Should people shooting a documentary on drug abuse give ride to a drunk participant instead of let them drive?

Published May 15, 2010

I saw AE’s Intervention last night. It is a documentary program that follows people who have alcohol/drug use problems. The story was about a woman who had a very serious problem with drinking. At 2 points during the show the woman was given a ride by the documentary producers because they did not want her to drive. I believe that to shoot a true documentary one should not interfer in the result, because then you become a participant, and the show is not longer a documentary. For instance if you saw that movie, The March of the Penguins, even though many penguins died from starvation, attacks and the elements, the producers did not interfer and let nature take its course. I understand that in Intervention we are talking about humans, but should a person shooting a documentary become involved in it to that level. This is just something I’ve been thinking about. Serious answers
I accidentally posted this question twice so please give me a break.
Secondly, I am not in school and I already have my juris doctorate and I’m an attorney in Arizona. This is purely a philosophical question. Yes, sometimes people just wonder and it isn’t necessarily for a class project or to elicit angry bitter responses. Again, I reiterate that this question is about journalistic integrity and being objective when presenting a documentary. To those of you who have in some strange way taken personal offense to a question on yahoo answers, please don’t take yourselves too seriously. This is a website devoted solely to curiosity, not to personal affronts of others because you have some underling issues. Thank you to all of you who are just interested in discussing a philosophical topic, and please get lost to those of you that really need to get a life.

Should people shooting a documentary on drug abuse give ride to a drunk participant instead of let them drive?

More Meth Drug Addiction Info: