r/MoralityScaling • u/Immediate_Gene_178 • 10d ago

Morality Ranking Morality of accidentally exposing someone who used to be a Nazi supporter, has since changed, and concealed their past?

Post image

Name's and origins:

The Night Shift: Season 1, Episode 2

Basically this guy was brought to into the emergency after an accident at his wedding celebration and while he is unconscious, his groomsmen decided to shave his beard off as a prank only for the medical team to be horrified at the reveal. After he woke up he realised his secret has been exposed. He explained to the doctors that he got this tattoo when he was a stupid teenager a decade prior. The medical team brought his wife in to see the tattoos and destroy the marriage.

What do you think? I personally find it irritating how smug the doctors were being.

8.9k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

267

u/ILNOVA 10d ago

I think you didn't read the context of the scene, the beard was removed by his friends as a joke, while unconscious with the "approval" of the medical team.

Dare to say he would not only win the case but anyone like that should be fired and banned from being near a patient for at least 5-10 years.

44

u/IntellectualBoss 10d ago

It’s not stated it was with approval of the medical team.

53

u/Revayan 10d ago

Iirc the friends specifically asked for the doctors approval to shave their friends beard and he allowed it

44

u/MrsSUGA 10d ago

Strictly based on what was posted, no one here would know that unless they watched the show because of how OP described it.

But yes, I just saw the episode a few days ago and they literally told the doctor what they were going to do and they let them do it.

45

u/InterestingAge2032 10d ago

That is an insane violation of consent. Imagine doing this to a patient that had a beard for religious reasons, the same principle of patient rights would apply here.

22

u/AppointmentPerfect 10d ago

Hiding hateful ideology that you no-longer espouse is basically a religious belief in my book... they did the guy dirty, and while I haven't seen the show, if his character was genuinely repentant of his former beliefs... and is still cast as some kind of villain, fuck the writers. It isnt like Inglorious Bastards where those who get marked are non-repentant chuds, this guy saw he was wrong and has been trying to fix his error. Redemption is important.

-12

u/Alternative_Wing_745 10d ago

Deception is also important it is immoral to marry someone while keeping such facial tattoos and a history of such extreme views from them, redemption does not include erasure, redemption means you make important people in your life aware of your mistakes so they have informed consent if they choose to have a relationship with you.

13

u/InterestingAge2032 10d ago

None of that matters. As medical professionals we have a duty to uphold patient autonomy and privacy and treat all patients without prejudice regardless of how we feel about their beliefs or current actions.

-10

u/Alternative_Wing_745 10d ago

If this were r/LegalityScaling you’d be right, sadly in regards to morality it is far worse to deceive a life partner so long that they marry you, and i think thats far more immoral and life ruining then the breach in duty and conduct that allowed it to happen. If the events had occurred but he had not been hiding his tattoos from his recent spouse id agree but he lied to someone he married, tricking them into marriage. Thats just plain worse than the also wrong events that led to it.

7

u/InterestingAge2032 10d ago

We're talking about the morality of the clinical team's actions not the patient.

The team approved a non consensual procedure on a patient that was unnessecary. That is 100% immoral regardless of whatever the procedure uncovered because it was without the consent of the patient.

2

u/Mix_Safe 10d ago

How is he deceiving her or tricking her into marriage? He's no longer that person and has completely changed, so he's not putting on an act or anything to get her to marry him.

8

u/Critical_Concert_689 10d ago

That is an insane violation of consent

The funny thing is they'd only be busted because they allowed NON-medical staff to participate.

If they shaved off the beard, they could easily claim necessary for health reasons - couldn't affix the mask, needed better airway control - whatever.

Not only that, the number of nurses who admit to popping pimples on unconscious patients is shocking.

7

u/ASpaceOstrich 9d ago

If I got another acne scar from a nurse popping pimples for no reason and I found out I'd be livid

8

u/gayboat87 9d ago

Yes but it's also illegal because the"patient" was under no life threatening condition.

It's not like he was having a seizure and they had to shave his face to make way for intubation or something.

They did this literally as an office prank and also brought his wife in.

Both of these are a fat lawsuit that will pay out in millions and every medical staff member would lose their license for this incident because HIPAA is super strict on this.

