An Actual Ethical Dilemma Thread???

ossobuco wrote:

Aha! It did occur to me I might be wrong. I'm glad that nice waiter here won't be sacked...

and the waiter from Crater Lake would be an asset here..

Still, do the large pockets or small pockets of the owner(s) rightfully affect behavior, if they do? I don't mean yours or mine in particular, but anyone's behavior.

That's part of the dilemma and the other is whether there is true wisdom in pointing out other's mistakes.

Paula -- Being truthful and to pay for what I had used. The fallout was the problem.

I'm sure I would, Paula, but I wonder how people who are waiters or who have been waiters feel about this. Wouldn't they rather that the mistake were glossed over? This is the person who served us... these people are the ones who have a very personal hand in our lives. So why shouldn't I feel more loyal to them then the owners of the lodge, especially if the mistake costs them their job?

By the time that the entire thing had been sorted out, three people on one side of the counter had wasted 20 minutes of their time trying to figure this out and meanwhile not serving other guests who were also trying to check out. Of course, I also had to cool my heels for the same interval. Was it worth it?

dlowan wrote:

Quote:

Thinking about that one, Letty...........

You know - I suspect the walking out thing was a symptom of him decompensating in some way - the expulsion might well have been immaterial....

dlowan

Could you explain what decompensating is.

Sure: This is the definition

"The inability to maintain defense mechanisms in response to stress, resulting in personality disturbance or psychological imbalance."

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+.

For the purpose of the discussion, living with AIDS, knowing it will be fatal, do you choose suicide, or the fight to live? Would you support euthanasia? Would you try to wait it out and see what the research comes up with?

Dilemma: fatal illness, the medical community wants to help you, but they cannot cure you, as of yet. So, what shall it be, a few more years of suffering, or perhaps control, or perhaps new treatments, or to give up entirely?

Three topics in this thread caught my interest in regards to ethics, all because of the closeness to home that each hit upon. AIDS, ALS (Lou Gehrig's Disease) and Euthanasia. Several years ago, one very close friend of mine with AIDS had, with his partner, decided upon euthanasia to end my friends life. But only when my friend had decided enough was enough. It was very surreal at the time it happened, as my friend had actually chosen a day and invited all of his family and closest friends to be there with him to say his final goodbyes. The house was full, plenty of food and drink and it almost could have been a party had none of us known why we were there. People wandered in and out of my friends room for most of the morning and early afternoon until everyone had had the chance to speak with him. At that point, a doctor friend and my friends partner went into my friends room and closed the door. It felt so strange and almost disorienting....the "guests" still mingling and chatting, sipping wine and eating. About 30 minutes later, my friends partner emerged and simply said "Tony has passed". There was about 5 minutes of complete silence and then everyone resumed what they were doing before. The doctor left immediately after proclaiming Tony dead from complications from AIDS. I couldn't stick around anymore and questioned why I had come to begin with knowing what the outcome would be. Euthanasia is not legal in our state and yet I was a party to it by just being there. I still sometimes struggle with that whole scene and what I could have, would have or should have done different, if anything....

My experience with Lou Gehrigs Disease and euthanasia was even harder, but since this one post ended up much longer than I originally intended, I'll save it for another time perhaps.

But Joe - most professional codes of ethics - and also the law - DO allow for the need (indeed, the obligation) to breach confidentiality in some cases.

cavfancier wrote:

For the purpose of the discussion, living with AIDS, knowing it will be fatal, do you choose suicide, or the fight to live? Would you support euthanasia? Would you try to wait it out and see what the research comes up with?

Dilemma: fatal illness, the medical community wants to help you, but they cannot cure you, as of yet. So, what shall it be, a few more years of suffering, or perhaps control, or perhaps new treatments, or to give up entirely?

This would be a suffering vs joy, utility and my obligations thing for me, Cav.

The suffering of those close to me from suicide (which are well known to me, since I see many folk who have lost loved ones this way) would certainly be a factor - as would any use and succour I might be able to be to those (including animals) around me. Also of interest would be other effects on those around me - would my killing myself leave others at disadvantage? (Perhaps with insurance, etc,) Plus, of course, any joy I might have in life!

In practice, I know it is wise to leave such decisions for a while - since depression may pass.

I certainly personally hold open the option of suicide if I am diagnosed with a nasty and degarding illness - whether i would do it is impossible to know - most people, in fact, do not. However, I believe it is a perfectly ethical decision for an individual to make - but I think there is an obligation to think it through, and consider the effect upon others - and very likely to discuss it with some - or one - of the closest of them, and help them to come to terms with your decision.

dlowan wrote:

But Joe - most professional codes of ethics - and also the law - DO allow for the need (indeed, the obligation) to breach confidentiality in some cases.

Read again what I wrote: "...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."

I don't know what willow's ethical obligations are under those circumstances. Indeed, I don't know what willow's ethical obligations are under any circumstances. That's why I phrased my answer in the subjunctive.

dlowan wrote:

cavfancier wrote:

For the purpose of the discussion, living with AIDS, knowing it will be fatal, do you choose suicide, or the fight to live? Would you support euthanasia? Would you try to wait it out and see what the research comes up with?

Dilemma: fatal illness, the medical community wants to help you, but they cannot cure you, as of yet. So, what shall it be, a few more years of suffering, or perhaps control, or perhaps new treatments, or to give up entirely?

This would be a suffering vs joy, utility and my obligations thing for me, Cav.

The suffering of those close to me from suicide (which are well known to me, since I see many folk who have lost loved ones this way) would certainly be a factor - as would any use and succour I might be able to be to those (including animals) around me. Also of interest would be other effects on those around me - would my killing myself leave others at disadvantage? (Perhaps with insurance, etc,) Plus, of course, any joy I might have in life!

In practice, I know it is wise to leave such decisions for a while - since depression may pass.

I certainly personally hold open the option of suicide if I am diagnosed with a nasty and degarding illness - whether i would do it is impossible to know - most people, in fact, do not. However, I believe it is a perfectly ethical decision for an individual to make - but I think there is an obligation to think it through, and consider the effect upon others - and very likely to discuss it with some - or one - of the closest of them, and help them to come to terms with your decision.

<Just stirring the pot> So it's all about you in the end, isn't it...