Maybe you heard the morally hard case I experienced at work. One of my colleagues Andy was diagnosed with schizophrenia. After a while, Andy was not able to concentrate and started making many mistakes in customer orders. Besides, there were days he did not show up, leaving his colleagues behind with extra work, or he just walked around watching others doing his work. Therefore, the manager fired him. On the one hand, the moral argument of equality among employees justifies this because the others were not allowed to arrive too late, or make that many mistakes, so this could also not be accepted in Andy’s case. On the other hand we were convinced that if Andy would lose his job, his situation would deteriorate, after quitting his studies and facing problems with his family. In my opinion it was not morally right to fire him, based on the moral argument of responsibility. Andy was in an exceptional situation and therefore the argument of equality is too weak. Society should have a responsibility concerning mentally ill people; their malfunctioning is in some ways beyond their control, and they need help, the same as physically ill employees.
However, yesterday I talked with Jack, one of Andy’s friends. He told me that Andy had been using drugs (Marihuana, Speed). Jack had tried to help him but Andy had denied that he was addicted. When Andy told Jack that he heard voices in his head, Jack also warned Andy that this was likely to be a consequence of drug abuse. Besides, our manager had given Andy the possibility to go to a mental hospital, and return afterwards. Andy had refused this option. I was not aware of this; it changes my opinion about the case. I now think it was not morally wrong to fire Andy, because his mental problems were (largely) caused by his own behavior and he had refused therapy. The manager took his moral responsibility but Andy chose to not accept this. For him acting out of self-determination, the manager cannot be blamed.
(Names are changed due to privacy reasons)
S377779
6 comments:
Equality of opportunity is one of the many interpretations of equality and is relevant in this context. Assuming that the manager was unaware of Andy’s drug abuse, the decision to fire Andy was morally right, so I disagree. By not acting against the misbehavior of Andy and treating him like all other colleagues, the manager gives him a false believe that he is normal. This is of course a utopia and so he deceives Andy and this is morally wrong. The manager who fired him acted right. To make sure Andy does not end up in the gutter, he could have contacted a doctor to take care of him, because of his family problems. If the manager acted in this way he did not deceive Andy and toke his responsibility towards a mentally ill person, such that he would end up in a suitable place for people like him.
ANR: 536273
I cannot agree that manager fired Andy when he is diagnosed with schizophrenia although it is morally permission to do that. The employer should take responsible to employee’s health and work condition. I believe that when Andy is healthy, he do his best to work for the company. Now he is ill, the company should help him to live through the difficulties. Manager could arrange some relax work and Andy can recover his illness during working time also. Employees contribute his or her knowledge and experience to their company, the help when employee needed from company is essential. Although the manager provides the chance for Andy coming bank when he recovers after he goes to mental hospital, Andy also feel isolated when he is ill. Illness people need respect and attention, especially for those when diagnosed with schizophrenia.
499432
I agree, I do think it was morally permissible for the manager to fire the employee. The manager gave the employee every opportunity to seek help and return afterwards. Due to Andy’s drug abuse he came in this though spot, by refusing help he himself closed the door to alternative options. It is not right for other employees to suffer under his condition. I do agree some sort of arrangement could be taken for a little while, if the situation does not improve steps should be taken to the problem.
Society already is doing a lot to help these people out. It does so indirectly in the form of state funded and supported clinics of all sorts. I further believe that however the company is responsible for the conditions at work. It is only responsible for the employees health to a certain extend. By refusing treatment the employee closed the door for reintegration himself. Since he refused treatment and help, the employee should accept the consequences as well.
ANR: 516459
Post a Comment