Civil Liberties vs Public Health

Back to literature I go...

Currently I am reading Asleep: The Forgotten Endemic that Remains one of Medicine's Greatest Mysteries. It is a nonfiction book following Encephalitis AKA "The Sleeping Sickness" - it follows several case studies and the doctors involved in the spread between 1915 and 1927.

In order to better understand health issues at the time, we are given some history into NYC public health standards and practices.  One raises a particularly interesting ethical question in my mind - the case of Typhoid Mary.

Mary was a cook for several wealthy families, and the Health Department - through much searching - found out that she was spreading Typhoid through the food she prepared for these families.  She did not suffer from the disease, but she was a carrier of the germs and gave those to the families for which she worked. Mary had fears of the department catching her (not sure what would happen if/when they did), so she continued to bounce from job to job, cooking for families all while spreading the disease.  Since Mary would not quite her job as a cook despite the fact that she was spreading this horrible illness, she was finally arrested and forced to live out her life in an isolation hospital.

Now, the ethical question I have is this: is it right for the officials to imprison Mary for the remainder of her life?  She did not purposefully murder anyone.  She simply was stricken with something that she could not get rid of.  For the record, I think that, yes, they did have to imprison her.  If they had not done so, they would have been knowingly allowing more and more people to die (would they then be murderers??).  If Mary would have just stopped cooking for families, she would not have been imprisoned.  Of course, that was her way to make money.  She did not exactly have many other options in life as a poor Irish immigrant.

What about a larger picture?  Does the government have the right (or maybe the need) to take away some/all of our freedoms in order to keep the public safe? Well, they are doing these types of things right now. Bans on smoking and trans fats are two recent examples. But at what point is it too much? Have we begun to open the Pandora's Box of banning? And - most importantly - how will we know when to close it?

Quote

Here's a line from the novel that I have to write down and blog about later today...

"If we can't respect the way we earn it, money has no value."

Case Studies and A Couple of Philosophies

Once again, the novel I am reading relates in an unexpected way to our class.  In this instance it relates in a specific way that can be taken more broadly as well.

The lesson the main character - Lin - is learning has been continued.  And the main point is now brought to this: 'Sometimes it is necessary to do the wrong thing for the right reasons.  The important thing is to be sure that our reasons are right, and that we admit the wrong - that we do not lie to ourselves, and convince ourselves that what we do is right.'

This brought me back to yesterday's discussion of the church case study.  The woman in the story was doing something wrong.  But, was she doing it for the right reasons?  And was she honest with herself about her actions?

Initially she believed her actions were for the right reasons.  However, as someone pointed out, if she truly thought them to be just and right why would she have been so reluctant to fess up to them?  She was not willing to admit that her actions were wrong until she'd been caught.  The whole idea also reminds me of Thoreau's ideas of civil disobedience. If you believe something is just or unjust it is your duty to stand up for or against it but o do so in a non-violent and "civil" manner.

When I taught this to my English III students I was always careful to emphasize one main point: you must be willing to accept the consequences to your actions.  This can be taken in the case studies we've done.  For instance, in the church case study, if the woman truly believed her actions were just and right, she should have been willing to stand up for them (of course, I don't think Thoreau had stealing from a church in mind, but you get the idea).  And this should be true throughout the workplace. 

If, as a CPA, you are asked or told to do something that is not right, you have the opportunity to stand up for or against that action.  However, you must realize that you are accepting the consequences of your actions.  In our case study, the plant manager believed it was right to get the orders in on time for customers.  If this wasn't accomplished, he believed it would make the plant suffer and there would be potential for customers to be lost, snowballing the problem into something greater.  He took an action he believed to be best for all and must be willing to accept the consequence of that.