Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:40:12 EDT
From:         TYLERI@RHQVM03.VNET.IBM.COM
Subject:      Ethical ramifications of neck injury...
Comments: To: ethics-l%UGA.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu

From:         "Irv Tyler - ISSC (an IBM Company)"

Ref:  <CPAYNE@CORP.QGRAPH.COM>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 06:27:17 -0500

>> From an ethical standpoint, I don't believe it's right to justify
>> actions based on laws (as I said above), but from a legal standpoint,
>> it's all there is.
>>
>> This doesn't make it right, but it would be something that the lawyer
>> would have to live with...

Ref:  Mark Hayes <ccmlh@BU-IT.BU.EDU>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 15:12:15 -0400

>From:         Scott Guthery <guthery@ASC.SLB.COM>

>First, plaintiff's act of suing moved the situation from the ethical domain to
>the purely legal domain ... Once in the legal domain *ONLY* legal requirements
>hold.

>> *ONLY* if you let lawyers make the rules, defining this artifical "pure"
>> environment. From a philosophical perspective, I am unaware of any ethical
>> principle according to which there are situations in which all ethical
>> principles cease to obtain.

I am oversimplifying to bring out a general tendency: we (meaning both a
society and its component individuals) typically do what we want to do.
If we "really shouldn't", we somehow justify it.  If it is illegal we
convince ourselves it is really within the spirit of the law.  If that
doesn't work we break the law anyway.  The bottom line is that we do
what we want to do.  What, here, do we want to do?

   - We want to save a life (or perform some other generally accepted
     worthy, moral, ethical act) if at all possible.
   - We want to protect a guarantee (here it is confidentiality) that has
     far-reaching, serious and undesired consequences if violated.

We (meaning both a society and its component individuals) typically do
what we want to do.  If we "really should", we somehow work around or
overlook impediments, find or redefine loopholes in the "spirit" of the
law, or eventually change the law.  The bottom line is that we do what we want
to do.  What, then, might we do here?   How do we protect all concerned
parties yet do what we "must" as human beings (after all, suppose this
were not a fictional case but YOU whose life were in the balance)?

Perhaps we publicly reinterpret the rules or (heaven forfend ;-) ) actually
change them to allow one party held to confidentiality (the attorney) to
divulge the information to another party held to confidentiality (a doctor)
without penalty under appropriate and equitable conditions (perhaps using
a mechanism similar to that for obtaining a search warrant).  The public
is not involved.  Information which might otherwise be used improperly if
exposed remains concealed.  Information which should be used to some good
end is so used.  The spirit of confidentiality remains intact.  The "right"
thing is done for the individual concerned.

Will this solution end the conundrum?  Not entirely but what is the
alternative?  Will there still be inequities?  Probably.  Will some
lawyers (as perhaps in this hypothetical case) err and thus lose their
livelihood?  Probably.  Will fewer people be hurt and more people helped?
Assuredly, I am convinced.  This is what counts in a just society.

Will any legal society or association, judicial association, state or
federal legislative or executive official stand up and publicly call for
this or other positive change?  I would not count on it in my lifetime.

Irv Tyler
****************** My Opinions Are My Own
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU