E Coli outbreak in Germany - crime and punishment

[Bells]

Not necessarily.
But if it were impossible to have both, which would you choose?

But it is not impossible to have both. Suffice to say that I wouldn't choose the cookie and hug option.

Yes, it is easy for me to say.
Yes, I might think differently if I were a victim... but vengeance is human nature.

And no, a good investigation will not always fix the problem... but it gives you the best chance.

No one is disagreeing with that. And if after a good investigation it is found that someone was responsible, then action can be taken. That is normally what happens after investigations.

No, I asked you a specific question, which you didn't answer. Why?

I did answer it.

I guess I cannot understand the mentality that people should not be held responsible for their actions. If someone were mentally deficient or ill or a child, yes, because they cannot be held responsible. But others?

Considering we live in an age where were are surrounded by unscrupulous behaviour from organisations and individuals, to assume that a mere stern talking to and a pat on the back with a 'there there' is going to fix everything or make people not do it again is ridiculous and naive.

If we were to errr follow your argument, then there would be no speeding laws and no gun control laws (in Australia that is), no drink driving laws, etc, because you seem to believe that if someone has made a mistake, then just let them go because obviously, they won't do it again and it's better to prevent it happening in the future..

No offense, but you are naive.

Of course it isn't. That would be stupid.

So we are not going to hold people responsible and we are not going to give them cookies.. what is the point of an investigation to prevent something from happening again if we just turn a blind eye to when it happens in the first place and pretty much do nothing to instill the knowledge in the minds of others that such things are not acceptable?

What do you mean?

Hmm?

I think he should never have been employed by Queensland Health.
Failing that, I think his work practices should have been corrected long before people were harmed.

Punishing him after the fact is cold comfort, wouldn't you agree?

The man knowingly put the lives of his patients at risk and knowingly killed some of them, or allowed them to die with his treatment. I guess we can let him go and hope that doctors won't kill their patients or make stupid mistakes that result in death or injury?

God forbid he be held responsible for his actions...

 

[Bells]

No, seriously, you're going with this now?

BTW those who got sick COULD have taken responcibility for themselves and cooked them couldnt they?

It's a vegetable you eat raw?

How often do you boil your sprouts and lettuce leaves Asguard?

 

[Asguard]

It's a vegetable you eat raw?

How often do you boil your sprouts and lettuce leaves Asguard?

brussle sprouts? i have never eatten them raw, to bitter. I saute them in butter, salt, pepper and a little lemon juice

 

[adoucette]

wrong, wrong, wrong ....

My "free choice" (as you put it) to start smoking was made while trying to decide if it would hurt to much to slash my wrists open. Does that sound like "free will"? I spent the next 10 years TRYING to quit does that sound like a free choice?

Im sick and tired of people who havent the faintest idea what they are talking about describing adiction as free choice.

BS BS BS

If you were old enough to consider slicing your wrists you knew fully well that smoking was both addicting and dangerous before you lit up.

In the US, UK and Australia cigarettes can not be legally sold to anyone under 18.

So YES, unless someone physically forced you to light up, smoking was a FREE CHOICE that you made.

I'm just as sick and tired of people who excercised free choice to start smoking blaming their subsequent addiction on everything but themselves.

Arthur

 

[John99]

wrong, wrong, wrong

1) everything about smoking is designed to be adictive. Once again all the pritty colours are designed in such away as to apeal to the young BEFORE THE FRONTAL LOBE HAS FULLY DEVELOPED. Hell in indoneasia these death dealers are even trying to hook young kids one of whom at least was a pack a day (or was it a carton a day) before he was even out of napies (hes a todler). Further more smoking is directly linked to SES and Mental health with people who suffer a mental illness 10 times more likly to smoke. Adiction itself is a mental illness and not something to blame people for.

2) once you start smoking its almost impossible to quit, it takes on adverage over 10 times to quit and even thats no garentie with relapses. This isnt people chosing to continue smoking, its an adiction.

those 2 together are aimed squarly at stopping informed concent. If your adicted to something your not making a choice of your own free will and if your hooked before your brain can fully develop, while you are suffing mental illness you dont have a hope in hell of making an informed decision. My "free choice" (as you put it) to start smoking was made while trying to decide if it would hurt to much to slash my wrists open. Does that sound like "free will"? I spent the next 10 years TRYING to quit does that sound like a free choice?

Im sick and tired of people who havent the faintest idea what they are talking about describing adiction as free choice.

Not every adult wants the GOVT. to be their mommy.

