<BEGINNING OF TRANSCRIPT>
<O5-█ sets up a pocket alarm clock and leaves it on the table>
O5-█: You have time until the C5 meeting starts, make it count.
Bailey: As you probably know from the brief I sent, I'm Micheal Bailey, the assistant director from Site-37.
O5-█: Yes, I remember. SCP-6086 was it?
Bailey: Yes. I contacted you, in part, to make a complaint about the treatment of the anomaly.
O5-█: Are you sure this is the right channel for it? Procedures about regular containees are below the level of my responsibilities. Why didn't you try a more… suitable approach? I can imagine getting into contact with me wasn't easy.
Bailey: I did, of course, I did, but at best I was kindly rejected, at worst ridiculed.
O5-█: Then why are you choosing to pursue it?
Bailey: I don't believe this is a simple matter of a single anomaly, what we are creating with SCP-6086 is a precedent for year, nay, decades to come. What we did and will do about this… person is going to affect the Foundation to a level that most are ignorant of.
O5-█: I understand what you mean, but why do you consider what the research team has done to be wrong?
Bailey: It's creating a narrative of "us against them", anomalies being treated as an enemy. It will create a hostile atmosphere of distrust, where we are seen as the objective villain, where those who might come to us willingly will be righteously scared to do so.
O5-█: Aren't we already the antagonist to many? What is the difference here?
Bailey: A moral one, ma'am.
O5-█: Elaborate.
Bailey: We are exhibiting grave violence against it for questionable benefit, without pursuing other options. We are choosing to be evil, not after being good has failed, but as the first option of the table. I'm not naive or idealistic enough to think we can always be the moral judicator, but I believe it's our obligation to be a fair one. Morally repugnant acts instead of the last resort are becoming the starting point, a position when not the one who seeks the extreme has to convince everyone, but the one that does not.
O5-█: Aren't there risks with a more lax attitude?
Bailey: Of course. But isn't it always the case in our, especially your, line of work? Balancing risks, walking the line between what we can do and must do?
O5-█: Please restrict yourself to factual arguments.
Bailey: Of course. What I meant to say is that risk itself isn't a valid metric to make a decision, it should be used to create a context to other possible options to allow us to decide which we are able to take — whatever we are in privilege to partake in the more morally acceptable approach, or are forced into the immoral one. There are certainly situations where a radical option has to be explored, but it is definitely not always the case.
O5-█: And in SCP-6086's situation?
Bailey: I think the lightest possible way to describe it, is as a gross misjudgement from Site-37 staff, a miscalculation of risk that they do not want to admit and amend. And, even worse, is impossible to amend by now.
O5-█: Elaborate.
Bailey: While regular anomalies can be subject to any containment without inherently affecting it, live or human anomalies are subject to change based on their treatment. Treatment of SCP-6086 left a psychological mark that destroyed who mentally was before incarceration, which we cannot reverse.
O5-█: What would you want to be done in regards to the treatment of such anomalies?
Bailey: Main problem, I believe, is the lack of existing infrastructure to handle such problems. After the failure at the point of contact, at Site-37, no additional steps were able to be taken, other than appealing to the director board of the site, which already reached a consensus. If a wrong decision is made in any other department, research, logistics, containment, or any other, the next step would be to bring the issue to a suitable department, where they would consider the complaint, and if necessary, take the steps to amend the problem. While in SCP-6086's case, no institution where one could appeal exists, and other departments are unable to do anything, because, from their perspective, no violation occurred — the anomaly is safely contained and properly researched, technically no problem exists, because it's not a utilitarian one, but moral. On the other hand, other Foundation facilities also are incapable of any actions, because they are now allowed to facilitate control outside of the jurisdiction of their site.
O5-█: So, to reiterate, you are saying that the current system of organization isn't ready to facilitate moral dilemmas?
Bailey: Yes ma'am.
O5-█: Then what are you suggesting?
Bailey: I would like to propose the creation of an independent council that would oversee moral questions of the Foundation.
O5-█: What authority would this 'council' hold?
Bailey: Highest possible. Full access to information, full control over all research projects and containment procedures, if necessary. Just below the O5 council, an advisory body of sort.
O5-█: I have to inform you, that due to security reasons, you or anyone who worked with you on this proposal in a significant way, will not be allowed to be on this council if the bill passes.
Bailey: I and my collaborators are aware of that.
O5-█: Good. It's quite a radical thing you are proposing.
Bailey: I know. Otherwise, it wouldn't have a point, an institution that claims to enforce morality but has no way to do so.
<The alarm clock goes off>
O5-█: That would be it. I will contact you later this week, if the idea is well received, you will be asked to create a formal proposal in writing, which will be reviewed by the O5 council. Be prepared to provide necessary information at a moment's notice.
<O5-█ leaves the room>
<END OF TRANSCRIPT>