Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:40 pm
it does if they are a megalomaniac murderous dictator. 
Kevin's Watch
Official Discussion Forum for the works of Stephen R. Donaldson
https://kevinswatch.com/phpBB3/
Ethics Discussion for Dec. 2006
Page 3 of 3
Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:58 pm
this guy should be locked up. if he is incapable of making decisions that could harm others he has no business being on the street.
Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 11:17 pm
We need to remember that Law exists to protect the common good, and in any case where the common good is threatened individuals have a responsbility to take action that the people come to no harm.
Balanced against this argument are the assertions of human rights, which I agree are intrinsically a good thing. I do not agree with every right which is protected by the American Constiution, but thats another matter.
My problem comes when people use thier individual rights to to defend and justify actions of the lack of which are by consensus detrimental to the common good.
Reporting the sick persons behaviour violates his right to privacy (a right I dont actually believe exists), but faliure to act is detrimental to the health of the people who come into contact with the person. Acting for the common good, I would with clear a concience report this person, and would encourage anyone else to.
Balanced against this argument are the assertions of human rights, which I agree are intrinsically a good thing. I do not agree with every right which is protected by the American Constiution, but thats another matter.
My problem comes when people use thier individual rights to to defend and justify actions of the lack of which are by consensus detrimental to the common good.
Reporting the sick persons behaviour violates his right to privacy (a right I dont actually believe exists), but faliure to act is detrimental to the health of the people who come into contact with the person. Acting for the common good, I would with clear a concience report this person, and would encourage anyone else to.
Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 9:47 pm
Spoiler
We finally decided that the right for patient confidentiality was too important to break. But that decision made us all feel uncomfortable, and we continued to talk about it every day. I'm not sure what we might have eventually done. 
The the deux et machina happened.
In the end the patient did something that got him picked up by the cops, and eventually thrown into prison for a few years.
Prison is usually something I usually think of with a shudder, but it actually turned out to be good for this guy because he either started taking or was forced to take his meds, and he was doing a lot better health wise when he got out.
The the deux et machina happened.
In the end the patient did something that got him picked up by the cops, and eventually thrown into prison for a few years.
Prison is usually something I usually think of with a shudder, but it actually turned out to be good for this guy because he either started taking or was forced to take his meds, and he was doing a lot better health wise when he got out.
Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 10:08 pm
The law is the law, but why keep to it? There's probably no guarantee that even one person will die, but this man's privacy and "my" criminal record are not worth keeping. Not revealing he has TB also means that I'll have to hope every other person in the restaurant gets a medical check-up independent of any reason to think they might've gotten TB.
HIV doesn't even relate to this case far as I can see, as it's not contagious through spit or hand germs or whatever. In the case of sexual transmission it's the responsibility of one partner to discriminate, and trust the other person, use a condom, or whatever. The person in this situation is putting people in a position where they can't reasonably be expected to ensure their own safety.
How would that help in this case, since this guy has had a medical check-up and isn't complying with the procedures he was supposed to follow?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.
HIV doesn't even relate to this case far as I can see, as it's not contagious through spit or hand germs or whatever. In the case of sexual transmission it's the responsibility of one partner to discriminate, and trust the other person, use a condom, or whatever. The person in this situation is putting people in a position where they can't reasonably be expected to ensure their own safety.