When a provider reports abuse, should the accused abuser be able to know the identity of

his or her accuser? Explain your answer with as much detail as possible.

Under law, the health provider is under obligation to report abuse to law enforcement

agencies. The police then investigate, obtain sufficient evidence, arrest the abuser, and accuse

him or her in a court of law (Hess, 2011). During case proceedings, the health provider may not

be required. If need be, they appear as witnesses and not accusers. The law enforcement officer

or the state in this case is the accuser. The accused abuser does not have to look far to know who

the accuser is. Most of the time; it is not possible to get the ideal open-and-shut case.

Take the classic scenario whereby Mr. Aaron marries Miss Beth. They beget a girl child

Collins. After a while, they divorce. Aaron migrates from that country. Arrangements are made

so that he can spend three weeks with his daughter once every year. Both Aaron and Beth agree

to this arrangement. After a number of years, a young lady Dorothy approaches social workers in

the place where Aaron lives and accuses Aaron of seriously and repeatedly sexually abusing his

daughter Claire. Dorothy insists on absolute anonymity. When this shocking accusation reaches

Beth, she decides never to send her daughter away again to visit with Aaron. Aaron swears that

he has never abused anybody and takes Beth to court for denying him access to his daughter.

One of the most important rights extended by the law to Aaron is that he has the right to

confront witnesses who testify against him. This right prevents the government from using secret

accusers like lady Dorothy from denouncing Aaron in court. The subject matter of hearsay

cannot be overlooked. What the social workers presented to Beth amounts to hearsay because

they did not directly witness Aaron abusing Claire but heard it from Dorothy. A good legal

system should neither allow hearsay evidence in court nor permit savvy government prosecutors

to play around with debatable issues arising from how the law treats hearsay.

Under such circumstances, the learned judges have no option but ask for the identity of

the secret accuser Dorothy to be revealed. This will then make it possible for Aaron to confront

Dorothy. The court will also be eager to weigh the evidence presented. It would not be the first

time that someone falsely accuses another and then hides under a veil of anonymity. This would

amount to gross injustice. If Dorothy’s evidence does not hold in court, then the right for Aaron

to access his daughter Claire should be restored. Aaron should sue the false witness Dorothy and

enjoy the proceeds accruing from the penalty that Dorothy pays.

In the real world, things are not as simple. This case is in actual fact an ethical paradox.

Due to its nature to mercilessly stick to facts, the law has been compared to a stubborn ass. There

are matters that are lawful but not necessarily ethical. Dorothy’s accusation makes it impossible

for Beth to trust Aaron around her daughter. It has a weighty psychological impact. Who would

forgive Beth if she lets her daughter go only once more and then Aaron, true to Dorothy’s

accusation abuses her? On the other hand, why would the justice system deny Aaron access to

his precious daughter based on circumstantial evidence originating from a faceless accuser who

does not want to reveal her identity? This is a classic case of an ethical paradox.