CNN has featured a couple of stories (I recommend watching “Man Accused of Aiding Suicides Online” before “Suicide Chat Rooms Raise Legal Questions”) on a male nurse in Minnesota who has encouraged individuals to commit suicide. Initially posing as a female in suicide chat rooms, he has entered ten or eleven suicide pacts with individuals online. At least two suicides have been linked to him.
Although the main issue legal experts are focused on is whether someone can be prosecuted for assisted suicide simply by telling someone how to commit suicide (as opposed to physically assisting them), there is also an expression issue. The nurse could claim he did not realize people were taking him seriously or that he was role-playing. Role-playing chat rooms can be found relatively easily on the Internet.
First Amendment absolutists would say the First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” This situation poses the question whether life is more important than free speech.
I remember when I took Reference, my professor gave us an ethics hypothetical where a teen girl came into the library and wanted to check out a book on how to commit suicide. Even if you knew she was lonely or depressed, you should not do anything, even if you knew her parents. I realize that librarians are not supposed to prevent access to materials, but if you check out the book to the girl, say nothing to anyone, and she kills herself, how are you supposed to live with yourself, knowing you might have been able to prevent that tragedy?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
OMG, I don't know if we were in the same class or not, but when our instructor asked us that question, the class had a pretty serious argument about it. There were 2 of us (admittedly, I was one of them) who argued that, by the statements on intellectual freedom and whatnot laid out by ALA, you have to show the girl the books she wants to see and shut your piehole about it. Trying to talk her out of suicide, going to her parents/your boss/the police, or even going over the books on getting help without being asked about them are all restrictions on her privacy rights or a form of censorship.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, your conscience may disagree with that stance and you may feel obligated to say something to someone, and you are always free to make your own ethical decisions in this matter. In that situation, I think I might have to say something as well. The fact is, though, in a situation like this you can't "do something" about it without compromising on intellectual freedom.
Just one guy's opinion. Well, two apparently.
I’m torn on this. On one hand, I do agree that the person should keep her privacy regardless of what she’s checking out or about what she’s asking questions. However, I also believe that to some degree age is a factor. Teenagers aren’t generally equipped with the maturity and experience to handle some of the issues that these books can raise.
ReplyDeleteDerek- I don't think we were in the same class, but I could see that being a popular hypo because it really pushes the limits of following the Code of Ethics. I distinctly remember thinking, "Thank God I will not work in a library where that will be an issue." Although at the same time, I could not help but wonder if maybe I was not really librarian material if I could not follow the Code of Ethics. Thanks for backing me up on this one :)
ReplyDeleteTonya- I agree that teens should have access to a variety of materials, but also that we have to use what we know about them in terms of brain development and maturity to recognize they may not be ready for some materials. States may no longer impose the death penalty on minors who commit capital crimes because it is recognized that they are less mature and are not fully developed in terms of character or logical reasoning. Some studies have found the brain is not fully developed until as late as twenty-five. It seems that if we are not going to hold teens to the same level of responsibility, maybe they should not receive all the adult privileges.
How do school librarians handle this ethically?
ReplyDeleteIn Indiana, the law requires us to notify appropriate officials if a child is endangered or may harm himself/herself. School systems have been sued when kids have committed suicide when school personnel were aware. In fact, locally, an assistant principal has had papers filed because he had a note in which a boy threatened suicide and blew it off.
On the other hand, I've shepherded students through their first research papers on a variety of touchy topics with no repercussions. Maybe this isn't really a problem. I'll have to think more on this.
Linda- Thanks for the school perspective. I had not even thought about the conflict with reporting requirements. I agree information about suicide needs to be available to students doing research, or even students who may be contemplating suicide, but it would be better if this information was factual about the topic generally(statistics on suicide, common warning signs, etc.) as opposed to a "how-to" book. On the other hand, if you have information encouraging people contemplating suicide to seek help and you have none encouraging suicide, are you being unbalanced? Does the state's interest in preserving life override the imbalance?
ReplyDeleteAnother area where this issue of imbalance comes up is information on eating disorders. Is it ok to have information on the unhealthy nature of eating disorders and advice on asking for help if you do not provide pro-Ana materials?
It's really a tough call. The nurse would probably be easily protected; as you said, he could mention role playing, etc. In the other case... I know you couldn't NOT check out the book to the patron, and you couldn't run to tell her parents... but perhaps it wouldn't be out of line to suggest books to help with depression and suicidal thoughts. It could simply be presented as giving her both sides of the issue, since she already has one. It would be difficult to not say anything.
ReplyDeleteJoseph, what would you say to asking the girl if she was working on a paper on suicide and watching her response? Could you say that's just interest in the patron, and if she hesitated, then try to encourage the other side?
ReplyDeleteWhat's really scary about this story is that it was a NURSE that was doing this. Doctor's have to take an oath to protect life, right? Do nurses not have to too??? This guy seems to be seriously disturbed: http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/angels/melchert_dinkel/11.html
ReplyDeleteWhile he may be a sick freak, as they point out in the video these were people who were already contemplating suicide and there's no way to know if they would have done so with or without his encouragement. I think that one aspect of intellectual freedom is that you can't hold the information, or the giver of the information, responsible for what other people do with it. Wouldn't making them responsible discourage people from freely providing information in a variety of contexts? And therefore limit intellectual freedom?
This is similar to an issue that was brought up in my group discussion, and it is a moral dilemma. Do you sacrifice your professional duties for what you see to be the greater good. That is a choice that you must make, but you also have to accept the consequences, even if this means that you are fired. This is the concept of the Tragic hero illustrated by Kierkegaard. Sometimes we have to make hard choices.
ReplyDelete