Forums → The Tavern → Ethics
| 4 | 1545 |
I think I might've seen something like this before, and I think the concept is interesting. Basically, I'll post an ethical conundrum and ya'll will respond with what you believe to be right, as well as an explanation of why you think that way. I will post a new question after I get a few answers, but you can also answer an older question if you have changed your mind or if you just want the opportunity to share your opinion. Furthermore, I welcome any and all debate as long as it remains at least relatively civil(that last part really should go without saying). Remember: there is no right or wrong answer, it's all a matter of personal opinion.
It should be noted that I am not intentionally trying to base any of these scenarios on any event that actually occurred in real life. However, if you do happen to find some sort of precedent, please post it here! It would not only be interesting to read about, but would also strengthen your case significantly if you happen to be debating.
The first question
Say that there is a person with a mental illness, who from here on in I will simply refer to as "Bob". Bob experiences occasional psychotic breaks consisting of paranoid delusions that lead him to believe that the people around him want him dead, and act accordingly. During these mental episodes, Bob presents a very real and serious risk to everyone around him. The first of these episodes occurred approximately two months ago, and Bob attacked his best friend(luckily, neither was injured as the friend was able to fend him off until the episode ended). Prior to this occurrence, Bob was a completely normal, functioning member of society, and in between these episodes he remains as such. Bob's friend took him to a psychiatrist, who evaluated Bob and reached the conclusion that there is no way to cure his mental condition or to predict when or where he will experience the delusions. During the episodes, Bob's actions are completely out of his control(no logic will dissuade Bob). Bob has not hurt anyone as of yet.
Is it our responsibility to protect other citizens? Or is it unfair to punish Bob for something that he might do, and is completely out of his control even if he does?
What do you think?
I'm not sure if this belongs in Forum Games or here, so I'm putting it here and requesting that everyone PLEASE put some actual thought into their posts. If this devolves into people posting things like "This is the right choice. Duh.", I will request that it be transferred to the Forum Games section myself.
- 4 Replies
Some questions about Bob.
1) What is the average time between these delusions?
2) What is Bob's physical stature? (ex: muscled vs overweight)
3) Where does Bob live? (country side vs city)
4) What is Bob's job? Does it involve anything that could be used as a weapon?
With these questions answered I could give a more realistic response, but here's my basic thoughts.
It wouldn't be fair for Bob to endanger people because of an illness, even if he has no control over it. There should be some way to identify that he has such a mental illness, or inform those who will be around him. I don't believe detaining him would be the solution, but neither should he be allowed into situations where he could cause serious damage before he could be subdued.
Depending on how frequent the attacks are, how strong physically Bob is, and who else is around him most often, subduing him during these attacks may or may not be an option, but if some sort of device which automatically would release a tranquilizer during an attack (or remote controlled by someone of authority who would be around) I would again see no problem with him living a relatively normal life.
Now, some issues which might arise from my statements.
1) Allowing him around others WOULD endanger them in the event of an attack.
2) Asking others to put up with this danger could be considered unfair.
3) The hypothetical identification I mentioned could be considered as a form of discrimination.
4) The hypothetical device which I mentioned could be considered unethical in that it could be abused.
but if some sort of device which automatically would release a tranquilizer during an attack (or remote controlled by someone of authority who would be around)
How would this hypothetical device know that an attack was occurring? Or who would be qualified to control it and how would they know when an attack was occurring? Someone who was with Bob every second or every day, or someone who was viewing Bob every second of every day?
1) What is the average time between these delusions?
Completely random. Could be a year, could be an hour.
2) What is Bob's physical stature? (ex: muscled vs overweight)
Average in every respect.
3) Where does Bob live? (country side vs city)
City.
4) What is Bob's job? Does it involve anything that could be used as a weapon?
Bob is an...electrical engineer.
How would this hypothetical device know that an attack was occurring?
Which is why it's hypothetical, as I know of no device which does this. This doesn't mean it may not exist, for all I know it does, but not in my knowledge.
Perhaps through pulse, or brain wave patterns? Or a combination of a word with an increase in pulse, like "kill" or "murder." I don't think such a device is out of the realm of possibility, but the cost/availability/existence of it remains in question.
Or who would be qualified to control it and how would they know when an attack was occurring?
Someone controlling it would depend on who he was around. As "electrical engineer" is still pretty...vague, this still leaves a lot open.
I would think it would be pretty obvious when someone has a mental episode where they believe everyone around them is trying to kill them. Shouts of, "Don't kill me!" to running away randomly, to attacking someone all seem pretty straightforward signs to me.
For legitimate concerns, some sort of phrase/question or gesture could be developed which would/could be asked if the situation is unclear which would confirm that he does not believe everyone is trying to kill him.
Completely random. Could be a year, could be an hour.
There would still be an established average for the attacks which have occurred.
Average in every respect.
Which would again fall to, what about those around him? If Bob was surrounded by people stronger than him, I would think that subduing him wouldn't be too much of an issue, especially if they all knew what was going on.
City.
Which has both its ups and downs. In a city, he would be far more likely to run into people who wouldn't be aware of his condition. Further, there would be more people to harm, and to increase his sense of danger if he thinks each individual is going to try and kill him.
A city also would have more people on hand to detain him, and the likelihood of him actually beating someone too seriously without others coming to their aid is lessened.
Bob is an...electrical engineer.
Still pretty vague.
Without having an extremely detailed situation, I can't accurately say what I think should be done, just give a general overall and my feelings as to why, and some possible solutions based on the given information.
I think I might've seen something like this before, and I think the concept is interesting
DDX had a really awesome ethics thread, hopefully this one will be great as well. It is interesting, and much better at stimulating conversation than most other threads in the tavern.
Bob should be detained in a mental health facility until research finds a way to control his problem. In this facility, he should not be treated as an inmate, or as a person guilty of any crime. Anyone will be allowed to visit him. However, if a method to control his problem never materializes, Bob will not be allowed to leave.
Is this fair to Bob? No, of course not. But it is only a matter of time until Bob acquires a gun, or is in his delusional state long enough to seriously hurt someone.
I do have a question, however:
What does Bob want? Does he really want to be out in society, knowing that it is only a matter of time until he hurts someone he loves? If I was Bob, I would voluntarily commit myself to an institution.
You must be logged in to post a reply!