Re: ethical question.

Re: ethical question.

Steve's Account

7/8/1999

>
>
> >Is it legal to put folks who had knowlege of the Oklahoma City Federal
> >Building in jail for life, just because they knew someone else was going
> >to commit a crime?
>
> only if you KNOW she is going to commit a crime. Asking for information
> that is not illegal is not a crime and since he did not say that she wanted
> to have sex with these people AND was not going to disclose her HIV status,
> she should not be treated as though she is planning to do anything that is
> illegal.

This isn't the standard to which Timothy McVeigh's cohort were held.
>
>
> >Again.. I ask... The kids at Columnbine Highschool were capable of making
> >their own decisions... and did.. and as a result, society (or at least the
> >polititians who claim to be representing society!) has decided that the
> weapons
> >should be banned.. just in case someone else might do the same thing...
> That
> >certinly keeps rational people from having free choice.
>
> oh come on....
>
> just because she has a disease you can't presume that she's got it in for
> people and lets be realistic here - ANYONE who has unprotected sex in the
> 90's is asking for trouble and they are responsible for their own health
>

I don't think it's unrealistic at all.. According to a paper published
on the subject of devotees, by a physiciatrist, there is a strong sexual
context to this behaviour.
>
> >> your concern is with her limb and that's where your business with her
> ends.
> >
> >I think that this is an over simplistic view.. it might have been true if
> >all she had ask was for a prosthesis... But when she made her HIV status
> >public and then asked leading questions making it likely that a reasonable
> >person would conclude that she was a threat to the public.. I think the
> matter
> >changed.. Not thru the actions of the prosthetist... but thru the actions
> >of the person.
>
> No she did not. She told a person who would be in close contact with her.
> That indicates responsibility on her part don't you think? By telling him,
> she gave him the information he needed to determine whether he wanted her
> as a customer.
>
> And asking for information about a group of people who would find her
> attractive is certainly not an indication that she is a threat to the
> public. It's exactly the same thing as asking where she can get the number
> for the nearest playboy photographer.

Had she asked about photographers, that might have been a reasonable assumption,
but that wasn't what she asked.

>
> If anyone wants to start being the guardian of the public good, do it
> properly and start checking into the pervert prosthetists and other trash.
> THEY are the ones who are causing more damage than one ill woman who asked
> for help and instead got some self righteous puffed up egotist who is more
> concerned with her business than his own.

In the mechanic-customer relationship you advocate, is there any guarantee that
the courts will support a doctor-patient confidentiality role? When it
was in the medical model, the physician, who is trained to understand the
risks of public health issues was making the decisions.. and was charged with
the responsibility to make certin public health notifications based on that
knowledge.. When you remove the doctor from the equation, what remains
confidential? Certinly the prosthetist isn't required to keep anything
confidential.. after all.. all he delivered was a box of parts stacked up
in the right order. (acording to the mechanic-customer model).
>
>
> >Kimberly, may I share your response and my answer with the list? I do feel
> that
> >your point of view should be heard.. (even though I have a contrasting
> point
> >of view.)
>
>
> absolutely
>
> I speak for the other side of the situation and I believe that our opinion
> is the most important in this relationship :)
>
> without amps there would be no prosthetists.

Without criminals, there'd be no cops, jails, courts, or crime victims...
Should we shoot em all?

>
> Kimberley Barreda

Steve