dlowan wrote:You realise that, in this thread, YOU get to be on the spot too, Joe - you are not just the usual lofty interlocutor and critic that you get to be on your own threads!
Very true. I take on the role of lofty interlocutor on my own threads because I don't want people to view them as the kind of "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" polemics that one frequently sees on the Politics forum. My function is to facilitate discussion, not dominate it. On threads that I don't initiate, however, I'm perfectly comfortable with giving my own opinions, as I have done here.
willow_tl: If, in the situation that you described, you had learned of HIV+ Harvey's status in confidence (e.g. as part of your professional duties), then you had an overriding obligation to maintain that confidence. To give an analogous situation: suppose a priest learns, through a penitent's confession, of a crime that will soon be committed. Had the priest learned this information in any other way, then his duty would have been clear: report the information to the police or to the potential victim of the crime. Learning it in the confessional, however, imposes an ethical obligation upon him to maintain that secret.
In the same respect, if you are obligated, pursuant to your professional standards and code of ethics, to maintain these types of confidences, then you have an obligation that overrides your obligation to your friend. That does not mean, however, that you are forced to stand to one side and do nothing. In that situation, I would confront Harvey, tell him that he is engaging in risky behavior, and urge him either to stop or to inform my friend himself that he is HIV+.