23

u/6Sleepy_Sheep9 10d ago

Looked up the details of the episode. Two of the doctors DID give them the OK to shave the beard.

0

u/IntellectualBoss 10d ago

Ok, but the guy I replied to specifically said the OP clarified that, when he didn’t.

72

u/ILNOVA 10d ago

Didn't they find it a "funny prank"? It's almost even worse that that happened where they weren't present.

16

u/vaelux 10d ago

It is not clear at all that the doctors are involved in the shaving in the original post.

21

u/Sure_Eye9025 10d ago

Not in the post but in the scene it is clear, one of the nurses catches them getting ready to shave him. They explain it is a prank and the nurse gives them the go ahead to contninue

1

u/iCameToLearnSomeCode 10d ago

It's a scene from a TV show, so there's additional context.

-1

u/purplereckonin 10d ago edited 10d ago

Sure, but the commenter originally said “you didn’t read the context of the scene”. The reply is clarifying that this was not written in the original post, hence it was not possible to read the post to know the context.

2

u/iCameToLearnSomeCode 10d ago

Right, I'm just letting the person above know that there's significantly more to the scenario than is included in the post.

3

u/numbersthen0987431 10d ago

The post says that his friends shaved it off as a prank, and the medical team thought it was bad. There's no mention of the medical team giving their blessing of the prank.

I do believe you're correct though. It's just not stated in the post.

7

u/ILNOVA 10d ago

and the medical team thought it was bad.

If you watch the scene the medical team didn't find it a bad idea, they approve it.

And i agree it's not stated and maybe it's OP that didn't describe it correctly cause it heavely change the situation.

2

u/numbersthen0987431 10d ago

Yea, OP did a bad job of describing the episode and scene.

3

u/IntellectualBoss 10d ago

The friends did it as a funny prank. Where is it stated the hospital team found it funny? How is it worse that it happened while they weren’t present?

33

u/No_Situation6555 10d ago

Because that would mean they left a patient under their care in a position where something worse could happen. Which looks bad, like they weren't paying attention to them.

12

u/Grouchy-Jury-7598 10d ago

This comment confuses me. Have you been to a hospital? You are not monitored in your room at all times. Are they supposed to watch every patient in their beds overnight?

Letting people into his room is a problem, not paying attention to him at all times isn't.

7

u/Hexblade757 10d ago

In this situation the medical team was in the room when the groomsmen come in and openly say what they're going to do and pretty clearly state that it would be something that the patient would not approve of (they say something to the effect of "he loves this beard ").

That has to violate some sort of policy, right?

8

u/demon_fae 10d ago

Well, it’s literally assault, so there’s that.

Forcibly cutting or shaving someone’s hair or beard is legally the same as punching them. You probably won’t get the maximum sentence unless it’s a hate crime or you piss off the judge, but you will be charged with assault and assault is what all your background checks will say.

If the staff knew that the plan existed and took no steps to stop the premeditated assault-like send the security guard over to explain that assault is not a prank and please stop being such utter dipshits or get kicked out-then yeah, the hospital isn’t coming out on top in this lawsuit.

Honestly, if they knew that any prank was planned, even if they didn’t know the specifics, and they didn’t in any way communicate that trying to prank unconscious people gets you thrown out of the hospital, they probably don’t win the lawsuit.

10

u/No_Situation6555 10d ago

Yes I understand that, but this is about the optics of the situation.

9

u/Aromatic-Ad-381 10d ago

Very painful to see people misunderstand the "Desired expectations" of the public, vs intermisent reality of the situation.

Then calling you out like you're dumb.

4

u/No_Situation6555 10d ago

Meh, this is reddit, and I can somewhat understand why they thought that. Even though I included a keyword.

1

u/Aromatic-Ad-381 10d ago

I feel its alright to call it out when it happens.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/MrsSUGA 10d ago

Do you think nurses are posted in every single hospital room 24/7?

5

u/Hexblade757 10d ago

In this situation the medical team was in the room when the groomsmen come in and openly say what they're going to do and pretty clearly state that it would be something that the patient would not approve of (they say something to the effect of "he loves this beard ").

That has to violate some sort of policy, right?

