Psychological studies reveal that prolonged exposure to pain and suffering can lead to empathic distress, resulting in a state of inaction. Empathetic distress, defined as the emotional pain felt for others coupled with a sense of helplessness, can arise when individuals feel incapable of aiding those affected by war, natural disasters, and similar events. This helplessness often prompts people to avoid such situations, including news reports about them. Originally identified in healthcare professionals, such as nurses and doctors, empathic distress was termed "compassion fatigue," and viewed as the price for caring. Early theories suggested that witnessing significant suffering constitutes a form of vicarious trauma that depletes one's emotional reserves until caring becomes challenging. For healthcare professionals, regular exposure to terminally ill patients was considered a potential cause. Recent studies challenge the notion that inaction is solely rooted in apathy. Quite ironically, empathy itself can be a driving factor leading to distress. Recognizing how empathy can immobilize healthcare professionals, particularly nurses, is crucial in preventing indifference. Contrary to the belief that "compassion fatigue" implies a cost to caring, the latest research suggests that caring is not inherently draining. The real challenge arises from feeling incapable of alleviating others' pain during sustained periods of anguish. Empathy, during such times, tends to lead to increased distress and, in some cases, depression. Current research diverges from focusing solely on sharing others' pain, emphasizing the importance of recognizing feelings and offering comfort. The researches focusing on noticing others' feelings and offering comfort, unlike on sharing others’ pain, found that a different neural network associated with affiliation and social connection lit up in the brain. This leads to proactive response instead of passive retreat. A growing body of evidence suggests that compassion is a healthier response for caregivers and more beneficial for others compared to empathy. While empathy may lead to withdrawal, compassion motivates caregivers to extend support and assistance. In essence, empathy is characterized by "I am hurting for you," while compassion embodies "I am here for you." This paper synthesizes scientific research distinguishing empathy and compassion, advocating for the primacy of compassion over empathy as a beneficial approach for both nurses and patients.

Augustine is presently Director of the Institute of Science and Religion at Little Flower Seminary, Aluva (India). He obtained his M.Sc. from Madras University and a European Master in Bioethics from the Universities of Leuven, Nijmegen and Padova. He holds a PhD in Philosophy of Science from Open International University in Colombo (Sri Lanka). He lectures in Philosophy of Science and Bioethics at various institutions in India. Augustine has published six books and several articles in peer-reviewed journals. His works include East-West Interface of Reality (Indian Institute of Science and Religion, Pune, 2003), Theological Mysteries in Scientific Perspective (Asian Trading Corporation, Bangalore, 2004), Cosmos Bios and Theos, 2006, Evolution and Religious Belief (Serial Publishers, New Delhi, 2011). He is the managing editor and Publisher of "Omega – Indian Journal of Science and Religion". He completed his PhD in 2017.