by Graent » Sat Jun 21, 2014 10:59 am
Dear Adam: You have outlined a classic "right vs. right" ethical conflict. It can only be solved by prioritizing your
values. Adhering to your principles is important: while I can see requiring drug tests for, say, school bus drivers, in this case it makes no sense at all, so the invasion of privacy it involves has no counterbalancing benefits. Perhaps writing a letter to the hospital administration, pointing out that you wished to volunteer but could not do so by ratifying a senseless and intrusive policy, might prompt some needed re-thinking. In that case, good will come out of your NOT volunteering.
However, in all likelihood, nothing will happen, and the people who suffer for your standing on principle are the patients...who are just innocent bystanders. So the real choice is 1) helping people while swallowing your own legitimate objections to a stupid policy and 2) not helping people and not changing the policy either.
If the objective is to try to address both issues, I suggest this: volunteer, thus gaining credibility with the hospital, and write a letter laying out how their pointlessy intrusive policy nearly cost them a volunteer with something to contribute, and made what should have been a rewarding experiece less so.
So maybe you can achieve both your objectives. Always look for the broad solution: many ethical problems aren't the zero-sum game they seem to be. Jack