Happy Wednesday! Thank you to everyone who gave me input on which bag to get yesterday. I’m not just taking into consideration which you think is better, but also your comments on them.
We are going in a completely different direction today. Completely.
As you probably know, I love crime shows. L.O.V.E. them. Can’t get enough of them. It shouldn’t surprise you, then, that I watch Rizzoli & Isles (crime shows + Boston = my favorite) and Perception on TNT. Perception is interesting because it focuses on an FBI agent and her consultant, Dr. Pierce, who is also a professor who has schizophrenia.
Without giving too much information away about last night’s episode (which was also the season finale), I’ll say that there was a subplot revolving around Dr. Pierce, his schizophrenia, and how much other people are entitled to know about him and it.
In this age of over-sharing, especially online, people tend to think that they’re entitled to know everything about someone. This can apply in many different situations, but I obviously find a closer to connection to the medical side (and was inspired by the events in the episode). I get that you don’t want to be hurt or for someone to hurt someone you know, and you want to make sure that you know enough to ensure this. But you are not entitled to know everything about everyone.
More specifically, just because your daughter’s professor has schizophrenia it does not mean that you are entitled to know what his treatment is. As a whole, just because you know someone has a medical condition/disease, it does not mean that you need to know everything about their case or treatment.
Yes, if someone has a contagious disease, you might need to know. But you would only need to know if you are in danger of catching that disease. And you would only need to know what you absolutely have to know. Just because you’re curious or think you have to know something does not mean to.
If someone has a mental illness, if it is to the effect that they might be dangerous to others or themselves, then certain individuals may need to know details. That does not mean that you do. If their boss or doctor (or someone in the position to know this sort of thing) says that they are fine, you need to accept that. Their health is their business. As long as everyone is safe – and the authorities (boss/doctor/etc.) agree that everyone is safe – you need to accept that.
Not everything is your business.
I thought that Perception dealt with this well. It can be a fine line to walk if you don’t know what’s the “right” way to go about it. And it does address a good issue.
So what do you think? When does someone else’s medical information become your business?