Transfer of patient at heart of case


	Edward M. Stern, J.D., has a private law practice in Newtonville, Mass. Stern serves as assistant dean for pre-law advising at Boston University and is a visiting lecturer for the University of Massachusetts/Boston Department of Sociology.

By Edward Stern, J.D. and Briggs R. Siitari

Prejudice is borne out of many things: upbringing, experiences, the media. Some of the most prevalent forms of discrimination are based on another person's obvious characteristics. Examples include gender, race and age discrimination. Other forms of prejudice include controversial issues such as religion or sexual orientation. These characteristics are more difficult to detect upon meeting someone, but prejudice against people with differing religions or sexual orientations is prevalent in the United States.

Questions arise regarding the responsibility of society and of individuals to deal with prejudice. Society approaches eradicating prejudice through law. Individuals deal with prejudice on a daily basis through their interactions with people who are different from them. Fine lines exist between what is appropriate for society and individuals in dealing with human difference.

Discrimination profiles people by categorizing a person based on a group characteristic instead of individuality. For example, racial profiling exists when a police officer stops a black person while driving a car when under similar conditions, the officer would let a white person go. Some officers will claim that statistics bear out their profiling assumptions. This is unjust. In the U.S., individual freedom is strongly supported by the Constitution and by many of the Amendments. These ideas exist no matter what is the race of the police officer involved in these incidents. It is also worthy of note, and may be the major point, that these issues are true and necessary of analysis whether or not the person doing the acts, the police officer in this example, is aware of or is intentionally doing an act which displays an unacceptable bias. There are those who will believe that they have no bias, but when shown data will have to accept that something beyond statistical opportunity is at work in the process. The question arises: Are we aware of our own beliefs or actions?

The legislature acts when it sees a problem that they believe requires legal controls. Sometimes the legislature does not see the problem. The law deals with discrimination in many forms including employment law. "The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older from employment discrimination based on age" (The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). Additionally, "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects individuals against employment discrimination on the basis of race and color, as well as national origin, sex, and religion" (The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission).

The question becomes: At what point should society take away individual freedom in order to protect a group? Society has decided that the freedom of individual employers to choose people based on their own preference (because the employer wants a male, for example) is inappropriate. Instead of choosing the person who can do the job with the most productivity, employees are chosen for other, non-relevant reasons. This is done to protect groups that suffer from prejudice. Society has decided that by choosing someone because of race, age, sex, weight, attractiveness, etc., detracts from society's ability to function.

Perhaps the "freedom of safety" for groups, or collective freedom, ought to play a bigger role in the law. Many countries emphasize group freedom over individual freedom. The belief is that public safety is more important than individual rights. Where is the fine line between individual and collective freedom?

Similar questions are pertinent for individuals in everyday life: At what point is it appropriate to step in and discuss a person's differences? Is there a line between getting useful information which might break down barriers yet being so personal such a question might be offensive? Because of overt, malicious prejudice on the part of racist, sexist or ageist people, well-intentioned people are hindered in their ability to discuss differences. The belief is that discussing differences may offend or upset someone. Thus, many well-intentioned people stay silent in the face of differences. Is this the right way to approach differences or are there situations in which discussing differences is good?

Finding the line between situations in which discussing differences is acceptable, and situations in which it is not proves challenging. Upon meeting someone who is different, discussing that difference immediately is not appropriate. This makes the difference an issue where it ought not be an issue. However, bringing up differences with friends or in situations wherein the discussion topic is 'diversity' may be appropriate.

For example, in education settings wherein the topic is "diversity," discussions are often cyclical and pointless. Instead of talking openly about racial diversity, for example, discussions revolve around the need to be careful and appreciate ethnic differences. But, once this need is established, the discussion ends. Preferable would be an introduction that includes a disclaimer about being conscientious and appreciating differences, but then going further by discussing the history and culture of Hispanics, African Americans, Asian Americans, Caucasians, Arabs, etc. Putting a human face onto other people's issues allows us to see each person's humanity rather than seeing someone as a representative of a group or condition which makes us uncomfortable. Through learning in appropriate settings, individuals may be able to begin to lessen prejudice.

These issues have applicability to counselors and therapists when dealing with patients and clients both from the standpoint of issues presented by the patient/client and from the possible attitudes of the counselor/therapist. n Edward M. Stern, J.D., has a private law practice in Newtonville, Mass., Stern serves as assistant dean for pre-law advising at Boston University and is a visiting lecturer for the University of Massachusetts/Boston Department of Sociology.

The law deals with discrimination in many forms (July 2008 Issue)

By Edward Stern, J.D. and Briggs R. Siitari

The law deals with discrimination in many forms
(July 2008 Issue)