and experiences into the process. This shift would not only improve safety outcomes but also restore a sense of human worth and respect in the workplace.
Diversity of Thought vs. Uniformity of Procedures
Nursing embraces the subjectivity of risk, tailoring care to meet the unique needs of each patient. Nurses recognise that each individual brings their own context, which requires flexibility and adaption. This openness to diversity allows nurses to respond to patients’ physical, emotional, and social complexities in a personalised way. Safety, in contrast, often relies on standardised, one-size-fits-all procedures aimed at controlling hazards. This uniformity overlooks the diverse insights and experiences that workers bring to the table, treating them as passive recipients of safety protocols rather than as contributors. The rigidity of these procedures leaves little room for workers to engage meaningfully with the safety processes, reducing their ability to share their expertise or adapt solutions to specific contexts.
By acknowledging the diversity of thought within the workforce, Safety could become more adaptable and effective. Workers would be truly empowered to contribute their insights, leading to a more nuanced understanding of risk and the development of more flexible, context-sensitive safety practices. In this way, Safety could move beyond its obsession with uniformity and towards a system that respects and incorporates the diverse experiences of its workers.
Informed Decision-Making vs. Top-Down Directives
In nursing, informed decision-making is a core ethical principle. Nurses respect their patients’ right to make informed choices about their care, ensuring they have the opportunity to understand and verify the information given to them. This practice empowers patients to actively participate in decisions that affect their well-being, fostering a sense of agency and collaboration in the care process.
Safety, on the other hand, relies heavily on top-down directives. Safety procedures and policies are imposed on workers, leaving limited opportunity to question or engage meaningfully in the decision-making process. Workers are expected to follow protocols without fully understanding or contributing to the decisions that directly affect their safety.
By fostering informed decision-making and encouraging workers to participate in safety decisions, Safety could move beyond rigid, top-down directives. Empowering workers to engage with and question safety procedures would not only enhance compliance but would also create a culture of trust and collaboration. Workers would no longer be passive recipients of safety measures but active contributors to their own safety outcomes.
Collaboration vs. Siloed Decision-Making
Nursing’s ethical framework emphasises collaboration, both with colleagues and across disciplines. Informed decisions in nursing often involve input from various professionals and, crucially, from the patient. This collaborative approach ensures that diverse perspectives are considered, leading to more holistic and well-rounded care. The patient’s voice is valued, and the collective input shapes the care provided, creating a more comprehensive plan tailored to individual needs.
In contrast, Safety decision-making is siloed, with little involvement from workers or professionals from other fields. Safety procedures are frequently developed by a select few, leaving those directly affected—workers—excluded from the process. This lack of collaboration can lead to decisions that overlook practical insights and the workers’ lived experiences, reducing the effectiveness of safety protocols.
By adopting a collaborative approach, similar to nursing, Safety could benefit from the diverse insights of workers and other professionals. Involving workers in the decision-making process would allow for the creation of more nuanced and effective safety practices. Collaboration would bridge the gap between the people creating safety systems and those who live in them, ultimately resulting in a more engaged and risk-wise workforce.
The Path Forward
The absence of a comprehensive ethical framework in Safety, particularly one that values human worth, relational care, and collaboration, prevents the field from evolving into a true profession. Unlike nursing, where respect, kindness, and holistic care are at the forefront, Safety remains fixated on procedures, regulations, and compliance. This procedural approach not only dehumanises workers but also overlooks their insights, experiences, and their role as active participants in their own safety.
To move beyond this, Safety must adopt an ethical framework that mirrors the human-centered principles found in nursing. A shift toward valuing worker agency, collaboration, and the relational dynamics of risk would not only improve safety outcomes but also transform the culture of Safety itself. Workers would be treated not as objects to be managed but as individuals with inherent dignity, capable of contributing to the very systems designed to protect them.
By integrating these ethical principles, Safety could evolve into a profession that is not just focused on preventing harm but on fostering well-being, engagement, and a genuine sense of a shared understanding of risk among all stakeholders. The path forward requires embracing the complexity of human-centered challenges, allowing for flexibility, and understanding that safety is not simply about controlling hazards—it’s about respecting the lived experience of those who work with risk.
Sources
Australian Nursing and Midwifery Council, Australian College of Nursing, & Australian Nursing Federation. (2008). Code of ethics for nurses in Australia. https://www.nursingmidwiferyboard.gov.au/documents/default.aspx?record=WD10%2F1352&dbid=AP&chksum=GTNolhwLC8InBn7hiEFeag%3D%3D
The Ethics Centre. (n.d.). Ethics unboxed. The Ethics Centre. https://ethics.org.au/ethics-unboxed/
[1] Normative ethics is the branch of ethics that examines how people ought to act. It provides frameworks to evaluate the rightness or wrongness of actions, including approaches like consequentialism (focused on outcomes), deontology (focused on duties and rules), and virtue ethics (focused on character traits and moral virtues).
[2] The concept of wicked problems was first introduced by Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber in their 1973 paper, Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Wicked problems are complex, multifaceted issues that lack clear solutions, and any attempts to address them often lead to new challenges.
Rob Long says
Spot on Simon. My daughter is a nurse/paramedic professional and there is no comparison between her education and the amateurish miseducation of safety.