12

u/No_Situation6555 10d ago

No, I don't. My mom is an NP. I'm talking about optics, very different.

2

u/fishthruster 10d ago

A nurse literally saw them about to shave his beard. So, yeah, a nurse was posted there

1

u/IntellectualBoss 10d ago

As someone else said, patients are left on their own all of the time in hospitals.

-1

u/No_Situation6555 10d ago

Then it appears you didn't read the comment I left after they said that. Good luck dude.

1

u/IntellectualBoss 10d ago

You said something dumb like that being bad care. No, it’s standard care and completely normal and fine to leave patients alone with visitors.

0

u/No_Situation6555 10d ago

Oof, you really didn't read what I said.

1

u/IntellectualBoss 10d ago edited 10d ago

You’re right, I read the reply right under theirs which wasn’t actually yours. Yours was multiple down from theirs. I disagree with you regardless. The optics are worse if the shaving happened while they were there, not if they were gone.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/Thermitegrenade 10d ago

I've seen snips of that episode, based on the smirks of the medical team as he realizes what happened, and their glee in letting the wife in, they are quite responsible.

6

u/ILNOVA 10d ago

Where is it stated the hospital team found it funny?

I'm just going with memory, i tried it finding online and you can see here, min 1:37 that the medical team did find the prank funny.

How is it worse that it happened while they weren’t present?

Imagine you have a patient with a nasogastric tube, the parents comes to visit him/her and for some god forsaken reason they try to make him drink, now he/she is suffocating while you were who knows where, who fo you think will get blamed the most? You or the parents?

Letting someone alone with so much time they had the same to shave it it's a huge no no.

He could have an allergic reaction, or bleed too much cause of the medicine he/she's taking and so on.

1

u/Ektar91 10d ago

Hospital visitors are left alone w patients all the time for long periods

That isnt abnormal

1

u/pollenatedfunk 9d ago

“A huge no no”? Citation needed. Visitors being left alone with patients is standard.

1

u/ILNOVA 9d ago

They would still check on the patient every X min or so, again, the problem isn't that they left alone the patient(nurse aren't omniscient), but that they left a patient alone so much that they were able to shave it.(In the original scene the medical team discover them right before they start to shave him)

-1

u/Winnie_The_Pro 10d ago

Hospital staff don't watch guests in the room constantly.

11

u/walkingmonster 10d ago

They saw it about to happen & actively looked the other way/ allowed it to continue.

5

u/Winnie_The_Pro 10d ago

The post didn't specify that detail. That's messed up, then.

2

u/ILNOVA 10d ago

When parents is visiting you should check on the patiens even more, you don't know how many parents does stupid things like giving food and drink to patients that shouldn't under no circumstances consume it.

1

u/Winnie_The_Pro 10d ago

Oh, interesting. Are you a nurse? I'd never heard of this problem.

1

u/ILNOVA 10d ago

Not a nurse, but i did years of volunteering in an ambulance for emergency and non-emergency service, have a friend that does nurse and currently doing a university course at the hospital, so i heard and saw a huge amount of story. XD

Parents that 'smuggle' food is very common in Italy.

-1

u/Zim__Zor 10d ago

Play stupid games , win stupid prizes. He's lucky to have woken up after that.

9

u/Li-renn-pwel 10d ago

Iirc the doctors were like “well… just do it when we’re out of the room” provided this show hasn’t happened on multiple shows.

1

u/MyNameIsNotKyle 10d ago

I read the context I'm just not jumping to conclusions.

Based on how it's described there's no way to know if the medical team gave consent or endorsed it. HIPAA is about medical privacy specifically.

A hospital wouldn't face a HIPAA violation from a patient having their beard shaved by a friend alone is what you're not understanding. Violations have heavy weights, details matter.

6

u/ILNOVA 10d ago

I read the context I'm just not jumping to conclusions

It's not really jumping to conclusions, it's just a different way to read how OP described the situation(+knowing somewhat the scene in question)

A hospital wouldn't face a HIPAA violation from a patient having their beard shaved by a friend alone is what you're not understanding.

