A different kind of Ethicist response

Dear this week's Ethicist letter writers: In the future, please face more compelling dilemmas.

Dear L. Eriksen: Where did you get your diagnostic training?

Dear Sarah Richards: The fact that you have motivations for writing the words "gay rights!" other than the advancment of the status of homosexuals in our society isn't any kind of conundrum, though it may turn out to be a clever solution to your problem.

Dear Ming Luke: It's not good policy to increase your institution's entanglement with child-abusing (I am not trying to be glib about child abuse, which is extraordinarily serious, but about the idea that maybe the school should have taken the deal) attempted bribers. I'm sure $10,000 would really help the school, but if film and television have taught me anything, it's that situations like this spiral out of control beyond anyone's intentions.

Dear Randy: When you say, "but even if your assumption is correct, there's nothing discreditable about your polyester plan," don't you mean, "whether or not your assumption is correct?" How could it be worse if her assumption is correct?

Besides that, I have no qualms about his answers this week.