BLAME,
RESPONSIBILITY AND LEGAL LIABILITY
Caution is needed in
establishing precedents while attempting to enhance safety
JULY 29th 2009
Once again the media manages (whether deliberately or not I cannot say)
to confuse the public. When a steel works in Corby, Northamptonshire,
England was closed down in 1980 and dismantled over the years
1985-1999, the toxic waste was removed to a site north of the town. It
turns out the local council were either not aware or careless of how to
handle this toxic waste. Later, birth defects were found in significant
numbers in the area, significantly related to mothers who were pregnant
during the time of the removals. Some of the toxic materials know to be
present are also known now to cause some of the problems observed and
today a High Court Judge found in favour of 16 out of 18 claimants. The
council was found to have been negligent over work to reclaim a steel
plant. It seems they certainly were and have admitted they made
mistakes. It is likely they are 'to blame'.
The confusion
arises when the newspapers describe this as a child-poisoning case and
compare it with Thalidomide and the MMR Vaccine scare. These two cases
have nothing to do with the Corby incident. Both Thalidomide and the
MMR Vaccine were medicaments designed to safeguard the health of adults
and children. They were tested carefully.
Thalidomide was
a tranquilizer and painkiller proclaimed as a "wonder drug" for
insomnia, coughs, colds and headaches. It was also found to be an
effective anti emetic which had an inhibitory effect on morning
sickness, so thousands of pregnant women took the drug to relieve their
symptoms. At the time of the
drug's development it was not thought likely that any drug could pass
from the mother across the placental
barrier
and harm the developing foetus. Nor were any
dangerous effects suspected if it did. However it was much later
discovered that the Thalidomide molecule was produced in two mirror
versions, only one of which was dangerous to a developing foetus at the
precise stage of development when 'morning sickness' was, tragically,
most likely to occur as a symptom in the mother. Thalidomide of the
'safe' isomer could be still used today, even by pregnant women if it
were not for the fact that
some of the safe isomer could convert in the body to the other.
Thalidomide and analogues are approved today for the treatment of many
serious conditions. So the reason the manufacturers of Thalidomide paid
serious amounts in compensation to the children and families affected
was because they were RESPONSIBLE, but not because they were
NEGLIGENT. They were also to some extent BLAMABLE because they took
the risk with pregnant mothers. But that blame is mitigated in that
they had no reason to believe there was a risk at the time and tests on
live foetuses are not allowed. Corby Council knew they were moving
dangerous toxic materials. There is however a LIABILITY of any
manufacturer of artificially produced drugs that have not been a
naturally consumed item in the past. We are only truly liable for
behaviour we know to be wrong. For that reason we are obliged to
educate ourselves to a level appropriate to the freedoms and privileges
we claim. A drug company must comply with the law as it now exists and
that defines the limits of LEGAL LIABILITY as far as the supply of
drugs is concerned.
The MMR Vaccine
is also unrelated to the Corby incident. The manufacturers complied
with the law and took every effort to make sure that the relationship
to autism perceived by the.parents as obvious and also statistically
valid in their personal experience was not statistically valid when the
statistical base was expanded. This meant the vaccine could not be
shown as the cause. Every precaution has been taken. Nevertheless,
because it is impossible to prove a negative the government can not
insist on mandatory vaccination, nor could a child in my view claim
injury against its parents subsequently if measles left it damaged
after
they had declined the vaccine on its behalf.
We become
RESPONSIBLE when we know the consequences of our actions, for good or
ill, and continue with them. This responsibility may or may not be
cause
for BLAME and may or may not entail LEGAL LIABILITY. The world is
entering a stage where the pace of change, the size of the human
population and the march of technology will bring about events that
will inevitably cause damage. To mitigate this we shall have to take
risks and sometime move fast to reach deadlines. There will have to be
limits on liability if we are to avoid the strangulation of
initiatives. We cannot possibly expect a world without mistakes, but we
must limit these to NEW MISTAKES to the very best of
our ability. It will greatly help that we have a European Union to
bring some consistency to the risks we shall have to take while
allowing certain risks to be taken nationally without damage to others.
In the same way, consistency must be sought across the United States,
Canada and the rest of the world. At the same time it should be
realised that legal liability and draconian punishment and massive
compensation for mistakes is not always the way to achieve the way
forward. Transparency and control and correction is the key and what is
hidden through fear of exposing a mistake can not be regulated. Fear is
not the best spur, nor can we finance the escape from global warming by
intending to sue those whose past actions we find responsible for it.
Green Growth will require public and private enterprise. Liability
should be limited in the case of climate change to those who know but
persist, in government, with national policies that continue as a whole
to increase the harm the environment. Green Growth is the key, other
growth must be progressively abandoned.
The risks we take with new technology in medicine, food, power source
development, means of transport and communication are all related to
the basic human nature defined once by Baruch Spinoza as 'desire'. We
want to do, to go, to explore, to possess and indeed "seek and ye shall
find" is a proven truth as well as good advice. However it is also
proven that what we seek is not necessarily compatible with, or
anything like, the future we anticipated. Behaviour is more
likely to bring health than chemistry. We proceed by trial and error
and have taken the future in our own hands. The responsibility
falls to us to
regulate our affairs, and that includes population numbers and how to
control them. See: http://www.poodwaddle.com/clocks2.htm