Where has all the empathy gone?

Last semester, in my Media Law and Ethics class, we discussed an intense ethical case. A group I'm a part of decided to use the same case in a presentation we put on today in our case studies class.

I would post the ethical case if I thought any of you actually wanted to read it. But, I'll just sum it up, since I'm sure you don't.

A dentist in Medina, OH has a mental breakdown in public. This took place in the late 80s, 1989 I believe. It's a smallish town that now holds over 75 dentists. Who knows how many dentists had practices in Medina back then.

Anyway, this man has a mental breakdown in public. As part of his mental breakdown he begins stripping in the middle of town. He's not bothering anyone, just walking and removing all of his clothes. Police come to try to escort him away, and he begins to get violent. He eventually bites one of the cops and they have to use an animal shock thingy in order to get him in a car.

The local paper decides to publish this story on the front page along with his name. Is this ethical?

Here are a few points to consider. 1) The dentist was never charged with anything, and newspapers are not supposed to print a name when the person is not charged. 2) Should he be considered a public figure because he's a dentist in a smallish town? 3) Criminal behavior (which it's easily argued that his behavior doesn't fall in the category of criminal behavior) is usually placed in crime briefs somewhere inside the paper.

You can think what you want. I'm not against people having their own opinions. The weird thing to me, however, is that in both classes I seem to be the ONLY person who has the least bit of empathy for the man and his family, and believes it to be dancing on a fine line of ethical values, especially in the "minimizing harm" section of a journalist's code of ethics, to print his name on the front page of the paper. Every single person argued the editor's point of view. He's a public figure. His patients have a right to know. It's a small town and every one's going to know anyway, so it has to be on the front page or people will get mad. It's breaking news. Sure, okay. I understand a few of those points. But no one seems to care what this will do to him, his practice, or his family. Also, who's to say that printing this article will keep his patients safe? Obviously he was taken into custody. He received psychological help (the case brief states this at the end). Why does printing this article on the front page keep anyone more safe than going to a dentist who has a mental disability that doesn't break down in public? This was the dentist's first sign of mental disability. He hadn't had a chance to get on medication or have an evaluation yet. Really, does printing it honestly protect people? Maybe you think so, but I'm skeptical.

Mainly, though, I'm just sad that people don't voice any concern for the man or his family. So many people in my classes said things like, "He chose to do it in a public area." Or, "It happened in a public area so he gave away his rights of privacy." Okay, sure, people can take pictures and do whatever they want when something happens in public. It's legal. But is it ethical? And really, did he CHOOSE to break down in public? No. He did not choose it.

I'm just really surprised at people's lack of empathy. I understand a reporter's job and an editor's job. I don't understand people's lack of empathy. At least show some concern for the individual. Goodness.