The problem is this. I can't tell them. It's privileged information. There have been countless movie scenarios, hordes of book plots that revolved around the sanctity of a priest's confessional or lawyer-client privilege. Like ... insider trading, if you want to call it that. My restriction is none of those, but it is still a question of ethics. Perhaps the worst kind of barrier there is... And my choices at this point are all somewhere between the northerly devil and the southerly deep blue sea.
Do I tell the person in question that I know ? Do I tell all the people who might be affected what I know ? or more realistically, just the individuals whom I know personally ? Or do I pretend I never heard what I did and let fate toss the dice for those people however it may ?
There is a trite turn of phrase for one option; "for the greater good", but that's a whistleblower's choice. Transparency only seems like the most attractive option if it doesn't act like cling film wrapped over spoilt food.
Ob note: Ask me why that metaphor was uppermost in my mind. Or maybe you can guess already. Goddamn coleslaw and silly expiry dates.
Anyway, why do I always seem to blog about these moral dilemmas ? Is it just that I am the only one to encounter them and consider them blogworthy material (for whatever thoughts that definition may conjour up)... or is it just that I make a Mount Kilimanjaro out of a termite mound ?