Realistically, you must consider that his standing as a journalist on scene may not be good for his patients, either. He may be tempted to undertake procedures or practice in a manner he would otherwise not engage in because the spotlight is on him.

I agree that in this circumstance he should either practice medicine or perform professional journalism, not both.

I better clarify here: I think he definitely SHOULD have assisted the surgeons at their request. He fulfilled his duty as a physician. However, I think at the point he felt his medical skills were more valuable on the scene than his role as a journalist, he should have withdrawn as a journalist. He's become material to his story. Gupta did the right thing by crossing that line and BECOMING material, but he shouldn't REMAIN material.

But I don't think he has made himself part of the story, at least not part of the story he's telling. Other reporters have made him part of their story. Granted, the CNN anchor asked him about the surgery during his segment, but he quickly changed the subject after admitting he done surgery.

CNN may be milking the story for all it's worth, Dr. Gupta isn't. There's a difference.

"But I don't think he has made himself part of the story, at least not part of the story he's telling."

It can't be abstracted farther than "field medical care in the Iraq war": That's the story he is reporting. By performing procedures he made himself material to that story; he no longer can report it in an unbiased fashion. (Of course, the man, Gupta, may be able to report it in an unbiased manner, but professional ethics dictate that he is not able.)

The problem here is that Gupta is not really a journalist. He's a physician. Gupta spent the better part of his life training for this discipline; it's his world. Journalism is a sideline, something he is interested in doing and to which he brings a unique qualification. For example, you're a physician and a blogger, and I'm sure many other things, but I'm fairly sure that professionally, you identify yourself as a doctor, subject to the code of ethics of your discipline.

For Gupta, rightly, the ethics of medicine will supercede the ethics of journalism. I'm not sure it will even dawn on him that's he is breaching the ethics of journalism. However, it is incumbent on CNN to "set some limits". Had Gupta just been a volunteer surgeon delivering anecdotal reports on field medicine in Iraq, the situation would be different. But, he is specifically a CNN correspondent, a member of the fourth estate, and that can't be easily reduced to a lesser role.

Granted, it's a fine line, but I think CNN has crossed it by allowing Gupta to continue reporting on a story to which he has become material. CNN should drop him as a correspondent, and we'll do without the medical reports from the field. Gupta can write a book when he gets back, providing his insights in a medium with fewer constraints than reporting.

I can't believe that this has become such an issue. The man stepped aside from his mandate and tried to save another human beings life ...wonderful!!. He's not a wildlife documentary maker who can't interupt or interfere with the 'circle of life'. He is a multi-talented man who made good use of his talent. This is a pathetic debate initiated by people with nothing better to do than propose meaningless discussion disguised as an Ethics debate against a man who gave sucker to the enemy. Well done Sanjay Gupta.

"This is a pathetic debate initiated by people with nothing better to do..."

Gee, Anna, I'm sorry. We'll knock it off so as not to disturb you any further.

For my part, though, I was rather enjoying the calm, sensible exchange of ideas. Sydney is a physician and knows something of medical ethics; I have a background in journalism and know something of the ethics of journalism. It was interesting, while it lasted, to exchange views with an intelligent individual, knowledgeable in her field. While I disagree with Sydney's basic premise, she brought up a subject worthy of discussion.

Whether or not Peter Arnett "gave sucker [sic] to the enemy" is, I believe, still a hotly contested issue. I cannot speak for Sydney, but I believe she was using Arnett's case only to illustrate the duality she has perceived in the ethics of journalism. But this comment thread has been wholly devoted to the future status of Gupta's role in war reporting.

Again, I apologize for disturbing you with a free, respectful and entirely voluntary exchange of opinions.

"I cannot speak for Sydney, but I believe she was using Arnett's case only to illustrate the duality she has perceived in the ethics of journalism."

Exactly. The focus on the Arnett case seemed to be directed at whether or not it was right for him to broadcast on Iraqi TV. There doesn't seem to be much objection to the degree of closeness he's obviously developed to his Iraqi handlers. A closeness that appears to have clouded his judgement. Other reporters in Baghdad - the New York Times' John Burns, and NPR's Ann Garrels, for example, provide news stories that don't embrace the Hussein party line so whole-heartedly.

But, at least some of the criticism against Gupta appears to be aimed at him because he's now perceived as being "too close" to the surgeons he's covering, having worked with them to provide care for a patient.

BTW, I'm not sure Anna was referring to our debate. She might have been referring to the fact that the media ever saw fit to make Dr. Gupta's actions a story.

"I'm not sure Anna was referring to our debate."

To be fair, if that's the case, Anna, I apologize for directing my comments at you. If you WERE referring to our debate, then I don't apologize.

The case of Peter Arnett is a sticky wicket to be sure. He gave his interview to state-run Iraqi TV. We can't fairly label all state-run news outlets as invalid sources; indeed, the BBC is essentially "state-run". Can he be judged on the merits of the interview's outlet alone? One of Arnett's most quoted statements pertained to coverage of civilian casualties and damages, and its inherent ability to bolster the antiwar movement in the States. Is this a statement of fact -- it does bolster the antiwar cause -- or is it an encouragement of Iraqi TV to propagandize? Depends on his intent, which I don't claim to know. Further, Arnett is certainly under some pressure to play ball with the Iraqi administration so he can stay in Baghdad -- they've already kicked out a number of journalists. My chief complaint with the Arnett debacle is that NBC IMMEDIATELY issued a statement in support of Arnett's comments as journalistic analysis, but then fired him mere hours later. I think they yielded to public pressure, rather than standing by their initial judgement of his intent.

As far as Gupta is concerned, I think that from the perspective of a debate on the ethics of journalism, he should retire his CNN credentials for the remainder of his placement with the field medical team. But, looking at Gupta the man, not Gupta the ethics question, he seems to have largely confined his prior reporting to the technology and science of military field medicine and avoided the politics of this war. With respect to that, provided he doesn't in the future engage in political analysis, I'm not sure what harm to fair reporting is risked by leaving him in his role as CNN medical correspondent.

I think that what deserves comment is not that Dr. Sanjay did this, but that other journalists jumped on it as an ethical issue.

Apparently journalistic ethics are as big a mystery as legal ethics. I think that anybody thinks that the ethics of his vocation outweigh his ethical duties as a human being, is too dim to be entrusted with delivering the news to the rest of us.

Are they saying he shouldn't have pitched in? Or are they saying that now that he has pitched in, his integrity as a journalist is compromised for the future?

Medical ethics, by the way, is a whole discipline in itself, and can often be as vague and contradictory as that of law and journalism.

Is it not a bit absurd to expect absolute lack of bias in any reporter? And is it not equally absurd (not to mention, inconsistent) to presume that reporters are so easily swayed that any involvement in the story will irrevocably taint their pristine objectivity?

One would like to see the same sort as reporters and as jurors: not tabulae rasae, but experienced individuals capable of intelligent engagement. Give us honest, self-aware involvement over delusions of godlike objectivity any day.

Cronaca: It's not so much what we as human beings CAN do, but we STRIVE to do, thereby protecting objectivity as much as possible, considering the inherent subjectivity of human perception.

I agree with AST above. It seems that some journalists sit on some really high laurels if they're finding the time to criticize an act of human compassion by a skilled individual. Trust me, if the critics could also perform brain surgery, they would not be criticizing. Do I sense a hint of jealousy?

Perhaps these very journalists that have jumped to criticize Dr. Gupta are worried that the very foundations of their trade are shaking by the insurgence of skilled professionals into the field, who also happen to have a background for more informed commentary on certain situations. That, to me, is the root of this issue -- not journalistic ethics.