Ethical Dilemma: When Professional and Legal Requirements Demand You Ignore a Harm

Hope I don't sound too naive (it's hard not to when you're young lol), but I think the legal system is an 'attempt' to keep things "right". No more, no less. It's obvious that failure in the system is inevitable due to the sheer number of cases.

I think that this is one of those scenarios. Zero good would come of not telling someone they are going to die (in a very, very miserable way I might add) to preserve the privacy of the person who is about to kill them (not all that deserving behavior, IMO).

Privacy is extremely serious. But not telling an innocent unsuspecting bystander that they're about to get HIV/AIDS (in a way that is in no way their own fault) is undoubtedly more serious. This isn't from some prostitute, this is from someone they know and trust. The law WOULD'NT protect people who don't deserve to be protected if it COULD, but that isn't realistic.

TL;DR:
The Law isn't "right or wrong", it's an 'attempt' at trying to define what's right or wrong. I strongly believe that if you aren't affecting anyone else in a negative way then you deserve unconditional 100% freedom and 100% privacy. This is affecting someone else. Very much so.

ACTUALLY, you know what personally I would try to turn it into a positive scenario.

I would explain to him (in private) that sometimes the greatest things happen in the face of death. He can do all that he wants to since that fear element would largely be gone. Suddenly the important things in life would come to light and be clearly visible. I'd try explaining/talking to him about that (actually in a truly sincere way). Maybe he could end up doing something tremendous. Who knows, maybe even in a humanity scale.

I "skimmed" an article today in regard to a Lowe's employee practically tackling down a shoplifter thinking, in the moment, it was right, just, and probably required by her standards of employment. She was... fired. That's nothing in comparison to the moral dilemma you have posed. Unfortunately, our brains do a strange dance when things like this happen. We shock out or otherwise need time. If you are a personality prone to being reactive, you already know what you would do just by reading the scenario--you would speed dial. If you are completive, then you know the answer isn't there yet. If you really don't know, then you haven't encountered a True moral dilemma as of yet in your lifetime. It can suck, it can be life altering, it can allow you to meet your true self, unannounced and without warning. When it really happens, you get to know who you really are and you either rejoice years later or swim in a sea of regret. It's just how it goes. I marinate and choose what I would want for myself in the given situation--I'm talkin' Vulcan style. Luckily, we only have to make these types of choices less than a handful of times in our entire lives, but that's what makes them important.

Isn't the "little bit of investigation" at the top (which resulted in your having the knowledge in the first place) an ethical violation in itself? And given that HIV has a multi-week period where it is transmissible before it triggers a positive test, wouldn't one assume that the patient's spouse is most likely already infected? If so, how does the spouse becoming a sunk cost change the discussion?

"If so, how does the spouse becoming a sunk cost change the discussion?"

Now that is an interesting and insightful variable. It very well might change the outcome for a good percentage of people facing such an ethical dilemma.

Another interesting twist comes if we remove the post-hoc assumption that drug use resulted in the infection. The observable facts are that the patient is a drug user, he is infected with HIV, and he has a spouse, with whom he is (presumably) intimate (else there would be no perceived risk to her in the first place).

The test cannot determine the source of the infection. If we, as the subject of this thought experiment, are familiar with the wife, then how do our perceptions of her faithfulness impact our decision? Might we consider the possibility that the patient may be the victim?

From a utilitarian perspective, the dubious pleasure derived from secretly infecting your wife with HIV is more than counteracted by your wife's displeasure at being infected.
And quite frankly, it doesn't seem to me that there is any ethical justification for absolute privacy beyond the fact that we might like it.
It's entirely possible that I might conduct a harmless act which would nevertheless cause me great embarrassment if it were to become public knowledge. It's also entirely possible that public criticism of harmful acts are one of the best mechanisms to prevent them from occuring.
As such - the right to privacy should entirely depend upon the nature of the act which we wish to remain private - and in fact, it almost certainly does. Presumably laws against knowingly infecting others would render this a non-problem.

The fact that HIV is no longer a death sentence, and is potentially curable within a few years, changes this dilemma considerably. You know today that if the wife were to become infected, she has an excellent chance of living a normal life and even being HIV free. If this same scenario were to happen twenty years ago, the potential risk of not telling her would be far greater.

The other thing to consider, and realize I am just working though all the possible scenarios, not advocating any particular action, is that if he were to give her HIV and she divorced him over it, she is more likely to get everything he owns versus if she divorced him because she found out about his drug problem due to you violating his privacy. Not that getting HIV is worth whatever extra money she might get out of him, but is something to consider.

-Ian Francis

I didn't know it was potentially curable! That's pretty awesome.

Thanks

You tell your friend to have whoever they're screwing get tested first.

You haven't exposed anyone and you've told your friend to take the necessary precautions.