Pretty sure that anyone smoking these days and really since many decades ago knows full well the dangers of smoking. They do it regardless of alllll the information that it is bad for you. Just like drugs...Doesnt everyone know doing hard drugs will leave you addicted, broke (spend all your money), sick, dead, you friends leave you..etc.?

 

[Pete]

But it is not impossible to have both. Suffice to say that I wouldn't choose the cookie and hug option.

Cookies and hugs wasn't an option (it's becoming a rather tedious strawman), and we haven't established whether it's feasible to have both. This isn't a trap, Bells, I just want to know how whether our disagreement is deep in our values.

Would you rather punish the dodgy practitioners who get caught, or adjust the system so that dodgy practices have less chance to flourish?
If you had to choose one or the other, which would you choose?

If after a good investigation it is found that someone was responsible, then action can be taken. That is normally what happens after investigations.

Of course. And 'action' doesn't have to be 'punishment'.

I did answer it.

I must have missed it.
You have argued that personal responsibility must be forced upon people by punishment,
Why? What benefit is gained from punishing someone who refuses to take personal responsibility?

I guess I cannot understand the mentality that people should not be held responsible for their actions.

Bells, the argument is about punishment after an incident, not about responsibility for actions in general.
Yes, people should take responsibility for their actions.
Yes, people should be held responsible for their actions.

But:
- Actions are distinct from consequences.
- Holding someone responsible for their actions is not the same as imposing punishment, just as taking responsibility doesn't mean punishing yourself.
- In the aftermath of a serious incident, holding people responsible is less important than discovering causes.

See the links I posted a couple of posts back.

what is the point of an investigation to prevent something from happening again if we just turn a blind eye to when it happens in the first place and pretty much do nothing to instill the knowledge in the minds of others that such things are not acceptable?

Again, 'turning a blind eye' would be stupid and counterproductive.
Can you really not see that punishment is not the only response?
Yes, obviously action has to be taken, and obviously unsafe behaviour needs to be discouraged.
But punishing only the tiny few cases that result in serious incidents isn't good discouragement, if the vast majority have no consequences.

People who act in a way that endangers others need to have their actions corrected, regardless of their intent, and regardless of the actual consequences of the specific act.

Right?

So, if unsafe actions are dealt with appropriately as a matter of course, then what's the problem with letting it slide after a major incident, in order to get a good investigation?

Hmm?

You said that the Patel issue is a clear example that giving people cookies and acting as if nothing bad happened doesn't make the problem go away. I don't understand exactly what you meant.

The man knowingly put the lives of his patients at risk and knowingly killed some of them, or allowed them to die with his treatment. I guess we can let him go and hope that doctors won't kill their patients or make stupid mistakes that result in death or injury?

God forbid he be held responsible for his actions...

God forbid that Patel or any other doctor repeat his actions.
God forbid we don't change the system that allowed those actions for so long.

 

[Pete]

I'm going to take a break from this thread for a while. Things are getting a bit heated, and we're misinterpreting each other.

I know I have. It's too easy to read motivations in others that aren't there when you're arguing a case.

So sorry Bells, kira, Read-Only, and everyone for any exaggerations, strawmen, issue avoidance, and other dodgy logic dance moves I've perpetrated.


Will definitely talk again in a few days. This is a really good thread.

 

[Asguard]

Bells you want a clear example of this look at the royal commission into the victorian bushfires. What should have been a strict look into where the system failed became a witch hunt to blame Christine Nixson for going out to dinner. Sure it was a stupid thing to do in hindsight but it would have made ZERO difference to the outcome, the biggest failures were made MONTHS before the actual fires but people just wanted someone to blame and it was her head they decided they wanted. It could just as easerly been the Emergency service minster or Steve Bracks head on a platter and with as little reason, there were problems sure but they were in build standeds, burn offs ect not (for the most part) in the responce. The responce was overwhelmed and thats not really surprising when you concider whole towns were wiped off the map and the CFA and police were helpless before it.

However insted of learning the lessons people turned the commission into trying to find someone, anyone to blame and that is exactly what you have done here. 33 people are dead so there must be someones head we can have so we can put it on a spike for all to see and then we can "move on". Yea sure and then the next major event happens and people wonder why.

The same thing happened in Japan, the Tsnamie was twice the size of any recorded, the ocean floor moved 26m side ways and 6m vertically in a few seconds. Who could predict that but after the event people are calling for the head of the nuke plant because "he should have known". Its not rational and its not useful

The same thing is happerning in Queensland with people blamming the whole thing on whoever didnt empty the dam so that there was enough capacity, never mind that that would itself have caused flooding.

