What would you do: an ethical question?

[Prospector]

Mary should contact the community centre's solicitor to see if she has a legal obligation that over rides her ethical obligation, then provided there is no conflict she should ethically do whatever allows her to sleep at night.

This is my first reaction too!

Maybe it is a cop out, but all Mary was doing was her job, there are no immediate welfare and safety issues for children involved, and while of course there is a victim, and the guy deserves to face court and let that process unfold, I dont see it as Mary's job to do that, as there are now legal consequences for her - ie she will have to go to court now as she has heard this man's confession! If he later denies he said anything to her (which he might if he is the type to hit and run) then Mary ends up being questioned by his defence lawyer in court, especially if there is no physical evidence to link him to the crime. And she may be all the evidence that the Prosecution has!

Mary needs a lawyer! Sad but true!

 

[tech/a]

May not have been her Mother,Father,Child,or friend but it would have been someones.

For God sake why are there so many spinless people in the world that bury their heads in the sand.

How would she feel if the guy (obviously under the influence of something) went straight outside and DID the SAME thing again!!!

Pathetic---hope I never need the help (which wont be there) from some of you lot!!

Have a nice stress free day!

 

[spooly74]

Bills ethics were tested and he failed.
Do the right thing by the victim...... B

 

[constable]

I can see mary is going to have to go out on stress leave with full pay while she thinks about all this!

 

[Rafa]

yes... poor Mary..

I think she needs some serious counselling...

 

[insider]

If the guy didn't turn himself in then I'd say his very selfish... The woman should tell the police if he didn't... knew a woman who died in a hit and run... they never caught the crook

 

[nioka]

Bills ethics were tested and he failed.
Do the right thing by the victim...... B

Did he fail completely? Remember he wants to hand himself in. All he wants is a solicitor. Get him one. End of story.

 

[Happy]

Whichever, Mary is now in possession of information about a crime.


(b) contact the police with the information on the basis that she has information about a crime?

Similar issues have clerics with confessions.

Crime is crime.

Sooner we go back to calling spade a spade the better.

 

[hardmoney]

WayneL,

If you wish to censor my postings thats fine, its your website.However I would prefer if you just deleted the whole post, not just the bits that you dont agree with.

Being taken out of context is just as bad as being censored.I'm more than happy to move on to another forum with a more libertarian attitude to others views.

 

[Sean K]

b

But if I was a Catholic priest, obviously I would not tell a soul and just give him a few Hail Mary's, make sure he came to church more, and lifted his donations up a few bucks. Then he'd still get through the Pearly Gates.

 

[Knobby22]

b

But if I was a Catholic priest, obviously I would not tell a soul and just give him a few Hail Mary's, make sure he came to church more, and lifted his donations up a few bucks. Then he'd still get through the Pearly Gates.

Its good that your not a Catholic priest then.

 

[Knobby22]

With the regard to the question, you would act as if you had a spine.

You would advise the person that you would assist him to arrange a lawyer however you would inform him that it was your duty to advise the police and this will occur within an hour whether he calls the police or not.

I can't believe the response that you would be scared and not tell anyone or call the police to get personal protection. That is why people won't come forward when they see bashings or rape. Pure lack of guts and a lack of being a good member of society.

If the person did not inform the police then they should be charged by their professional organisation for unprofessional conduct and punished by their employer.

 

[Duckman#72]

So the question is: does Mary have an ethical obligation to do any or all of the following:

(a) maintain complete client confidentiality on the basis that Bill told her what he did in the belief that he was speaking to a solicitor?

(b) contact the police with the information on the basis that she has information about a crime?

(c) consider she has fulfilled her obligations in both respects by doing neither of the above and essentially passing the decision on to the Legal Aid solicitor who also acts as solicitor for the Community Centre?

Hi Julia

As I see it, everyone's answer will differ depending on who they think Mary has the "ethical responsibility"' to. The definition of ethical is - "in accordance with principles of conduct that are considered correct" Collins dictionary.

As the previous posts indicate, you can argue that Mary has an ethical responsibility to numerous parties including Bill, her workplace, the community, the victim, the victims family, herself and her own family. But the question is -" Who does she have the greater ethical responsibility to?"

I think that Mary has the strongest ethical responsibility to the community and the victims family to advise police. I think that this "ethical responsibility" is far greater than to Bill. The only proviso to this would be any workplace policy that covered Mary's position regarding confidentiality.

I definately agree that Mary's workplace needs to become involved. By informing Mary of the crime, Bill has effectively informed Mary's organisation of the crime. This should not be laid at Mary's feet. Mary wouldn't be informing the police - Mary's employer would be.

Just my opinion.

