Test of moral integrity...

condyk wrote in post #8072997
This thread is weird ... and not in a good way. I find even putting the question on a photography forum a bit creepy. I know it's all a bit lax here in the 'lounge' but ...

You're probably right about that.

Oh well...

20droger wrote in post #8072956
Not such a good point. Beech said "everything is OK." This implies that he did not have a terminal disease. If he did, everything would not be "OK."

Sp from that she is supposed to discern that an anonymous person is planning on committing suicide? How so Roger?

Also, how is she not to know that he had come to terms with his terminal disease? After all if his disease is terminal there isn't a whole lot he could do about it.

Really is was wrong to open that envelope. You just can't trust some people.

Because, upon his mention of the coroner, she had a moral obligation to make sure everything was OK. A couple of phone calls would have done this, even without opening the envelope.

She was, after all, the director of a charity to help people. She had no moral right not to do so.

And, once she opened the envelope, she helped people all right: herself and hers.

Can you say conflict of interest?

I don't know that we have seen all the facts presented in a fair and objective fashion. A single news article is not definitive proof of guilt or innocence. Eventually, everyone involved will have to answer to someone, even if that someone is only their own conscience. The saddest part is the potential loss of help for some folks in need...and the fact the individual that opted to take his own life felt that suicide was his only recourse.