It's a complexIt's a complex story, she's well characterized and it all becomes very sad..
Congrats for the author.
Let’s try to answer those questions
If you worked for an insurance company, would you be willing to insure a diocese against sexual abuse allegations? Are there some things you shouldn’t be able to buy insurance against?
I certainly won't, or at least to an extent, to prevent justice to be done in any way. I would consider leaving the job, or sending the envelope to the police, or both. The same goes for any kind of violent society, of any kind. But I think this is a personal approach I like for myself. If not any lawyer defending fiends would be unethical.
The narrator lied to the bus driver because she knew it would hurt the story of her school bully. Given the various factors, how do you judge the narrator for her actions?
It's not clear she knew about before. Still, she could have corrected herself afterwards. Becoming a bully is not the best way to defeat bullies.
The narrator’s boss implies he would fire her for the ethical issues she has against insuring the church against sexual abuse charges. What, if anything, should the narrator have done in response to the threat, and why?
Because such decisions make herself sick, ethics aside. She just should have left.
What exactly are the mental health issues the narrator has, and what would be the best steps/realizations for her to move forward to being a healthier individual?
Fetch a good therapist for alimentary disorder. The short description of her life however leads to even heavier problems.
Are there any additional questions you would want to ask before issuing sexual assault insurance for the church? What answers would permit, or preclude, you from issuing the insurance?
Well, the whole concept is simplified. For instance an insurance protecting the church if it was to condemn the wrong doers, act as private accuser...etc. There will be far more room to debate the ethics of Insurance company.
I've quit jobs over less I think I would have tried to build a case against all of them and have a new job lined up! Tricky one about lying for the bus driver because he was kind to her and she didn't have any evidence the bully was telling the truth either
SURELY it doesn’t Shield the priest. They should be punished like anyone else. The insurance may help the victim. The prospect of a payout may also be a bad thing in some ways. So.. it depends, but your original question of ‘shield the priest’ cannot apply. The diocese needs to be motivated to expose the bad priests - how can that be made to work better?
You make a great point, the difference between criminal and civil cases. As a reminder, there are also different legal standards for each. OJ was innocent in the criminal case, but found guilty in the civil case. Insurance only protects the Parrish from financial payouts, not the Priest from criminal conviction.
The suggestion that the diocese should think the problem of the abuse of children is best solved by insuring the diocese (not the possibly innocent until proved guilty individual) is a reasonable tactic is horrifying. The idea that the insurer is ok because their is money to be made regardless of the situation speaks volumes about our culture. Then we have the young woman who has bought the idea that the best way to happiness is to have a slender but not healthy body. What a accurate description of where we are as humans.
It's a complexIt's a complex story, she's well characterized and it all becomes very sad..
Congrats for the author.
Let’s try to answer those questions
If you worked for an insurance company, would you be willing to insure a diocese against sexual abuse allegations? Are there some things you shouldn’t be able to buy insurance against?
I certainly won't, or at least to an extent, to prevent justice to be done in any way. I would consider leaving the job, or sending the envelope to the police, or both. The same goes for any kind of violent society, of any kind. But I think this is a personal approach I like for myself. If not any lawyer defending fiends would be unethical.
The narrator lied to the bus driver because she knew it would hurt the story of her school bully. Given the various factors, how do you judge the narrator for her actions?
It's not clear she knew about before. Still, she could have corrected herself afterwards. Becoming a bully is not the best way to defeat bullies.
The narrator’s boss implies he would fire her for the ethical issues she has against insuring the church against sexual abuse charges. What, if anything, should the narrator have done in response to the threat, and why?
Because such decisions make herself sick, ethics aside. She just should have left.
What exactly are the mental health issues the narrator has, and what would be the best steps/realizations for her to move forward to being a healthier individual?
Fetch a good therapist for alimentary disorder. The short description of her life however leads to even heavier problems.
Are there any additional questions you would want to ask before issuing sexual assault insurance for the church? What answers would permit, or preclude, you from issuing the insurance?
Well, the whole concept is simplified. For instance an insurance protecting the church if it was to condemn the wrong doers, act as private accuser...etc. There will be far more room to debate the ethics of Insurance company.
I've quit jobs over less I think I would have tried to build a case against all of them and have a new job lined up! Tricky one about lying for the bus driver because he was kind to her and she didn't have any evidence the bully was telling the truth either
SURELY it doesn’t Shield the priest. They should be punished like anyone else. The insurance may help the victim. The prospect of a payout may also be a bad thing in some ways. So.. it depends, but your original question of ‘shield the priest’ cannot apply. The diocese needs to be motivated to expose the bad priests - how can that be made to work better?
The insurance could have this caveat to protect the dicocesis only if the priest was accuesed, vitims supported....
You make a great point, the difference between criminal and civil cases. As a reminder, there are also different legal standards for each. OJ was innocent in the criminal case, but found guilty in the civil case. Insurance only protects the Parrish from financial payouts, not the Priest from criminal conviction.
The suggestion that the diocese should think the problem of the abuse of children is best solved by insuring the diocese (not the possibly innocent until proved guilty individual) is a reasonable tactic is horrifying. The idea that the insurer is ok because their is money to be made regardless of the situation speaks volumes about our culture. Then we have the young woman who has bought the idea that the best way to happiness is to have a slender but not healthy body. What a accurate description of where we are as humans.
Thank you for taking the time to comment. We hope others will make a habit of joining in to the discussion each week!