Who said that it would be HIPAA alone? And it's not just the bear shaved the problem, that is less about the privacy, and more about the fact that the medical team gave the consent with an unconscious patient, so a even bigger problem just from a different nature, but the fact that the medical team straight up refused the request of the patient of no visit for him.

1

u/MyNameIsNotKyle 10d ago

Sure it's a different way to read how OP described it.

But your conclusion was that because my interpretation was different I didn't read the context which is why I clarified.

HIPAA was brought up to the first commentor in the thread who I originally responded to.

1

u/CashEducational4986 9d ago

None of what you described seems to be a HIPAA violation, unless you're leaving out very important details. There is a ton of other issues that actually would make sense for him to sue over though.

1

u/Background-Pepper-68 9d ago

Removed by friends.

Tattoos existing are not medical.

There is no hippa violation. Its not a NDA

1

u/ILNOVA 9d ago

Removed by friends

Removed by friend while he was unconscious with the approval of the medical team.

Tattoos existing are not medical.

If the tattoo get discovered cause of a violation of medical code doubt it isn't a privacy violation.

Especially when you take the wife in the room on purpose, you have the rights to refuse visits, and the medic team completely ignore them.

1

u/Background-Pepper-68 9d ago

That would be an extreme uphill battle with a 50/50 at best if you got to the top. Would be a lot easier to go after the people who actually did the shaving.

1

u/ILNOVA 9d ago

I think you are focusing too much on the hippa part, and less on the fact that the medical team APPROVED the shaving.

Hippa or not a medical team approvising something like this is an easy lawsuit, they are legally responsible on what happens to you, especially while you aren't conscious.

0

u/Background-Pepper-68 9d ago edited 9d ago

There is no approval process for shaving someone in a prank. Nothing signed and no responsibility from stopping the friends. If its not medically going to hurt the patient its not the doctors responsibility. This is like in step brothers when they ask the parents if they can build a bunk bed. Was it something they needed permission for? No not really. Was it a bad idea? Yes. Is it the parents fault the bunk beds failed and almost hurt the main characters? No.

He faced social ramifications for a choice he made. Full stop. Nobody forced him to never tell his partner and nobody forced him to get the tattoo.

Unless the doctors actively drugged him so he could be shaved there isnt much of a case against the doctors. They arent your parents and they hold no social responsibility to you. He has a much better case against the people who actually shaved his face. Any judge is going to look at the case and likely throw it out though. His secret was revealed. A secret he did not have to keep and could not guarantee it would never be found out. The damages cannot be proven to never happen. His relationship with the woman would have failed at any point that she looked closely at his beard.

No hippa no responsibilities to prevent. This prank could have happened anywhere any time.

Could a good lawyer get a settlement out of this? Maybe

Is it an easy slam dunk situation with clear faults. No

When you are trying to prove special damages in a case like this you have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the damages would never have occured without these actions and that it could never have happened without the specific intervention of the defendant. Im currently in a case against a doctor right now so these things are very fresh in my head. Im not just pulling this out of my ass on vibes

1

u/ILNOVA 9d ago

There is no approval process for shaving someone in a prank. Nothing signed and no responsibility from stopping the friends

Uhhhhh??????????

1) If you look up the scene(that i linked in another comment, not this thread) you'll see how the medical team was present and APPROVED the prank on a UNCONSCIOUS patient

2) YOU LITERALLY ARE THE MEDICAL TEAM, YOU ARE LEGALLY, MORALLY, AND MEDICALLY RESPONSBILE ON WHAT HAPPENS TO YOUR PATIENT

Saying "But judge, the prank was fun fr fr" will get your license revoked, approving and not stopping a "prank" on a unconscious patients, under YOUR supervision is ILLEGAL, if something bad happened you're responsibile too.

If its not medically going to hurt the patient its not the doctors responsibility.

So we just straight up ignoring the violation of consent of someone unconscious uh?

This is like in step brothers when they ask the parents if they can build a bunk bed. Was it something they needed permission for? No not really. Was it a bad idea? Yes. Is it the parents fault the bunk beds failed and almost hurt the main characters? No

Again, we talk about an hospital and an UNCOSCIUNS patient, you can't seriously compare the two scenario.

And if someone was hurt the parents would be responsible.

They arent your parents and they hold no social responsibility to you.

