An Actual Ethical Dilemma Thread???

Yep!

Interesting! I'll think about it ... reading yours may shake something loose.

I guess I didn't realize ethical dilemmas were existent in the world of rabbits.

But go ahead, dlowan, I'll politely listen and try to guide you through the turbulence of your life.

You had better start bunny, so we get the idea.

GUS is back?????????????????that in and of itself is an ethical dilema!

but go ahead deb, i like to hear you type

I was thinking of starting, but my story is still quite fresh. I may not get through it, but I'll at least start. I was in Alaska recently, and thought, "should I roll that park ranger for his suit?" and as usual, I didn't take the high road. So, masquerading as a ranger, I happened upon an old dude sleeping inside a caribou...it was dis-gus-ting...sorry, I can no longer go on, it's too traumatizing...

<still waiting for bunny to post something actually relevent>

I'd like to hear the rest of your story, Cav.

Sounds a little far-fetched though.

You think?

Ok - this was from ages ago - and I had a split second to make the decision - some colleagues thought that what I did was so obviously right that they couldn't see why I was thinking about it - others that I was so wrong that I ought to be hanging my head in shame.

I was assessing an offender for a report to go to the judge to give some background and such prior to sentencing. As such, he was aware that what he said would be included in the report.

This guy was so spooky that I felt kind of scared sitting in the little interview room at the prison with him. Anyhow, in his discussions of his early family life, he evidenced great rage against his family - and finally made clear threats to kill a couple of them. This necessitated (duty to warn) immediate contact with said family to warn them of the threats. (I would have tried to see them anyway, re the assessment.)

In discussions with them, a very different view of things emerged of the fellow's history - and I went back to discuss these with him (I couldn't make things any worse! And figured it might make things better.)

Anyhoo, in the ensuing discussion, his awareness of the nature of my reason for being there faded, and he became very emotional - and began to hint at some dark deed in his past.

Whether rightly or wrongly, my intuition flashed that it was a murder or rape that he had committed that he was talking around.

He opened his mouth to tell me - I believe - about this thing - and, in the instant that he was drawing breath, I had to make the decision about whether I informed him that if he divulged such a serious offense, I would be legally bound to inform the police - or whether I let him talk.


What should I have done?

Oh - it is normal ethics to inform clients of the limits of confidentiality prior to engaging with them

I had done this at the beginning of contact with him, but he had clearly forgotten....

I think you would have to stop him D ....inform him again...and then see if he wanted to clear his conscience...

Over-riding the chance to clear an awful crime?

(Let's assume he is definitely about to divulge a serious crime..)

Aren't you required to follow the letter of the law?

For me, a no-brainer, but a conundrum as well. In that situation, I would have informed him of the legality of the confession, strictly because you were acting as an officer of the court. This wasn't a patient of yours, I assume, but letting him just talk would have made any confession inadmissable in court. Either decision is no reason to feel ethically base however.

Anyone else?

Let him spill.

Even if he forgot what you told him at the beginning of the interview, you could have reminded him, as willow_ti said, and then put in a request for commiting him to a psychiatric facility, rather than prison.

(I had to re-read as to the purpose -- a client of yours whom you were trying to help is different than "I was assessing an offender for a report to go to the judge to give some background and such prior to sentencing." His prior crimes are very pertinent in that context.)

Deb, I'm not familiar with the legal system in Australia, but as I see it, you had to make the decision to let him talk, and perhaps have the judge throw out the entire case based upon the man's rights, or to inform him of those rights, and seal forever the possibility of bringing to light his psychotic background. Just a wild guess, but I'll bet you let him talk.