Moral dilemma: ‘A good friend wrongly receives benefits. Should I talk to him about it?’

The question

“A friend of mine has been unemployed for four years. He has always maintained that he cannot work due to a combination of back problems and depressive episodes. His doctor agrees with his story, so he receives benefits.

“We recently cracked a bottle of wine at my house, and during a candid moment he confided to me that his back actually doesn’t bother him that much. He has secretly stopped taking his antidepressants for a long time, and he feels fine about it. I could not believe my ears. So he chooses to fool society instead of taking responsibility for his own life and work. He does not have to return to his current job, but he can still find perfect part-time work that is less stressful on his back and mental well-being.

“I have a very difficult time with his choice, because in my opinion this is fraud. Next weekend I’m going on a hiking trip with that friend. I would actually like to talk to him about it harshly, but I’m afraid that might endanger our friendship. On the other hand, if I don’t do that, I will probably continue to be annoyed by this situation.”

Philosopher Johan Braeckman’s answer: ‘Unstated frustrations will certainly undermine friendship in the long term’

“First of all: be careful not to stigmatize. It is indisputable that there are people who, beyond their control, are unable to work for a long time due to medical reasons. They rightly rely on our social security, an ethically high-quality construction that was difficult to achieve. On the other hand, the system is vulnerable to fraud: free riders who benefit from the contributions of others and do not contribute or contribute too little to the collective. If that profiteering becomes too large, it can undermine the system. Nowhere in Europe is the number of long-term sick people increasing as quickly as in Belgium, according to a recent report by the High Council for Employment. The chance that all those people are objectively sick enough to be entitled to benefits is rather unlikely. Research into insurance fraud, which goes beyond sickness or unemployment benefits, shows that 5 to 10 percent of Europeans cheat the system in some way, for example by providing incorrect information, like the man in this case. In our country, this would amount to 400 to 800 million euros annually paid out to people who undermine our social security systems.

“Free riders we accept it to a certain level: you can refuse to be an organ donor, but if you are sick, you might still receive a kidney. But on this I agree with the questioner: this man commits fraud. He must realize that he is no longer entitled to benefits. Being an organ donor is a voluntary matter, contributing to social security is mandatory. The obligation to communicate obliges him, also morally, to pass on information about his changed health situation. I understand that the girlfriend is annoyed. She is afraid of endangering the friendship, but unstated frustrations will undermine it in the long run. You can also turn it around: as a girlfriend, she must address the man about it. She can do this in a soft tone: ‘Are you okay with this, because you are able to work?’ I can imagine that this question occasionally tugs at the conscience of that man himself. He must also be able to live with himself, knowing that he is cheating. He must reconnect with the labor market, also in the interest of his self-respect and self-esteem.

“Ideally, the man responds positively and recognizes that he needs to get back together. If he does not care about the intervention, the girlfriend must wonder whether she can remain friends with this man. We can suspect that over time, if the situation does not change, the friendship will simply fade away.

“A society that wants to function properly must learn to deal with fraud. How we should approach this is and remains a difficult issue, involving economic, game-theoretic, ethical and other aspects. In this case we may be able to tinker with the role of the GP. In our country, one doctor can, at least in the first instance, declare someone unfit for work. In the Netherlands, this requires two doctors: your GP and a doctor with whom you have no connection. This avoids familiar situations, although it remains very difficult for doctors to diagnose complaints that are difficult to objectify. They often have no choice but to rely on the patient’s word. Sometimes people have serious complaints for which no medical cause can be found. It would certainly be good to think more thoroughly about how diagnoses are made that entitle you to benefits. The system in the Netherlands may seem better, but the Netherlands is still the sickest country in Europe after Belgium. That clearly leaves room for further research.”

If you are struggling with a question that you would like to submit to our Council of Wise Men, please email [email protected].