Here is an article from the NY Times weekly Ethicist column. The question pertains to the right to disclose a medical condition to avoid harm to others.
For this case, I do believe that the patient should disclose their radioactive condition; however, its begs the question, what other risky behavior or conditions we should disclose to those around us. Consider smoking, the secondhand risks are a lot greater than this patients radioactive condition; however, rarely in any circumstances do smokers have the responsibility to disclose their condition. Is this ethical?
I think it is unethical, because smokers are putting others at risk just as much, if not more, than this radioactive patient, and for smokers, this risk is present every day until they stop smoking. Therefore, smokers are disregarding the autonomy of those around them, and are committing maleficent acts by smoking around others, since you can still get lung cancer even if you are not the one smoking. Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In the case presented in the article (regarding the radioactive condition of the patient, not the carpets), I think that the woman should absolutely have disclosed her condition to the hotel. I think an important question here is, why did she not want to stay at home? In the article she mentioned that she would not want to be cleaning, but could the welfare of her family have been a consideration? If she were unwilling to expose her children to her illness, then she should not have assumed that it would be any different with strangers.
ReplyDeleteAs far as smoking is concerned, I agree that smokers are as much at fault as the woman above would have been if she had ignored her morals and stayed at the hotel under false pretenses; even more so, as second-hand smoke is extremely dangerous and is known to cause a myriad of lung issues, including lung cancer. Those who subject people around them to their second-hand smoke are absolutely disregarding the autonomy of others. While it is the individual's choice for their own health, they cannot expect everyone to agree to the idea of filling their lungs with tar and cancer-causing agents. I'm glad that the government is finally recognizing this issue and limiting cigarette use to specific areas, especially making it illegal to smoke in restaurants, bars, or basically any public area.
I would be interested to hear the opinions of a person who does smoke frequently. Do they feel that they are acting with maleficence and disregarding the autonomy of others by subjecting non-smokers to second-hand smoke?
The woman in the article definitely acted unethically by keeping her radioactive condition a secret. By doing so she violated her duty to do no harm and to act beneficently, to care for others. I’m going to assume that somebody told this woman that her radioactive condition is not safe and is not something that you would like to pass around. As stated in the earlier post, why did she just not stay home instead of risking the infection of many people? Her choices are not only hard to believe but they are certainly morally and ethically wrong. Her violating of her duty to do no harm and to care for others was completely violated.
ReplyDeleteJust as this woman put others unknowingly at risk, smokes do the same. It is proven that it is not only the smoker that suffers from smoke, but also the people around him or her due to second hand smoke. By smoking and subjecting everybody around them to second hand smoke, smokers are completely disregarding the autonomy of those individuals who do not smoke. If non-smokers want to choose to inhale smoke they simply would have taken up smoking. Non-smokers do not wish to inhale smoke, therefore, they choose not to smoke. A choice that is quickly taken away when they are subjected to second hand smoke.
Torri
In the case of the radioactive woman, what threats does she present? If they’re enough reasons to stay clear from others around her, why did the hospital discharge her? It’s the doctors’ duty to keep not only his patients safe, but to do his best to eliminate further disease in the area. I believe it was unethical of the doctors to release a woman into crowds if she was a threat to them. I too believe, however, that the woman should let hotel staff know. On another note, it would be more ethical of her to keep as many people safe as possible and send her family to a hotel instead. By living alone, she isn’t a threat to the entire hotel staff as well as her family, when she gets home.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the second hand smoking argument, yes it’s a danger to society, but why does the government allow it? In most states, smoking in public is not a crime. Most restaurants allowed smoking until recently and still, smoking is allowed in all major casinos and hotels around America. Second hand smoking, though it causes lung cancer, isn’t seen as a threat to society as yet. (At least not in the eyes of the government). I believe it can be unethical to not release medical information only when the severity of the disease is high. Lung cancer, although severe can’t be caught by a single puff of smoke. It takes years to develop. This is asking millions and millions of people to quit smoking, just so the risk of “catching lung cancer” can go down.
-Alyshia