True story:
Susan was working in the back office of a neighborhood clinic one morning, when a patient arrived and was admitted for consultation. Susan heard raised voices, after which the patient reappeared and quickly left the clinic in a state of apparent grief or anger. Had there been some disagreement or misunderstanding? Susan assumed so but couldn’t know for sure.
Under normal circumstances, Susan probably wouldn’t have thought twice. But only a week earlier, a disgruntled client had left an office just down the street after a conflict, then returned with a gun and started shooting.
Susan didn’t want to take the chance that her inaction might put others (and herself) at risk. Perhaps with a simple check-in she might determine if there was any cause for genuine concern.
Because all visits were confidential, looking up the man’s identity would be a violation of privacy. Susan tried to reach her supervisor for permission to open the database, but her supervisor was unavailable.
Susan took the initiative. She looked up the man’s name and phone number, then gave him a call.
“Hello,” she said into the phone. “I’m calling to check in … you seemed upset when you left our office. Is there anything I can do to help?”
“Oh, no,” the man replied. “I was a little distressed, but I’m fine now. Thanks so much for calling.”
Subsequently, Susan found herself reprimanded by her supervisor.
Was she wrong to do what she did?
Grapple with the Gray
List two or three reasons in favor of what Susan did.
List two or three reasons why Susan was wrong.
Is there another option?
Having weighed the options, what should Susan have done?
Gray Matters
There are a lot of layers to this scenario.
Imagine if Susan chose to respect the client’s confidentiality, and an hour later he returned with a gun and opened fire. Would Susan be considered negligent or culpable for failing to follow up? Is she morally obligated to risk losing her job if she believes loss to life is a real possibility? Does her own personal conscience give her the right to break the law?
Does suspicion or intuited concern ever override personal privacy?
This same debate continues to rage on a national level with respect to the Patriot Act and personal privacy laws. The government needs access to personal information to protect the public. It may need to suspend the rights of individuals to protect public safety in large numbers.
How do we balance the general welfare against the rights of the individual? How do we ensure that the government will not abuse the power we give it for our own protection? If some of us would rather relinquish a measure of privacy for enhanced security, while others accept the security risks that come with greater privacy protection, how do we, as a society, resolve the disparity of opinions? Indeed, the more we accept the wisdom of “see something, say something,” the more we implicitly recognize that sometimes collective security must trump the individual’s right to privacy.
There are no simple solutions to the conflict of ethical interests. Only by continuously refining and recalibrating our collective moral compass can we approach these dilemmas with reason and integrity so that, time after time, we can get as close as possible to making sound ethical decisions.
But abstract ethical questions would not have helped Susan that day. She had to make a decision, she had to make it on her own, and she had to make it in the moment. She opted to take action, to put safety ahead of regulations and ahead of her own job security. She weighed the potential costs and benefits, then acted according to her conscience.
Indeed, the greatest ethical violation may have been the system itself, which made it necessary for Susan to break the law in order to do the right thing. She may have been legally in the wrong; but there is little doubt that she was ethically in the right.
In fact, the ethical courage Susan demonstrated offers an additional insight into ethical decision making. Sometimes we need to be prepared to accept the consequences of acting right at the hands of others who won’t recognize the rightness of our actions.