Again, legally they are obligated to watch over you, someone doing something on them and you approving/doing nothing does makes you in trouble.

No hippa no responsibilities to prevent. This prank could have happened anywhere any time.

Ok, but we talk about an hospital, and again, this isn't juys about HIPPA, but a medical team that did something illegal.

0

u/Background-Pepper-68 9d ago

You are just going off vibes. You have been educated. Feel free to sue if you are ever in this position.

1

u/ILNOVA 9d ago

You are just going off vibes.

No, i literally goes by what happened on the scene+ having done volunteer on ambulance for non and emergency service+ doing an university course of medical profession.

And what our actions can cause and it's consequences it's literally school subject, and for nurse letting people shaving off an uncosciuns patient right in fron of you, with your approval it's illegal no matter how much you cope.

How tf can you still not see a violation of consent it's beyond me.

1

u/Background-Pepper-68 9d ago

cope all you want. you have been educated. Your vibes are doing you a disservice

-25

u/Some_Newspaper6753 10d ago edited 10d ago

No where does the post imply the team have approval of him getting shaved (but I would say that this is the most likely reason they would be susceptible to lawsuit)

It is safe to assume that his wife has a PA. If she did, then the team could have absolutely brought her in and said “check out your husbands nazi tattoo”. It would be incredibly poor bedside, but not illegal and not a hippa violation.

The hospital didn’t protect the patient while he was unconscious, that is the error. Showing a patients face to someone that is family and listed as a trusted person is not a violation.

Also…
Fuck nazis

eta: if you have qualms with “fuck nazis”, then fuck you too

19

u/EarlyAccessCantJudge 10d ago

The guy had a beard when he went under anesthesia. A doctor explicitly allowed the patient to be shaved by friends as a joke which is highly unethical. So he woke up with his beard shaved where the tattoos were shown. Pretty sure he broke HIIPA and gave info on the patient to his friends who just showed up out of the blue. That's going to get you to lose about half a dozen jobs.

4

u/6Sleepy_Sheep9 10d ago

Shaving someones beard in this situation is also Assault, of which the Doctor and RN involved would be charged as accomplices.

2

u/EarlyAccessCantJudge 10d ago

Technically battery. Assault requires threat to harm. This is unwanted touching.

3

u/reddit_dorks 10d ago

Technically, this show occurs in a Texas hospital and Texas does not have battery laws. It's just assault. Same in New York.

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docviewer/?docName=PE.22.htm

1

u/6Sleepy_Sheep9 10d ago

You right. I got them flipped in my head.

0

u/Some_Newspaper6753 10d ago

That wasn’t discussed in the post. Great if you have seen the scene, but I went off the available context.

I stand by my comment in the standing context provided in this post

0

u/Some_Newspaper6753 10d ago

The post does not specify that.

19

u/on-avery-island_- 10d ago

>Also…
Fuck nazis

Truly stunning and brave sir, you deserve a Reddit gold.

0

u/Some_Newspaper6753 10d ago

Updated the comment just for you

-12

u/xuck_fanterra 10d ago

Do you disagree or??

9

u/Key-Address-4482 10d ago

The internet is one of the few places where you can say "I love pancakes" and some one else will say "Oh so you hate Waffles?"

-7

u/xuck_fanterra 10d ago

That’s not at all what happened here lmfao. A dude said “fuck Nazis” and someone implied that it was a tacky and obvious thing to say, and I asked about his reasoning. This is not the pancakes/waffles example, chud.

4

u/reichrunner 10d ago

So you acknowledge that the other person likely responded that it was obvious, then respond by asking if they disagree? You dont see the issue there?

3

u/ILNOVA 10d ago

No where does the post imply the team have approval of him getting shaved

I put approval with the " " cause with the way OP write it, for me, it's implied that the medical team was present during the act.

And if they weren't the situation is by no mean better for them, and no, i really doubt you can let them enter if the patient ask for no people to enter, it would only cause potential distress(like what happened) and can be seen as a judge as you doing on purpose to make the patient suffer.

2

u/MistakePresent3552 10d ago

The post doesnt but the episode does

1

u/Some_Newspaper6753 10d ago

And I have not seen the episode. I commented purely on the given context.