A question about ethics?

Question

A young man has a hard pea-sized lump on his left testicle as well as a soft lump on his left leg causing him occasional discomfort. Scared about his health and possibly for his life decides after a time to seek help from a urologist.

After much dilligence in looking for a free urology health center nearest to him, the young man makes a visit to this place only to encounter sexist faculty who claim that they "aid women only". These malicious figures go so far as to laugh at the young man for his symptoms, hurling cruel jokes.

The young man returns from the health center with nothing and contemplates the how such "evils" could exist in this world. The young man contemplates the value of human life in general.

After 3 months or so the young man returns to the health care center and finds that the same personnel whom he encountered are still employed at the health care facility. When the young man approaches the help desk and speaks to a receptionist who had partaken in the abuse of the young man 3 months ago, it appears that she does not recall who the young man is.

The young asks if he may leave his duffle bag in the crowded waiting room while he speaks to a security guard, and the receptionist agrees. The young man makes a swift exit shortly after and makes his way to the street for transportation.

Three minutes later a large sound cuts through the surrounding area, an explosion at the health care center later estimated to have killed at least 1200 people both in and outside the immediate vicinity of the health care center.

It is clear that the young man, deeply saddened by his experience at the health care center three months earlier had taken to manufacture and plan the use of an explosive device in order to claim the lives of the sexist faculty, and though unintentionally patients and civilians in the area of which the explosive detonated.

Because of the abuse that the young man experienced, especially in his potentially life threatening condition, should be at fault for what had taken place at the health care center when initially it was the faculty who in their rancid nature found enjoyment in the young man's suffering?

Answer 1

Why do I feel as though I'm feeding a troll...? Of course the young man is at fault for blowing up the clinic. There's no way anybody could justify killing the staff who abused him, never mind the innocent people who had nothing to do with it. But this is a completely unrealistic situation anyway. Doctors and nurses are licensed and certified, and they can lose their right to work in the medical profession if they behave as you've described - though the training should've weeded out anybody with that sort of attitude anyway. Besides, as soon as he told the receptionist he wanted to see a doctor, she would've told him the clinic was for women only (and with a bit of luck would've told him where he could get treatment).

Answer 2

Taking a life for a percieved slight or a real insult has become very real in today's society. People have taken 'eye for an eye' literally and in some cases to the extreme where it is more like a 'life for an eye'.

To the person who has recieved an injustice it will always have a significant impact, but there should be a better way than violence & death in order to make that injustice known & to save others from it by making it public knowledge, making an official complaint, taking it to the media, and perhaps social networks, in order to see how many others suffered similar fates. How many others empathize with the mans pain? & as a group of larger numbers can their be a reform, perhaps going to court, finding or creating a facility that does address those concerns.



In order to empathize with this sick young man and find any type of justification in his behaviors it would need to be more extreme, not just hurt and insults. Lets say the facility gave him medications that made him worse, enlarging the lumps. Or if a doctor was negligent in some other way. If they constantly dealt with him and gave him the same horrid treatment at each appointment. Making him wait, sending him to multiple facilities for expensive proceedures only to tell him the results were inconclusive. People of all races, creeds, ethnicities, religions, age, size, gender and sexual orientation deal with insensitive people on a daily basis and do not all run back and blow up the building of the persons guilty of unfair or unequal treatment, lest their be significantly less buildings standing.

His motivation though valid is only justified if the man is insane. If his life expectancy could have been extended if they had treated him and now that he has treatment he has learned it is too late and more irreversible damage has been done. I could see him being motivated then because he has an attitude of 'who cares I'm dying anyway'. Or mental illness or a history of people treating him so poorly (even if only in his mind) and he has finally been beat down so much he feels justified in harming others. (Plenty of stories and books and movies and reality based on such a concept).



But acts of extreme violence only seem to begat more violence and so there will be chaos and anarchy if humans don't remember you only have this one life. To take another would be like negating the fact that life is precious.

Answer 3

I don't think whatever taunting the young man experienced is enough to justify his terrorist attack on the facility. Yes, it was a terrorist attack. Maybe the staff should have been kinder, but it is clear that the man's life was in no immediate danger from their actions, and that this was a premeditated attack over several months and he most likely knew the consequences of his actions. I can see no way to justify his crime.



Also, I don't think it's "sexist" that the health center refused to treat him because he was a man. Most of the doctors found at the center would have been gynecologists who were simply not trained to treat illnesses in men. They should have referred him to a urologist or a general practitioner. If they had agreed to treat him at the center, the man probably would not have received the best care, because the doctors and nurses there are experienced only in treating women and probably wouldn't be familiar with diseases affecting the male reproductive system. Now, if the man had been facing an immediate medical emergency such as a heart attack, they probably should have at least attempted to stabilize him and called an ambulance to take him to a hospital as soon as possible, but this was not the case.

Answer 4

well of course what the people at the health center was wrong but understand that one mans life cannot pay for thousands. think about it this way, if there is one branch on a tree that is dead, should you chop the whole tree down? i think that the problem in this situation is that the fault does in fact, lay with the person who had discriminated against the man, but it would have been less of a problem if he dealt with it in the right way. if for example, he was to report this to the police, less people would die, and a person who could deal with him professionally could help him, but since he blew up the medical advice he could have gotten, he may have also died, making one more death because of his own actions.

Answer 5

it is a case of a disturbed young man seeking retribution in a wrong manner..it is horrible that the health care personnel mocked him when they are in the noble practice of medicine..they shouldnt have treated him so callously..even the young man is at fault cause instead of seeking revenge against those who mistreated him he killed several innocent people too