TWO doctors ruled German co-pilot unfit for work on day of disaster--but he kept it secret

[calimary]

30. My husband and I had an argument about this, earlier this morning.

He pointed out, correctly, that the civil libertarians would object. Privacy and all that. I think that's exactly what we'd see - and I'm so torn. Not sure I'm comfortable with that, much as I expect and support privacy protections for myself and everyone else.

I wanted to know why that fellow's doctor could NOT have reported this to the airline. What should be done when it's the "honor system" and he's supposed to alert his employer that his doctor says he's not fit to fly - and he doesn't? What to do when the individual decides on his/her own, to rip up the doctor's note anyway and go to work despite the warnings? I know - freedom-freedom and all that. But at some point, don't we have to take into account the safety of the HUNDRED-PLUS others whose lives are in the hands of the pilot and copilot on EVERY commercial jet?

I don't know what the answer is here, as far as protecting EVERYBODY across the board in a case like this. Yes, privacy. YES, being able to trust your doctor or therapist that your confidences during your treatment can remain confidential. YES I get that.

But when you have 100-200-300 or more people's lives IN YOUR HANDS as part of your job, should you still be entitled to that kind of confidentiality and privacy protection? What about the public's right to know? What about the FLYING public's right to know, and to be protected? What about "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one," as the "Star Trek" saying goes (and I think that, too, is a valid statement)?

What about this anyway? Just in general? We see this conflict ALL THE TIME anymore. Rights. Yes. We have them. We need if not all then certainly most of them. They're both necessary and a necessary evil. But do they have rankings? Are we ranking them in order of importance when we refer to "The fill-in-the-number-here Amendment"? Or is that more in order of appearance? We see all kinds of tugs-of-war especially as applied to the 2nd Amendment, for example - the most aggressive, active voice pushes from the "2nd Amendment Is Really the FIRST Amendment" side. There are 1st Amendment struggles of all kinds, because there are several different rights under that one primary umbrella. ARE THERE some rights that supersede others? Is there a first-among-equals? And if that one's true, then can we all agree on which one is the "most first"? (Yeah, SUUUUUUUUUURE we're gonna get there!)

Sometimes I have my doubts as to whether we'll ever be able to arrive at answers that all sides somehow find acceptable.

I used to work with a guy who, before he hired me, had produced an award-winning radio documentary called "When Rights Collide." MAN does that fit here.