What Does the Accident of John Kennedy, Jr. Have in Common with a Local Boy's Accident
- © Michele Toomey, PhD • July 19, 2000

For one thing, they both led to death. For another, there were those with more experience and knowledge who could have taken a stronger position on the risk, and didn't. In John Kennedy's case, newspapers report that his instructor offered to fly with him, but dropped it when John is purported to have said that he wanted to fly alone. Where is the rest of that conversation? Why didn't the instructor go on to say that he felt it was too risky for him to fly alone and that he would be jeopardizing his own life and the lives of his two passengers? If he had used strong language like that, would John still have refused? We don't know. But at least the instructor would have taken more responsibility for knowing the risk and trying to prevent it. He could also have gone to the two women passengers and told them he felt it was too risky, so either let him come along or don't fly at all. We hear nothing of such a strong stand, only of a weak offer. Why is that?

Then there is the six year old boy at a local amusement park who went alone on a tube down a powerful water slide into a lake with strong currents, and drowned. He was only six years old. The sign at the slide warned prospective tubers of the currents, and the attendant inquired about the boy's ability to swim. The step-father obviously assured the attendant, but why didn't the attendant take a stand against allowing the boy on the water slide. He knew the force of the tube's entry into the lake and he knew the strength of the currents. Why didn't he either refuse the boy or require a life jacket? Why was the desire to allow him to go on the slide more influential than the safety of the child?

In both accidents, there was a check point where an authority figure could have taken a stronger position, safeguarding someone from risking more than they thought they were, and calling attention to the more dangerous factors that were present. Why is it that we are so reluctant to step forward and prevent someone from taking an action when we think their safety, and even their life, is at stake? We have seen that threatened suicides or drunk driving frequently are shrouded in silence, and the reluctance to interfere usually prevails over the need to intercede.

Many factors play an influential role in this dynamic, but first and foremost is the risk that intervening entails. Our country prides itself on individual rights and freedom, and we look up to bravery and down on cowardice. We cultivate the image of the wild west, of pioneers. We honor the adventurous and the warriors. For someone to warn another or to prevent their adventure is to interfere and be the voice of caution, and caution is too close to cowardice to have a status draw for us. Anyone who speaks up and takes a strong position against risk, runs the risk himself of being seen as interfering with our personal freedom and of being overly protective. Not a position we admire, and certainly not one we reward.

If John Kennedy Jr. had been warned by his instructor not to fly and he flew anyway without incident, the instructor would have been wrong and overly cautious for nothing. If the six year old boy had gone down the water slide without incident the step-father would have been right and the little boy congratulated for being brave and a real boy. We live out of this world-view of independence and courage on a daily basis without giving it a second thought. When tragedy is the outcome, it becomes a case of poor judgment or random misfortune. It doesn't trigger a discussion on our fear of interfering, and that is most unfortunate.

I wish we would dialogue with each other about our fear of daring to interfere, of appearing too cautious, and of being cautious and wrong. It certainly has more merit than being left behind, telling about what we thought and felt but didn't dare say strongly enough to have an impact. There is integrity in daring to reveal fear and apprehension, and there is integrity in interfering and using our authority when we fear the risk could mean loss of life. In addition, it might very well save someone's life.