The Re-Ethicist
Third in a series: alternate takes on questions for
The Ethicist, in the Sunday Times magazine....because right now, the column is dull, dull, dull.
First question:My company produces journal-writing software that includes encryption and password protection. The parents of a customer recently wrote that their daughter had died tragically. They asked me to unencrypt her journal so they ''may access her last words.'' I sympathize, but feel bound to protect a customer's privacy. Do you agree that I should send a gentle note declining to decode the journal? Ruth Folit, Sarasota, Fla.The Ethicist's answer: Yup. "You have an obligation to protect the privacy of your customer." If the daughter had wanted her parents to read her journal, she could have told her parents the password or left instructions in a will.
The Re-Ethicist's response: Here's a first—I'm inclined to agree with Randy Cohen on this one. I wish I knew, though, whether the daughter in question was a minor, and how she died. If she was 25 and she died after a long battle with cancer—and still didn't leave instructions on how her parents could read her journal—then she clearly didn't want them to read it. But if she was 16 and she died of a drug overdose, she probably wasn't thinking about dying, and wouldn't have left a will—so that part of Cohen's answer is silly. Moreover, if she died under those circumstances, her journal could give a hint as to who was selling her the drugs.
(If any lawyers out there would care to comment on the legal status of the deceased's right to privacy if she was a minor, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Under what circumstances does a 15-year-old have a legal right to privacy? If a 15-year-old can't get a credit card, is she able to enter into an implied contract with a software company?)
That's just one hypothetical; you could imagine others under which the parents might have a compelling reason to be able to read their deceased daughter's writing.
But you could also imagine scenarios under which reading her journal might only cause them pain. (Ever read someone's journal writings about you? Not a good idea.)
So without further information, we'll say Cohen is
correct!
2nd question:
One of our neighbors, a 12-year-old boy, has a teacher who penalizes students if they turn in handwritten assignments. Our neighbors cannot afford a computer, but students are permitted to use the computer lab after school. However, when there is no teacher to supervise, the lab is not available. Is this teacher's policy ethical? Julie Beman Dixon, Hartford
The Ethicist:" This teacher would be wrong to impose a demand that unduly burdens students with little money. By providing a computer lab, however, the school has reasonably accommodated kids who lack computers of their own. (Assuming, that is, that a teacher is generally on duty and the computer lab is widely available.)"
Moreover, Cohen says, it's good to require kids to learn how to type.
The Re-Ethicist:
Wrong!The teacher is not within his rights to compel a sixth-grader to type papers. In fact, he's abusing the student's right to have an actual childhood. For one thing, sixth graders should learn how to write longhand, and that's rarely a finished process by age 12. More important, the point of the requirement seems primarily about making the teacher's life easier, rather than helping the student learn. At this point in his/her development, the student would be better served by putting more time into the composition of the paper than its logistics.
Finally, it's wrong to make a kid stay after school because he doesn't have a computer. This kid's family obviously doesn't have a lot of money. Maybe the kid has, say,
a job after school, and doesn't have the time to go to the school's computer lab to type up his paper all so that a
sixth-grade teacher doesn't have to strain his eyes.
The Re-Ethicist says: We have enough pre-professionalism in our society without making sixth-graders type papers. This teacher should be severely reprimanded.
