Kevin's Watch

so let's get this straight. most people here would allow for an outbreak of tb? and they would sit at home smug in the knowledge that they protected some idiot individual over the majority? you would allow for the death of innocents to protect this one guy? when this guy has shown a complete disregard for the health of people around him?

That's a reasonable effective appeal to emotion, however.....

Would it be OK for the doctor of an HIV patient to tell everyone that the patient knew that he was HIV positive?

Would it be OK for a doctor to inform a biotech company that one of his patients had a specific condition that they could profit from?

Would it be OK for a psychiatrist to testify against one of his patients in a divorce or custody trial?

The answer's "no" to all those questions. Doctor-patient confidentiality is of the utmost importance, and as lousy of a choice as this is, the principle of confidentiality is, I believe, more important.

the difference being epidemic. the examples you gave seem to not involve an epidemic. the HIV case does cause some problems, but responsible action on a partners level would limit exposure. how can i have an informed opinion about dining at a restaurant if i don't know that an employee has a contagious disease? is it ok for that guy to expose my grandchildren to it?

Fine, so should you know if the cook is HIV positive?

Sorry man, there's no wiggle room in this, doctor-patient confidentiality is of the utmost importance, which is why it requires a court order to be breached.

Appeal to emotion and another false dilemma. If you don't break the law, people will dieeee (If you don't torture, the terrorists will win)!

How do you know the cook where you took your family doesn't have a contagious disease? You don't even know if he washed his hands after his last bathroom break (the odds aren't great), much less if he's walking around as the next undiagnosed patient zero. Hell, chances are more likely you'll get e-coli from taco bell. At least TB is easily treated and routinely screened. If you're really concerned about safety, don't eat at any restaurant that doesn't require its employees to take regular medical check-ups.

Life is messy. People are dangerous. Doesn't give you the right to abrogate personal responsibility, especially since it makes the first two statements worse. And just because you can't do whatever you feel like, it doesn't mean you can't do anything. I'm interested in how the situation solved itself.

I'm interested in how the situation solved itself.

me 2!

we don't know about the cook. we know about this one guy. there should be a law against this guy just walking around.

I'd be incredibly surprised if there wasn't. But you can't break one law to privately enforce another. As a country, we tend to look down on vigilante justice.

and support the rights of the individual to harm society.

And support the rights of the individual, yes.

Syl wrote:And support the rights of the individual, yes.

That's really what it boils down to.

I should be able to talk to my doctor about my health and medical condition without worrying about it being spread all over town. If I have to worry about that, I'm less likely to be honest, which will impact my health, drive up medical costs, and so forth.

I certainly see where you're coming from Dennis, but I think you're trying to set a dangerous precedent. After all, couldn't it be argued that your psychiatrist should tell people whether or not you're bipolar or schizophrenic in the name of public safety?

Society as a whole is pretty safe from any individual in most cases I think.

And yes, the rights of the individual are paramount. Individuals have rights...societies don't. There's a reason for that.

--A

Avatar wrote:Society as a whole is pretty safe from any individual in most cases I think.

And yes, the rights of the individual are paramount. Individuals have rights...societies don't. There's a reason for that.

--A

I think it's more of the case that societies do have rights. After all, without society there would no individuality. Society gives us the framework for individuality to thrive.

Individuality is much older than society. Society doesn't have rights, although it may have obligations. Society is a self-perpetuating engine...individuals allow it to exist.

--A

Avatar wrote:Individuality is much older than society. Society doesn't have rights, although it may have obligations. Society is a self-perpetuating engine...individuals allow it to exist.

--A

But without society we have no individuality. It then becomes the law of the jungle - not some anarchist utopia. Strength and will are all that matters - which is another form of repression.

I think i'd go and talk to him, Patient to Doctor. That way no laws are broken.

If he agrees to go home or whatever, then thats great.

But say he doesnt, then I think I would make that annonymous call to the sheriff.

Esmer wrote:

I'm interested in how the situation solved itself.

me 2!

We debated this amongst ourselves for awhile before we finally came to a consensus decision.

I guess that I should have added that this guy was also noncompliant with his anti-psychotics, which made trying to reason with him (as my friend who discovered the situation did attempt to do) pretty difficult, if not impossible. I would think that the noncompliance with the one led to the noncompliance with the other.

Then the deux ex machina happened.

I will tell you guys what group decision we had made, and what happened to this guy after you have had a chance to discuss it a bit more.

doh!

shakes fist in air.....

Loremaster wrote:

Avatar wrote:Individuality is much older than society. Society doesn't have rights, although it may have obligations. Society is a self-perpetuating engine...individuals allow it to exist.

--A

But without society we have no individuality. It then becomes the law of the jungle - not some anarchist utopia. Strength and will are all that matters - which is another form of repression.

Or a form of freedom.

Of course individuality would exist without society. The "law of the jungle" is all about individuality.

Society directly opposes that...it expects us to subsume our indiviuality for the good of that society when it deems necessary. *shrug*

--A

Avatar wrote:Of course individuality would exist without society. The "law of the jungle" is all about individuality.

Society directly opposes that...it expects us to subsume our indiviuality for the good of that society when it deems necessary. *shrug*

--A

Society doesn't oppose individuality. The very fact it helps people to grow mentally and physically is enough evidence for that. No one is subsumed for the good of society unless we're talking about fascist or communist states. People have to make concessions - small sacrifices in order to help society (which helps themselves). But that doesn't compromise their individuality.