A question of ethics
Humans are creatures of habit, and for better and for worse our actions are often dictated by behaviour we hardly ever think about, we just do things because we've always done them in that way. This applies as much to addiction as to most of the actions we perform in life on a daily, routine basis.
Habitual theft is also part of an addicts life, the need to survive and be able to afford the substance used overrides the moral dictate "thou shalt not steal" because the behavioural need for bodily satisfaction is almost constantly overpowering and demanding.
Twice a week the patients of our unit are allowed to do some shopping at the local supermarket, under the supervision of one of the clinic leaders. Usually such an excursion is incident free but several days ago one of the patients stole a trivial item almost unthinkingly, taking it in an offhand sort of way. One of the other patients saw this and reported the incident to the supervisor after which a procedure was started and the thief was sent away from the centre, after having completed more than two weeks of treatment.
Formally, the correct actions were taken in rectifying an unacceptable action. I view theft is wrong but nevertheless I got myself caught into a spiral of ethics which has been bothering me ever since. In trust and after much discussion, I took the standpoint that the thief was a victim of a habit, almost unconsciously performing an action learned long ago. I also found that our unit had the responsibility to behave as a self-correcting social group because the behaviour patterns of addicts are well-known to all and that the "reporter" should have taken steps to warn the "reportee" that the action performed was unacceptable and should be undone. Instead of that though, the matter was reported directly to a higher level and effectively removed from the group and the individual who was (and is) in serious need of treatment.
I need some serious feedback on this issue because I still can't easily resolve both points of view. Could you help me?
Thank you, keep well...
---------------
Habitual theft is also part of an addicts life, the need to survive and be able to afford the substance used overrides the moral dictate "thou shalt not steal" because the behavioural need for bodily satisfaction is almost constantly overpowering and demanding.
Twice a week the patients of our unit are allowed to do some shopping at the local supermarket, under the supervision of one of the clinic leaders. Usually such an excursion is incident free but several days ago one of the patients stole a trivial item almost unthinkingly, taking it in an offhand sort of way. One of the other patients saw this and reported the incident to the supervisor after which a procedure was started and the thief was sent away from the centre, after having completed more than two weeks of treatment.
Formally, the correct actions were taken in rectifying an unacceptable action. I view theft is wrong but nevertheless I got myself caught into a spiral of ethics which has been bothering me ever since. In trust and after much discussion, I took the standpoint that the thief was a victim of a habit, almost unconsciously performing an action learned long ago. I also found that our unit had the responsibility to behave as a self-correcting social group because the behaviour patterns of addicts are well-known to all and that the "reporter" should have taken steps to warn the "reportee" that the action performed was unacceptable and should be undone. Instead of that though, the matter was reported directly to a higher level and effectively removed from the group and the individual who was (and is) in serious need of treatment.
I need some serious feedback on this issue because I still can't easily resolve both points of view. Could you help me?
Thank you, keep well...
---------------
posted by bart | 06:43
2 Comments:
yeah, I think the person needed a chance to put the item back, that's probably what I would have done had I been the one to see the person snag something.
I would have suggested they put it back.
If they chose not to I wouldn't have ratted them out but I would have been a pain in their ass, non the less, because I would have been hell bent on discussing it with them, in depth, because it would have bothered me.
Any help?
Hey, Bart. I'm finally catching up. Pausing here to say you inspire me; I've got the good kind of tears in my eyes.
I agree with Lori, but in the case of a group of recovering addicts shopping together, and understanding that two lessons are being learned, one must consider also that it is against any addict's very nature to confront directly the unethical behavior of another addict, don't you think? The entire culture is counter to that.
I believe, if the addict who thieved got sent away, then the addict who failed to rat him out should also have been sent away. Two mistakes were made, not just one. Ideally, they would have been treated equally -- and ideally, the treatment would have been rehabilitative and not punitive, eg, neither would have been sent away from treatment, but immersed in more rehabilitative work.
I'm not big on punishment. I've never seen punishment work in any meaningful sense.
I've also lived with and loved numerous addicts, as has Lori.
I hope you'll share your milestones as you meet them.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home