When Tragedy Strikes: Ethical Reflections on Public Discourse, Advocacy and Care

Written by: Jasmine K. Y. Loo (Psychologist and NAPAA Co-founder)

When tragedies involving disabled people and their families occur, many of us feel an urgent pull to respond. Grief, anger, fear, helplessness, and a deep sense of injustice can surface all at once.

For advocates, professionals, and community members who care deeply about disability rights and systemic failures, silence can feel uncomfortable — even complicit. The instinct to speak, to explain, to demand change, often co

mes from a very real place of concern.

And yet, moments like these also ask something difficult of us: ethical restraint.

This is not about discouraging advocacy or minimising systemic harm. It is about recognising that there is a fine line between raising awareness in service of change, and inadvertently causing further harm through how we speak — particularly in public spaces.

Tragedy is not a thought experiment

In the immediate aftermath of devastating events, public discourse often shifts quickly from grief to analysis. Details are scrutinised, motives hypothesised and private circumstances — finances, services accessed, family dynamics — are discussed as though they are data points in a broader argument.

But these are not abstract cases.They are real people, real families, real lives.

When we treat tragedies as opportunities for debate rather than moments requiring care, we risk turning human suffering into spectacle. Even well-intentioned commentary can become speculative, reductive or sensationalised — especially when key facts are still emerging.

Ethically, it is worth asking:

• Who is being centred in this conversation?

• Who benefits from this analysis?

• Who might be harmed by it?

Intent does not cancel impact

Many people who speak publicly after tragedies do so with genuine concern — for disabled people, for families under strain, for systemic failures that deserve scrutiny.

Intent matters. But it does not erase impact.

Speculation about “why” something happened, especially when based on incomplete or private information, can retraumatise families, communities and disabled people who see themselves reflected in the discourse. It can also reinforce harmful narratives — about disability, caregiving, or “burden” — even when that is not the speaker’s aim.

Holding this tension is uncomfortable, but necessary: we can care deeply and still cause harm.

The role of professionals in public spaces

For professionals — particularly those in health, mental health, and disability-related fields — public commentary carries additional weight. Titles and credentials confer authority, whether we intend them to or not.

This does not mean professionals must never speak publicly. But it does mean we carry an ethical responsibility to consider how our words may be received, amplified and interpreted — especially in emotionally charged contexts.

In some cases, the most ethical response is not immediate commentary, but pause. Not every tragedy requires analysis. Not every injustice requires instant public interpretation. Sometimes, restraint is an expression of respect.

Advocacy without speculation

Advocacy is essential. Systems fail. Funding cuts matter. Supports save lives. But advocacy does not require dissecting individual tragedies or assigning meaning to private suffering. We can speak about systemic issues without anchoring them to specific families. We can call for change without turning real deaths into rhetorical evidence.

Shifting the focus from what happened in this case to what needs to change systemically allows us to honour both dignity and justice.

Holding space for complexity

There are no easy answers in moments like these. People will respond differently, shaped by their own histories, identities, and pain. Discomfort, disagreement and strong emotion are inevitable.

What matters is not uniformity of response, but a shared commitment to:

• dignity over spectacle

• humility over certainty

• care over commentary

At NAPAA, we believe ethical advocacy includes knowing when to speak — and when to sit with grief without explanation.

In moments of collective shock, the question is not only what should we say? It is also how do we ensure our words do not cause further harm?

Sometimes, the most powerful response is not louder discourse, but quieter care.