4 ms·

In the general case yes, I think you are right. It is however fairly easy to conceive of scenarios where an individuals inability to understand risks posed by

by jlgreco 13y ago

In the general case yes, I think you are right. It is however fairly easy to conceive of scenarios where an individuals inability to understand risks posed by their actions becomes very blurred with a refusal to understand the risks. Typhoid Mary for example was informed numerous times that she was posing a risk and the fact that they were able to re-find her after she changed her name by following her carnage should have been proof enough to her that they were probably right. I think you could make a reasonable case that Typhoid Mary had a depraved indifference to the risk to human life, even though she claimed to not believe the doctors. Edit: If you understand herd immunity and decide that you do not care (such as eip here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5802206 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5802206) then you surely have a depraved indifference to human life. Moreso even than Typhoid Mary could be said to have.

btilly 13y ago
For Typhoid Mary, yes. But for most of the cases, you'd have a much harder standard to meet. Here is an interesting problem. Suppose that we trace a disease through 5 unvaccinated children from the one who picked it up in a foreign country, to the one who passed it on to the baby who died. Who is liable? All 5? The one who passed it on? The one who went to a foreign country while unvaccinated?
- jlgreco 13y ago
  All those who reasonably had the opportunity to provide their child with a recommended (recommended by who could be debated. I would throw out the CDC as a first suggestion) vaccine that had the possibility of preventing the outbreak, but chose not to. I think it would be better to tax or fine those who chose to abstain from vaccinating their children than to wait until an incident occurs and try to sue people. Much easier, and it does a better job of driving home the point that by refusing to vaccinate your child you are damaging herd immunity, not just potentially killing particular people.

by jlgreco 13y ago

btilly 13y ago

For Typhoid Mary, yes. But for most of the cases, you'd have a much harder standard to meet. Here is an interesting problem. Suppose that we trace a disease through 5 unvaccinated children from the one who picked it up in a foreign country, to the one who passed it on to the baby who died. Who is liable? All 5? The one who passed it on? The one who went to a foreign country while unvaccinated?

jlgreco 13y ago
All those who reasonably had the opportunity to provide their child with a recommended (recommended by who could be debated. I would throw out the CDC as a first suggestion) vaccine that had the possibility of preventing the outbreak, but chose not to. I think it would be better to tax or fine those who chose to abstain from vaccinating their children than to wait until an incident occurs and try to sue people. Much easier, and it does a better job of driving home the point that by refusing to vaccinate your child you are damaging herd immunity, not just potentially killing particular people.