The Cage of Goodwill and the Illusion of the "Get-Out-of-Jail Card" of Electric Shock - 1/04/2026

Abstract

AEDs save lives, and menstrual pain experiences deepen understanding. Why do we feel a mysterious "discomfort" from these seemingly humanitarian and benevolent actions? The truth lies in the "blame-shifting" we hide behind beautiful words. A life-saving system predicated on the infinite fuel of goodwill, and training that attempts to fill the institutional gaps with emotional appeal. This article dissects the cold-hearted conflicts of interest in modern society through the phenomenon of electric shock.

Keywords

Rescueman silence, emotional scapegoating, attribution of responsibility, the limits of goodwill

The peeling away of the veil of "life comes first"

AEDs on street corners have been touted as a magic wand that can turn anyone into a hero. The standard narrative that "there's no logic to saving someone's life" is pleasing to our ears. Yet society has chosen to turn a blind eye to the fact that the hands wielding the cane are trembling with fear.

Imagine a man trying to save a woman who collapses one day. Instead of resuscitation procedures, the first thing that crosses his mind is the cold question: "Will I be treated like a criminal after I remove her clothes?"

Profitable Service in the Name of Goodwill

The lifesaving drama we talk about as "ideal" suffers a serious flaw. It's the "damage to the life that follows" that the rescuer bears unilaterally.

The price of the gamble of rescue = (social death due to suspicion) - (the joy of saving a life)

Society whispers, "The law will protect you," but once a man is labeled "a man who engaged in inappropriate contact," the law will never remove the label. A society that demands "infinite courage" from rescuers is, in reality, placing all the stakes on individuals while the rescuer merely watches from a safe distance.

A "cheap substitute" for pain

On the other hand, training sessions are being held across the country in which participants experience menstrual cramps through electrical stimulation. Participants' faces contort in excruciating pain, while the women watching breathe a sigh of relief, thinking, "They finally understand!" This, too, is a beautiful story of mutual understanding.

However, here, too, a subtle deception lies hidden.

Emotional manipulation evades the "essence"

Menstrual pain is not simply abdominal pain. It's a decades-long daily occurrence, a hormonal wear and tear on the body and mind, and a real concern for one's career. Saying "I understand" after a few minutes of electric shocks is a gross disregard for the suffering of others.

Why are we so enthusiastic about this "experience"? It's because creating the emotional impact of "sharing pain" is far less costly than spending money on specific institutional reforms, work hour adjustments, or pharmaceutical solutions.

Demonstrating empathy = Postponing a fundamental solution ÷ Sharing temporary pain

Electric shocks expose the shifting of responsibility

AEDs and menstrual pain training. What connects these two is the attempt to shift social responsibility to issues of personal emotion and resolve through the direct stimulation of an electric shock.

Our discomfort with AEDs is a reaction to the dishonesty of attempting to conceal the rescuer's risk under the guise of "goodwill." And our discomfort with menstrual pain training is a rejection of the easy, compensatory approach of trying to compensate for systemic deficiencies with a "good attitude."

A mirror with no escape

What we need to face is not a mentality of "be kinder."

"Physical immunity" that allows rescuers to act without regret

"Legal rights" that protect against disadvantage even without experiencing pain

A society that attempts to solve problems by administering electric shocks and stirring up emotions without providing these is negligent in its obligations.

The "narrative of goodwill" we believe in has reached its limits. Once we strip away the comforting lies, all that remains is a very real and cold-hearted balancing of interests: who is responsible and who is disadvantaged.