Adding to the hoard?

[pinkiu]

My husband was asked by Friend A yesterday to help Friend B move a very large older model large screen tv into B's house. This tv is at least 54 inches and is attached to a large base. It was the kind people wanted 10-15 years ago before flat screens. He met a couple of other friends over at the house to move it in. While inside he noted that the family B were serious hoarders - the kind you see on tv. They had 4 or 5 other tvs in the house too.

When DH came home and told about this, I asked him how this tv came to the home since they already had so many. He said Friend A was at a work site doing construction and that homeowner wanted to get rid of this tv (free) and wondered if he knew anyone who might need one. Friend A immediately thought of Friend B (he takes everything) and took it to give to B.

Here's my question. If you know that a person struggles with an addiction (whether it be hoarding, eating, drinking, gambling, etc.) is it ethical to contribute free items that will enable that addiction further? My example is that if I knew that B struggled with diabetes/obesity, I would not randomly bring them 5 large pizzas just because they were free. Since I know it would lead to further decrease their health, I would decline the offer if I wouldn't eat them, rather than take them to someone who struggles with overeating unhealthy food. My husband and I went back and forth about this. I think it's wrong to knowlingly support someone's addiction by contributing to it while he separates out hoarding from other addictions and doesn't think it's a big deal to bring more stuff over that they don't need.

What are your thoughts?

[Katana_Geldar]

Is it endangering their health or the health of anyone else?

If not, I wouldn't I interfere unless it becomes a problem.

[Yvaine]

Does Friend A even know how bad it is? Or did he just think Friend B "collects old TVs"?

[katycoo]

Probably it is unethical, but since it did not directly involve either you or your DH, its also none of your business.

[DottyG]

I think it's none of anyone else's business, and you need to stay out of it.

[Ceallach]

Probably it is unethical, but since it did not directly involve either you or your DH, its also none of your business.

I think it's none of anyone else's business, and you need to stay out of it.

Right, but the OP isn't suggesting that she will interfere in any way in this particular situation - she's just using this as an interesting example and asking what we think we would do if we were "Friend A" or in a similar scenario.     

OP, I tend to agree with you.  It doesn't seem sensible to add to somebody's "problem".   Obviously from an etiquette perspective interfering is also rude e.g. it would be rude for a 3rd party to say "You can't accept a free TV! You have too much stuff hoarded!" or to try to intervene in an offer to prevent it happening.   But likewise going out of your way to add to the problem yourself seems thoughtless.    In this case Friend A went out of his way to get the TV for Friend B - he could just have declined the offer instead of arranging for Friend B to take it and arranging people to help move it!    Having said that, in this case it's possible that the TVs are used for parts, perhaps friend B is an amateur electronics person or similar. The mere presence of multiple TVs does not necessarily mean they're hoarding them.   I would give Friend A the benefit of the doubt and assume he knows something you do not, and that the TV was a welcome and wanted offer.   But that's in this case, in general I do agree with you in principle.

[DottyG]

asking what we think we would do if we were "Friend A" or in a similar scenario.

And I answered. It's none of anyone else's concern and everyone (OP and everyone else) should mind their own business.

[Ceallach]

asking what we think we would do if we were "Friend A" or in a similar scenario.

And I answered. It's none of anyone else's concern and everyone (OP and everyone else) should mind their own business.

Fair enough then, I thought you were chastising the OP to "stay out of it" which I felt was unnecessary as she has not indicated any intention whatsoever to get involved in this situation.   

So just to clarify - are you saying that if you were offered a free TV and you knew your hoarder friend would love to have it and hoard it, you'd "stay out of it" by not offering the TV to them (e.g. not adding to the problem)  OR would you "stay out of it" by not making any judgments as to whether it was right/wrong for them to have the TV and therefore offer it anyway?    I ask because both interpretations could be considered to be non-judgmental and not getting involved in the hoarding aspect.

[DottyG]

I'm a little confused by the difference (my brain isn't, necessarily, completely clear right now! I'm tired!)

[Iris]

asking what we think we would do if we were "Friend A" or in a similar scenario.

And I answered. It's none of anyone else's concern and everyone (OP and everyone else) should mind their own business.

Fair enough then, I thought you were chastising the OP to "stay out of it" which I felt was unnecessary as she has not indicated any intention whatsoever to get involved in this situation.   

So just to clarify - are you saying that if you were offered a free TV and you knew your hoarder friend would love to have it and hoard it, you'd "stay out of it" by not offering the TV to them (e.g. not adding to the problem)  OR would you "stay out of it" by not making any judgments as to whether it was right/wrong for them to have the TV and therefore offer it anyway?    I ask because both interpretations could be considered to be non-judgmental and not getting involved in the hoarding aspect.

Yes, I'm wondering too. My mother has hoarding tendencies (which she is having some good success recovering from, thankfully). If someone said to me "Hey, I'm getting rid of this old wardrobe, do you know anyone who wants it?" ... well, I DO know someone who would want it, my mother. However I almost certainly wouldn't mention that because it would just be adding to her problem. If she gets a new wardrobe all by herself, fine. I'm not going to lecture her about it. But I'm also not going to enable her by actively sending stuff her way.

[Ceallach]

I'm a little confused by the difference (my brain isn't, necessarily, completely clear right now! I'm tired!)

Lol I understand!    I guess what's confusing is that the OP isn't really asking what we'd do in her position (as the 3rd party) she's asking what we'd do in the position of Friend A so it's purely hypothetical.   The position of Friend A is more complicated because they have to make the decision of "Do I offer this item to my Friend despite knowing they have an issue with hoarding?"    

I agree with you that any 3rd party should definitely stay out of it though.

[MariaE]

Definitely unethical. I wouldn't bring a recovering alcoholic (or a practicing one, for that matter!) a bottle of wine, just because I got some for free. And in terms of 'enabling' I don't see this as being any different.

[cicero]

Well, *I* wouldn't - i see this an enabling.

But it's possible that friend A doesn't realize that friend B has a *real* problem. It's like if i have a friend who is an alcoholic, but not everyone realizes this, and people may just see him as "a guy who likes to party" rather than "a guy who has a serious addiction".

If i was in Friend A's shoes, and a homeowner would have asked me, i would have said that I don't know anyone - there is no way that I would have added to Friend B's problems

[Sharnita]

I agree that not evrybody might see it the way OP does, or thy might not see the addition of the tv the way OP does.

[Margo]

I don't think that friend A was wrong - he was asked if he knew anyone who would like the TV, and he did. He knew that Friend B would like it. I think that if Friend A *knew* that Friend B had a serious problem with hoarding then it would be better not to actively support this, but 'hoarder' isn't necessarily the first thing which would spring to mind, unless Friend A already has experience of hoarders - he might just think of B as someone who likes tinkering with electronics.

I think that if A knew that B has or may have a problem, it would be better not to mention him at all, and just say 'no' to the question about whether you know someone who might like the TV. However, I don't think his actions were unethical unless he knew specifically that B had a definite problem (i.e. if he knows B's family well enough to know that B has sought help or is getting treatment, or if he knows that the house has rooms which are literally too full to enter)