Question

Germanwings Flight 9525 was well on its journey to Dusseldorf, Germany, from Barcelona, Spain, when it crashed into the French Alps, killing all 149 people on board. Although every plane crash is a tragedy, two facts stood out in this case that made it especially tragic. First, the co-pilot, Andreas Lubitz, intentionally flew the plane into the mountains as part of a suicide attempt. Lubitz had locked the cockpit door after the pilot left and then ignored pleas from the rest of his crew while he crashed the plane. Second, prior to being hired at Germanwings, Lubitz had been treated repeatedly for mental illness and suicidal tendencies.

News of these two facts spurred a major debate regarding the selection of pilots, especially as it relates to uncovering evidence of mental illness. In the United States, health professions are legally required to report on any patients who are likely to engage in conduct Page 263 that would result in serious harm to themselves or others. However, in Germany, the law emphasizes privacy, and the laws of that country bar doctors from revealing any medical information on their patients. German laws place responsibility for reporting mental health problems on the individual, and the belief is that forcing mental health officials to “out” their patients merely drives mental illness underground. People with problems will not come forward for treatment for fear of losing their jobs if they are reported.

Clearly, this system broke down in the Andreas Lubitz case. In fact, investigators found a doctor’s note in his apartment that would have excused him from work for a time period that included the day of the fatal crash, but this note was never shared with his employer. Thus, Germanwings claimed that it had no knowledge of Lubitz’s condition either before or after he was hired. The question becomes, Should it have? And will regulators and consumers allow this practice to continue in the future or demand changes in how Europe balances privacy rights against public safety?

QUESTION

1. German and U.S. laws clearly differ on the role of public reporting of mental illness. Which side do you think has the better argument, and how should a society balance privacy rights and public safety?

Answer 1

ANSWER:

German laws emphasize privacy. They bar doctors from revealing any medical information on their patients. They place responsibility for reporting mental health problems on the individual. The belief is that forcing health officials to divulge personal details about their patients will drive the mental illness underground.

On the other hand, US laws do not emphasize privacy. They legally require health professions to report on any patients with mental health problems. This is done to prevent the risk posed to other people.

I believe US laws make sense. Increasing the danger or harm caused to multiple people due to the mental conditions of an individual is not rational thinking. It’s a question of Math. In the example of Flight 9525, 149 people lost their lives due to the act of one person. All the 149 people could have been saved if that pilot, instead of being in the cockpit, was admitted to a mental institution and was reported to the company. Families of 149 people were affected that day. The irony is we will never know for certain how many people in those families were “mentally” affected due to the loss of a loved one. Therefore, the actions of a person with mental illness must be controlled.

However, there should be a fine balance between divulging personal details and safeguarding the right to privacy. If the person, if let unmonitored, endangers/could endanger the people around him/her, the right to privacy shouldn’t take precedence. If there is no danger to the immediate vicinity, the person’s privacy should be safeguarded.