Tracking you chemically? Ethical?

[Hobbitgirl]

Okay so I found this article about how they've come up with a way to tell if mental patients are taking their medication through some tracking device. (Apparently that dissolves into the bloodstream)

Here is the article

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2013/...t-ethical/


Some are saying its a good idea, citing that caregiver here in Oregon who was stabbed to death by one of the people she supported when he chose to lower his dosage without their knowledge. (This hits me close to home because I'm in the same line of work and face the same risk every day)

While others are calling it unethical, and invasion of privacy, or equal to chemical castration of convicted rapists?

I'm just curious of other peoples views. Ethical or not?

[TheBeardedDude]

People are always afraid that something like this would be used to monitor their use of illicit drugs or illegal use of legal drugs. I would be on board with this because it can also help monitor people on anti-depressants in case they decide to quit (that has a tendency to lead to increased suicide chances).

[Free Thought]

It seems like it would be advantageous to be able to ensure people who need medication, stay medicated.

[Dom]

I think it's a horrible idea except with people who pose a clear danger to others. And they should be monitored anyway and not be walking around.
I would never allow myself to be monitored.
And, I don't trust government. One day it's only dangerous people, the next it's people who may take drugs, then comes "subversive" people. Give them a finger and they'll cut off your hand.

[Idlecuriosity]

(22-01-2013 03:00 PM)Dom Wrote:  I think it's a horrible idea except with people who pose a clear danger to others. And they should be monitored anyway and not be walking around.
I would never allow myself to be monitored.
And, I don't trust government. One day it's only dangerous people, the next it's people who may take drugs, then comes "subversive" people. Give them a finger and they'll cut off your hand.

Here's the problem with the case that's mentioned :

Quote: Five years earlier, Redd had been sentenced to 20 years in a psychiatric
ward following the attempted murder of his mother, but was
conditionally released into community care.

If someone is really a threat to society, keep them locked up. Don't have them walking around, with other's safety dependant on them taking their medication.

[aurora]

I think it's ethical for the people who are a danger to society.
Unfortunately there are too many mentally ill people on the street today mostly due to de-institutionalization.

[fstratzero]

Seems redundant.

The medical staff already has their records(as in medical history), address, phone number, email, and driver's license information.

What good would come from knowing where mental patients are?

The treated pose less of threat to me than the untreated.

[Hobbitgirl]

(22-01-2013 06:35 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  Seems redundant.

The medical staff already has their records(as in medical history), address, phone number, email, and driver's license information.

What good would come from knowing where mental patients are?

The treated pose less of threat to me than the untreated.

What I think they are worried about are those that medicate themselves

For example in my company we have something called "indvidualized services" Some of those people only get checked in on once a week or less, if they are self medicating and decide not to take their meds or whatever....

[fstratzero]

(22-01-2013 07:19 PM)Hobbitgirl Wrote:  

(22-01-2013 06:35 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  Seems redundant.

The medical staff already has their records(as in medical history), address, phone number, email, and driver's license information.

What good would come from knowing where mental patients are?

The treated pose less of threat to me than the untreated.

What I think they are worried about are those that medicate themselves

For example in my company we have something called "indvidualized services" Some of those people only get checked in on once a week or less, if they are self medicating and decide not to take their meds or whatever....

With out the patent to review, I can't really respond well to that.

[FlyingPizzaMonster]

I can easily see a slippery slope with this. Employers could require employees to be chemically monitored "voluntarily" and it would be legal. (After all you are not required by law to be monitored- you can just work somewhere else.) The military would be the first to jump on the bandwagon. Then it would be mandatory for pilots, truck drivers, bus drivers, etc. Then professional sports, then college sports, then high school sports, then college financial aid, then college admissions.

If these things happened with urine testing, I can easily see it happening with chemical monitoring.