Topics Ethics

Question Is one who spreads a contagious disease unconciously held responsible for the victimes? Or under what circumtances should he be held responsible?

Accepted:
October 4, 2012

Comments

If the choice is to impose the cost either on the infectors or on the infected, the former rule seems preferable because it gives suitable incentives to potential infectors to find out whether they have a contagious disease and, if so, to avoid infecting others. This reason might be overcome in special cases where the infectors are very much poorer than those they infect.

There is a third option, probably better, namely to cover such costs through universal health insurance. This saves the research and litigation expenses associated with determining who the infector is. One could then still pursue cases of gross negligence through the criminal justice system.

Question Is one who spreads a contagious disease unconciously held responsible for the victimes? Or under what circumtances should he be held responsible? Accepted:October 4, 2012

Question Is one who spreads a contagious disease unconciously held responsible for the victimes? Or under what circumtances should he be held responsible?

Accepted:
October 4, 2012