To shoot, or not to shoot?

Photojournalists often find themselves in intense situations. Moreover, these moments occasionally lead to difficult decisions.

A starving child in need of immediate medical attention; a racially motivated attack on an individual by a group; and an asylum-seeker struggling to cross a fast-moving river while holding her baby over her head.

Most of us see no dilemma here. Anyone with a moral compass will drop everything to help in some way. This doesn’t mean running into the river or climbing into a burning car. But the idea of taking a photo seems unconscionable.

However, the journalist faces an inner battle that most can’t comprehend.

And the not-so-simple answer is: take the shot.

This isn’t to suggest martyrdom for the drowning woman, the beaten man, or the starving child. They may still be saved.

But, widespread awareness of such issues can have lasting effects, saving countless lives in the future.

Unfortunately, the journalists who take such action suffer incredible scrutiny. They’re criticized for exploitation, for lacking empathy, for not doing enough.

There are many examples of photographers whose images have changed the world, and who have struggled ever since. Tortured by their decision and by the general public, many have left the field altogether.

In 1993, Kevin Carter took a photo of an immaceated child in Sudan — a vulture stood a few feet away. When published, the image drew incredible attention to the Sudanese famine and helped spur aid movements that likely saved the lives of countless thousands in the years since.

Regardless of the lives saved in the long term, Carter received heavy criticism for the image in the months following publication.

Kevin Carter won the Pulitzer Prize for the photo in 1994.

Four months later, he took his life.