Sure its easy to blame 1 person or a group of people. Goverments have been brought down for alot of things that wernt actually there fault, its alot harder to take a deep breath, take 2 steps back and say "ok how do we stop this situation happerning again". Its also alot more useful because no matter how many goverments you toss out, no matter how many heads you put on spikes the root cause of the problems will still be there and they will keep happerning unless we stop reacting and start accepting that sometimes things happen and how do we put systems in place to prevent these things from occuring.

I was recently hurt at work, it was quite a minor injury which broke one of my teeth but it could have been alot worse. Now the first thing my boss did when i saw him the next day was go through exactly what happened, not to put the blame back on me but rather to prevent it the next time. His second question was "what do i think could be done in future to prevent the same acident happerning again". This is the sort of aproch that is needed. Now sure i could take the company to court for failure to provide a safe enviroment, they would probably take another company to court for providing faulty goods and we would all end up settling out of court under confidentuality agreements and nothing would change so what would be the point.

 

[Bells]

Asguard, please, learn the difference between act of nature (or God or however you may wish to say it) which is not something that one can predict or control - like a tsunami and act of man, which could be negligent and because of a lack of care. Once you have learned the difference between the two, then come back to me and we will talk. Until then, you ar sounding like an angry gnat with issues.

 

[Bells]

brussle sprouts? i have never eatten them raw, to bitter. I saute them in butter, salt, pepper and a little lemon juice

What in the hell are you on about? Brussle sprouts? Wha?

Do you even know what they narrowed it down to?

The farm has been closed and all its products recalled. The farm cultivated sprouts from a variety of products including lettuce, azuki beans, mung beans, fenugreek, alfalfa and lentils.

(Source)
​

The contamination was from sprouts and shoots. You know, the stuff you eat raw? Like alfalfa sprouts and bean sprouts and shoots? Stuff that is eaten raw. Or are you going to claim you saute them in butter, salt, pepper and a little lemon juice now?

 

[Asguard]

Asguard, please, learn the difference between act of nature (or God or however you may wish to say it) which is not something that one can predict or control - like a tsunami and act of man, which could be negligent and because of a lack of care. Once you have learned the difference between the two, then come back to me and we will talk. Until then, you ar sounding like an angry gnat with issues.

bells you want to start charging people for food poisioning you need to tripple the legal system if not more. 90% of food posioning occure in the home

 

[Bells]

bells you want to start charging people for food poisioning you need to tripple the legal system if not more. 90% of food posioning occure in the home

*Face smacks into table*

Asguard, these people went out, ordered a salad and died or ended up needing kidney transplants or dialysis for the rest of their lives. And yes, that is a bad thing. Repeat after me Asguard.. people dying after eating salad is a bad thing.

Really, if someone is responsible for that, shouldn't they be held responsible?

Honestly..

 

[Asguard]

*Face smacks into table*

Asguard, these people went out, ordered a salad and died or ended up needing kidney transplants or dialysis for the rest of their lives. And yes, that is a bad thing. Repeat after me Asguard.. people dying after eating salad is a bad thing.

Really, if someone is responsible for that, shouldn't they be held responsible?

Honestly..

And it happens every day, the only difference is that it's salmonella Poisioning caused by chicken juice dripping on the letus

 

[adoucette]

Bells you want a clear example of this look at the royal commission into the victorian bushfires. What should have been a strict look into where the system failed became a witch hunt to blame Christine Nixson for going out to dinner. Sure it was a stupid thing to do in hindsight but it would have made ZERO difference to the outcome, the biggest failures were made MONTHS before the actual fires but people just wanted someone to blame and it was her head they decided they wanted. It could just as easerly been the Emergency service minster or Steve Bracks head on a platter and with as little reason, there were problems sure but they were in build standeds, burn offs ect not (for the most part) in the responce. The responce was overwhelmed and thats not really surprising when you concider whole towns were wiped off the map and the CFA and police were helpless before it.

However insted of learning the lessons people turned the commission into trying to find someone, anyone to blame and that is exactly what you have done here. 33 people are dead so there must be someones head we can have so we can put it on a spike for all to see and then we can "move on". Yea sure and then the next major event happens and people wonder why.

Once again you seem to get the facts wrong:

Checking the 2009 Commission Report on the fire, it contains a great deal of data and recomendations on the fire, but it most certainly doesn't blame Nixon.