Duckman

 

[Prospector]

Of course he should be reported to the Police, but it needs to be done in a manner that will not have harmful impact on the successful prosecution of the offender, to the extent it could get thrown out of court.

The courts make seemingly ridiculous decisions sometimes, but usually that is because the evidence has in some way been tainted. His confession to her is simply not admissable in court - it is hearsay, and it wasnt a confession as such, it was a possible admission given by someone under duress, to a person who was supposed to be a lawyer! Can you imagine what the court system would make of all that!

So, the Center itself has to make sure that what it does, it does properly so the person can be found guilty, if he actually did the offence.

Or he could come to SA where people like him seem to get away with manslaughter (and those in SA will know exactly what I mean!)

 

[Bearman52]

May not have been her Mother,Father,Child,or friend but it would have been someones.

For God sake why are there so many spinless people in the world that bury their heads in the sand.

How would she feel if the guy (obviously under the influence of something) went straight outside and DID the SAME thing again!!!

Pathetic---hope I never need the help (which wont be there) from some of you lot!!

Have a nice stress free day!

I'm with you Tech
nail the bastard
BM

 

[new girl]

So the question is: does Mary have an ethical obligation to do any or all of the following:

(a) maintain complete client confidentiality on the basis that Bill told her what he did in the belief that he was speaking to a solicitor?

(b) contact the police with the information on the basis that she has information about a crime?

(c) consider she has fulfilled her obligations in both respects by doing neither of the above and essentially passing the decision on to the Legal Aid solicitor who also acts as solicitor for the Community Centre?

I'd very much appreciate members' reactions to this situation.

With thanks

Julia

Hi Julia

The first thing I’d do is ask if he called an ambulance, if yes then c if no then I agree with the others, nail the bastard!

 

[Julia]

Thank you all for interesting responses. Would you have expected so many different opinions as to what is right?

OK. Next step.

Professor Frink suggested Mary should check to find out whether Bill did see the solicitor and if not she should contact the police.

Mary is presently waiting to hear (via the Manager of the Community Centre who is fully aware of the situation) whether Bill did actually turn up to the solicitor.

If he did, and has gone ahead with his confession, Mary has nothing more to worry about.

But if he did not, and the Community Centre Manager says to Mary "you have done what you needed to by informing us as your employer, and you therefore have no further responsibility in the matter. The solicitor has Bill's name and address."

Prospector has made the point that anything Bill told Mary would probably be inadmissable in court.

Another factor which I don't think anyone has particularly commented on is that Bill gave this information in the belief that he was talking to a solicitor and anything he said would therefore be confidential.

One further factor: Mary has signed declaration of confidentiality regarding all matters discussed with clients, the only exception being if someone is presently in danger. This is the policy of the organisation.

Duckman made the point that various obligations can be seen to apply, and Mary has to choose which of these is paramount.

Amongst all the above, Mary has checked and found Bill has previously been a counselling client and he described an ongoing problem with drug and alcohol abuse. The Centre assisted him with transport costs to get to a rehab programme a few months ago.

So should Mary also be considering (or her employers) the fact that Bill could constitute an ongoing risk to a similar thing happening again?

Would be interested and appreciative of any further comments.

With thanks

Julia

So then what happens?

 

[quinny]

Would just like to point out, with all the comments along the lines of "string him up", that it doesn't have to be as bad as it sounds.

Real life example:
My friend driving along (not too fast, but fast enough) and two drunk guys stumble on to the road. Friend breaks but doesn't have enough time to stop and so hits one of them. Then the guy who got hit and his mate run away leaving my friend with a broken windshield.
In this case my friend went straight to the cops but I could see how in this situation he may not have done so straight away if he chose and the victim may not even remember what happened to him.

 

[wayneL]

WayneL,

If you wish to censor my postings thats fine, its your website.However I would prefer if you just deleted the whole post, not just the bits that you dont agree with.

Being taken out of context is just as bad as being censored.I'm more than happy to move on to another forum with a more libertarian attitude to others views.

Hardmoney,

It's not my site, it belongs to Joe Blow. I am a lowly mod who tries to upold the Code Of Conduct as best I can.

I did not censor your view, just the sentence that insulted all else with a different view to yours.

Cheers

 

[Happy]

If organisation has policy of confidentiality that effectively ties up their hands on what they can do, I would change the policy ASAP.

Then, anybody who enters the premises would be given disclosure statement that if any information about crime is revealed, will be passed to authorities.

We have too much undetected crime as it is, and having systems to keep it under the carpet should not continue.

If –admission- issue comes up, then authorities can give some guidelines to how make –admission- possible maybe it would be required that members are JP’s, maybe meetings should be recorded with security cameras, which could also help with staff safety.


Of course as a result, admission to crime will not be offered, but this is up to them, not up to everybody else to keep quiet.