There is a classic idea in Ethics. It says that there is a moral difference between carrying out an action and omitting to carry out an action.
To paraphrase Simon Blackburn and as explained in the Oxford dictionary of philosophy :
“The doctrine that it makes an ethical difference whether an agent actively intervenes to bring about a result or omits to act in circumstances in which it is foreseen that as a result of the omission the same result occurs.
Thus suppose I wish you to be [intimidated] , if I act to bring about your [intimidation] I am [an intimidator], but if I happily discover you in danger of [intimidation] , and fail to act [in your favor] , I am not acting, and therefore according to the doctrine, not an [intimidator].
[ What then according to this doctrine will the common man whom I represent think of me when they come to knowledge of my happy discovery and then my subsequent insistence to enact ? ]”
The United States Sentencing Commission considers the subject of Relevant Conduct - a concern ( http://www.ussc.gov/guidelines-manual/2011/2011-1b13 ).
Enforceable rules made to instill ethical standards on professionals are usually described under the subsidiary legislation.
The ethical question may be whether such legitimacy should be omitted in support of an alternative set of standards but then is it not important to find out why or what consequences is being carried and what repercussion has come or will come by posing such a question ?
Gratification is no more an expansion of the question and so not relevant. A soldier’s death may be of concern yet the saddest thing is not about the recourse or the legitimacy but the possibility of these words :
“I sympathize with you but your best recourse is in the political arena.“
- The Tyranny of the Majority.