What it does say is just about what you just wrote:

Even when the right policies and systems are in operation, strong and effective leadership is essential. On 7 February the leaders ultimately responsible for the operational response to the emergency were the Chief Officer of the CFA, Mr Russell Rees, the Chief Fire Officer of DSE, Mr Ewan Waller, and the Chief Commissioner of Police, Ms Christine Nixon. Although many of the functions associated with each individual’s role might have been delegated to subordinates, these people were still ultimately accountable. The Commission concludes that some elements of the leadership provided on 7 February were wanting. Mr Rees and Mr Waller ought to have done more in relation to warnings (this was dealt with in the Commission’s first interim report), supporting incident management teams and statewide planning. The Commission considers that Ms Nixon’s approach to emergency coordination was inadequate. Ms Nixon herself acknowledged that leaving the integrated Emergency Coordination Centre and going home at about 6.00 pm on 7 February was an error of judgment. The Commission shares this view.

In fact they made 67 Recommendations about changes needed for ROOT CAUSE, and none of them was to sack Ms Nixon (one was to create a Fire Commissioner instead of having the head of police in charge of fire responses).

http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Commission-Reports/Final-Report/Summary/Interactive-Version

Arthur

 

[Asguard]

That's good but that's NOT what the royal commission turned into. The lawyers turned the whole thing into blame Christine, as did the media and the oposition, the fact that the recomendations and findings are more sensible is quite behond the point. Trust me what came out of it was not what went in, even in SA we herd a lot of the bull that was going on and it was a compleate witch hunt, especially the media cirus surounding it. You can read reports all you like but they don't tell the whole story

 

[adoucette]

That's good but that's NOT what the royal commission turned into. The lawyers turned the whole thing into blame Christine, as did the media and the oposition, the fact that the recomendations and findings are more sensible is quite behond the point.

Not really.
The report is quite detailed and has very specific recommendations which is the point of the Commission and totally in contrast to what you claimed:

What should have been a strict look into where the system failed became a witch hunt to blame Christine Nixson for going out to dinner. ...

However insted of learning the lessons people turned the commission into trying to find someone, anyone to blame.

But that is clearly NOT what the Commission did as it's detailed recommendations are exactly what you say was needed and they didn't lay inordinate blame on Nixon in the process.

On the other hand you should know by know that the media is just for entertainment, so when the Media found out in one of the Commissions hearings that Nixon went out to dinner in the middle of the worst fire day, the Media (and not the Commission) tried to make that revelation into NEWS (and probably succeeded, since Nixon eventually stepped down as head of the Fire Reconstruction board).

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

people dying after eating salad is a bad thing.

Really, if someone is responsible for that, shouldn't they be held responsible?

Possibly.

First question: Does it involve intent?

If yes, then throw the book at them, up to and including murder charges.

If Not: Then does it involve Gross Negligence, similar to the cases that Kira posted, where obvious and well known health standards were being ignored?

If yes, then punish them sufficently that others in the same line of work will think twice before behaving similarly. A large fine and a reasonable jail sentence would be expected in this case with the severity of the punishment related to the amount of, and frequency of the gross negligence exhibited.

If Not: Then does it involve more common negligence, such as a failure to wash your hands with soap and hot water after using the bathroom one time even though evidence might show this is their normal behavior?

If yes, then punishment should be tempered with the knowledge that there was no intent or gross negligence but still the person made a poor decision and we want others in the industry to hear about this and the possible consequences, so it has to be more than just don't do it again. A trial, a small amount of jail time and many hours of community service at a Dialysis Center might be an appropriate punishment.

If Not: Was it a total accident in that the person was following established procedures designed to prevent contamination, but makes an error in the procedure such as reading a value for the amount of sanitizer needed in KGs but then accidentally measuring out the sanitizer to be used in LBs?

If yes, then legal punishment is probably not in order at all but getting regulatory bodies involved to help figure out how to prevent the same kind of error in the future is.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

Update on the German E Coli outbreak.

The link becomes even longer and thus the ability to find anyone to blame (no matter how much you want to) becomes even more unlikely.

The tracing back is progressing and has thus far shown that fenugreek seeds imported from Egypt either in 2009 and/or 2010 are implicated in both outbreaks. There is still much uncertainty about whether this is truly the common cause of all the infections as there are currently no positive bacteriological results. In particular, the 2009 lot appears to be implicated in the outbreak in France and the 2010 has been considered to be implicated in the German outbreak.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/30/world/middleeast/30ecoli.html
http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/2011June29_RA_JOINT_EFSA_STEC_France.pdf

Arthur