An immediate response satisfies demands of an emergency. People react differently to circumstances of urgency; it is far more productive at the scene of an accident to phone for an ambulance and obtain help there and then rather than worrying over the precise details of the condition and how it was caused. Similarly, when a disaster occurs on a mass scale such as the crash at Schiphol airport or the Tsunami crisis, it is crucial to raise awareness of the occurrence instantly. People can usually identify whether their friends or relatives were at risk; numbers provide no additional purpose.

While failure to act spontaneously in an emergency may result in further deterioration or death, immediacy could cause a result just as fatal. It is widely known that casualties must only be moved with caution if at all, to prevent further damage. Rather than revealing the number of casualties involved in a large scale event, it may be advanced it would be more beneficial to reveal the names. Nevertheless, this supports the notion that details given in the initial stage of reporting are more helpful than vague news bulletins.

If a news report announced that nine people out of 127 had died and listed the names of all those involved, it would be of use to ascertain who was alive. But aside from causing much confusion as to how the result occurred, it would be somewhat ineffectual to report a plane crash, days later. The scope of the disaster would already have been acknowledged and so its impact could not be registered later.

If a news report announced that nine people out of 127 had died and listed the names of all those involved, it would be of use to ascertain who was alive. But aside from causing much confusion as to how the result occurred, it would be somewhat ineffectual to report a plane crash, days later. The scope of the disaster would already have been acknowledged and so its impact could not be registered later.

In the aforementioned scenario in which a judge is confronted with a request to override a patient’s refusal to medical treatment in such circumstances where time is of the essence, favouring accuracy over immediacy could prove fatal. Immediacy can certainly be justified here. While a patient may be forced to receive the treatment and perhaps live a life aimed at prolonging death against her will, it is surely better to arrive at this situation than it is to let a patient die while the facts of the case are carefully measured and weighed up. If a patient is truly unhappy alive, a subsequent decision can be made opposing that state of affairs. Conversely the same cannot be said of someone who is already dead.

Failure to adhere to accuracy also poses problems. As became apparent in the case of Baby P, a doctor’s negligence in diagnosing a condition can prove fatal. This could be the case whether one condition is incorrectly attributed over another and in attempting to treat the incorrect condition, the actual condition is worsened, or if the condition failed to be identified. In cases of suspected child abuse, significant harm must be proven in order to justify court intervention. Should a doctor fail to notice such harm was non-accidental, the child will no doubt be restored to his home which presents a risk.

Arguably the example of cramming represents a form of immediacy as the person reacts to the urgency of the situation. Regardless, potential still exists for gains to be made. A proportion of those who take such an approach to exams will be awarded with sufficient or even good results, whether by memory, excelling under pressure or just plain luck. Even if an inadequate result is produced, some value can be extracted from the approach as the student learns through trial and error that such a method is unhelpful to him.

Those who lack motivation or organisational skills may often find themselves cramming vast amounts of information the night before an exam as panic sets in. The object of leaving revision until the last minute may have been to allow the student to indulge in more enjoyable activities and maximise temporary pleasure. Consequently, potential long-term pleasure is likely to be somewhat decreased if the exam is failed and leads to lack of opportunity. Thus no gain was made in cramming; it would have been better not to have bothered at all.

Putting immediacy in this order may cause a decline in spontaneity of thought. Sometimes our instincts prove a valuable tool in decision making; spur of the moment activities are often the most enjoyable. Too much consideration as to what the task involves may deter the person from taking it on. Eventually we could be faced with a society where individuals are reluctant to participate in unfamiliar activities and the world would come to a standstill.

We often encounter those who say they plan to do something but in reality it never happens. If immediacy is prioritised over accuracy, people are more likely to rush into modes of conduct and take on commitments which they cannot see through. Accuracy in this context could relate to forward planning and thought about the demands of the proposed action. On failure to do so, the person may realise they are not suitable for the task or do not fully understand what is required.

Even when correct, statistics are often misleading. Surveys take samples of the population and so their research does not adequately reflect the views or behaviour of society as a whole. Generalisation of categories causes us to jump to conclusions; all 121 people treated for injuries are unlikely to have wounds of equal severity. While accuracy often helps to clarify the details behind the immediate reaction, other relevant factors must also be recorded accurately for genuine findings to be shown.

Learning that nine people were killed in the Schiphol plane crash comes as a shock. But learning that 127 people were on board at the time provides us with consolation that more could have been affected than was the case. However, hearing that 121 of these were treated for injuries somewhat counters this response. If these statistics were wrong, we would either have a mistaken perspective as to the extent of the tragedy or when later corrected, we would fail to appreciate the difference in detail having reacted to the initial news.