Diplomatic defiance – the deliberate, ethical refusal to go along with harmful systems, especially when those systems punish overt dissent.
Note: This post will be free for 7 days, then available only to paid subscribers. Thank you for supporting independent writing.
The headlines this week have been unbearable.
Grubby theatre. Politicians across party lines playing into bad behaviour. While they perform, the real issue, legislation affecting the health and wellbeing of injured people is buried beneath scandal and noise.
As the media storm intensified, I made a quiet decision.
I stopped writing my submission to the NSW Public Accountability Committee.
I had been attending the hearings. I had witnessed the trauma. I had lived through it myself. But I found myself asking:
To what end?
Why should I dignify a process that appears to already know its conclusion?
So I respectfully told the Committee I would not be submitting a submission. I wrote to the Chair. I turned my back on the stage.
Not in apathy. In clarity.
It’s about focus. You cannot change those who refuse to change. Sometimes you need another way - professionals have voice too.
I am not alone in my views, our systems are all collapsing yet our politicians continue to play to the old playbook. We are in crisis. If you think I am alone in this view read Sarah Wilson’s work on Substack or Grace Blakeley that I have referenced before.
Diplomatic Defiance: When Silence Is an Act of Power
I didn’t have the words for it at the time. But then I read something that gave shape to my instinct.
A piece by Dr. Wendy Dean, a U.S. physician and author widely recognised for coining the phrase “moral injury in healthcare.”
Dr. Dean is co-founder of Fix Moral Injury and the author of the 2023 book If I Betray These Words: Moral Injury in Medicine and Why It’s So Hard for Clinicians to Put Patients First. Her work is internationally respected for exposing how profit-driven systems undermine professional ethics and create unbearable moral tension for those trained to do no harm.
In a recent Substack post, Dr. Dean referenced the work of Dr. Sunita Sah, a physician-turned-behavioral scientist at Cornell, who explores the psychology of ethical resistance. Sah's 2024 book, Defy: What Stands Between Us and Our True Values, introduces a concept we need to talk about:
Diplomatic defiance – the deliberate, ethical refusal to go along with harmful systems, especially when those systems punish overt dissent.
How to Practice Diplomatic Defiance
It’s not dramatic.
It’s not violent.
It’s not social media outrage.
It’s the calm, morally anchored decision to say:
“No. Not this way. Not in my name.”
And it looks different depending on your role:
For healthcare workers, it might be declining to participate in assessments that retraumatize patients or rubber-stamp insurer decisions.
For legal professionals, it may be refusing to facilitate technical defences that further harm the already injured.
For injured workers, it’s choosing healing over compliance with an unjust process.
For public servants, it may mean whistleblowing or quietly removing yourself from roles that require harm.
This is not passive. It is moral protest.
I loved Dr Dean’s final thought. It speaks to us all even in professions beyond Healthcare.
We don’t need to wait for a hero. We need to become practiced advocates for ethical care. When we speak with clarity and courage, we lead others to safer ground - to the square we claimed when taking our oaths and entering our professions.
When Trust Is Broken, Moral Clarity Becomes Essential
Let’s be honest.
Our trust in politicians has been shattered.
The mockery we witnessed this week smirking faces while injured workers sobbed was not just offensive. It was morally injurious.
When leaders abuse power or fail to uphold ethical standards, the rest of us must double down on our own integrity. We don’t restore justice by staying silent or compliant.
This is a time for ethical professionals to use their voices.
Professionals Are Protesting Too
Diplomatic defiance is being quietly practiced in workplaces across Australia.
It’s the social worker who says no to a flawed discharge plan.
The lawyer who won’t gaslight their client into dropping a claim.
The GP who insists the injury is real even when the insurer won’t pay.
This isn’t obstinacy. It’s moral leadership.
Gandhi practiced it. So did Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
They did not comply with injustice, but neither did they resort to hate.
They stood in truth and refused to betray their deepest values.
I’m Taking Back the Frame, Join Me
I’m not the moral police either, I just can’t watch this continue without doing my little bit to stop the harm of others.
There is a saying - we can’t help everyone, but we can help the one person in front of us and that’s how I try to live my life.
I write because I believe in this work.
This work supports me, just as I hope it supports you.
If Take Back the Frame speaks to you if you’re here because something in these words resonates please consider becoming a paid subscriber. Your support helps me keep going. And if you’re not ready for that, free subscribers are always welcome. This space is for all of us.
Because sometimes the greatest act of rebellion…
Is refusing to lose your soul while the world applauds cruelty.
i think one of the difficulties with moral injury is that it's hard to find an edge where it starts. the more i consider it, the more i think it's part and parcel of colonialism. that in order to expand an empire, you must become blind and deaf to grief, to needing consent, to thinking about the reasons why not to go ahead with your latest brilliant idea, to slow consideration.
we have the means these days to barge ahead with very little forethought, and then we have labels now to diagnose someone ("depression") who is trying to speak what we don't want to hear. maybe moral injury is the legacy of the way we live.
You are correct it is not possible to save everyone, however it is possible to call out the reason[s] why far too many people are in need of saving.
One voice raised becomes two voices becomes four voices becomes eight voices becomes sixteen voices.
It all starts with one voice.