Culpability of person who infects another with a disease or virus?

I think it's obvious that someone that infects another person with AIDS on purpose should face penalties. However, what about a person that knowingly has TB and goes about their day as if nothing is wrong, thereby spreading it. What is the culpability? Would laws restricting their movement be unjust?

Hmm. I don't think a law would be necessary really.

I imagine in the unhampered market, the owners of roads and other major 'public' places might require clients to have regular check ups to ensure they aren't contaminated with anything like TB. If they were [infected with TB ect.], they would  be excluded from entering these areas by the owners of these areas. A similar process would follow for employers and excluding employees with disease. Those who would continue to interact with this person nonetheless would be doing so voluntarily, and would as such be consenting to any diseases they receive from the person, or so I figure.

What I am unsure about is if someone who had such a disease went about their regular business and didn't inform the people they interacted with that they had the disease. Humor me, on whose property is the person on when he infects others? His own? His employers?

Wed. 10/03/24 14:51 EDT
.post #26

Mtn Dew:

I think it's obvious that someone that infects another person with AIDS on purpose should face penalties. However, what about a person that knowingly has TB and goes about their day as if nothing is wrong, thereby spreading it.

What, for you, is the essential difference between these two things?

MMMark:

Wed. 10/03/24 14:51 EDT
.post #26

Mtn Dew:

I think it's obvious that someone that infects another person with AIDS on purpose should face penalties. However, what about a person that knowingly has TB and goes about their day as if nothing is wrong, thereby spreading it.

What, for you, is the essential difference between these two things?

 

Intent.

Mtn Dew:

What is the culpability? Would laws restricting their movement be unjust?

Depends on how serious it is.

Thurs. 10/03/25 10:02 EDT
.post #28

Mtn Dew:

MMMark:

Wed. 10/03/24 14:51 EDT
.post #26

Mtn Dew:

I think it's obvious that someone that infects another person with AIDS on purpose should face penalties. However, what about a person that knowingly has TB and goes about their day as if nothing is wrong, thereby spreading it.

What, for you, is the essential difference between these two things?

Intent.

Then let me rephrase the question, with the inessential parts changed:

I think it's obvious that someone that infects another person with the common cold on purpose should face penalties. However, what about a person that knowingly has the common cold and goes about their day as if nothing is wrong, thereby spreading it.

Essentially, it's the same question, because its essence, "intent," has been preserved.

 

scineram:

Mtn Dew:

What is the culpability? Would laws restricting their movement be unjust?

Depends on how serious it is.

Let's say somebody has H1N1 and gets on a plane, and a small child catches it and dies from complications. This has undoubtedly happened. What cuplability does the person infected have if 1) they felt perfectly fine 2)they felt sick but didn't know what was wrong or 3) they knew they had H1N1?

I'm interested in seeing an answer to this question as well.  I believe that it is criminal for a person to get on an air plane knowing that they have H1N1, that it is contagious and that it could potentially be hazardous to other.  With that being said I think it would be nearly impossible for someone to prove that person a infected person b with H1N1 during the time of their flight.  Even it one could prove with complete certainty  that person a infected person b with H1N1 it then must be determine if person a was aware of their illness.

Thurs. 10/03/25 10:47 EDT
.post #31

socialdtk:

I believe that it is criminal for a person to get on an air plane knowing that they have H1N1, that it is contagious and that it could potentially be hazardous to other.

You believe that behavior that is potentially hazardous to others should be criminalized?

MMMark:

You believe that behavior that is potentially hazardous to others should be criminalized?

No, the issue not would arise until some sort of property rights violation had occurred.

Thurs. 10/03/25 11:12 EDT
.post #32

socialdtk:

No, the issue would arise until some sort of property right's[sic] violation had occurred.

Do you mean "the issue would not arise until some sort of property rights violation had occurred"?

Yes sorry for the typo. I'm at work atm so I have other things on my mind :) 

Mtn Dew:

1) they felt perfectly fine

I think nothing.

Mtn Dew:

2)they felt sick but didn't know what was wrong

 Tort with compensation.

Mtn Dew:

3) they knew they had H1N1?

Possibly criminal.

Thurs. 10/03/25 11:29 EDT
.post #33

socialdtk:

Yes...

...and yet, consider your earlier statement:

socialdtk:

I believe that it is criminal for a person to get on an air plane knowing that they have H1N1, that it is contagious and that it could potentially be hazardous to other.

What is the "it"?

1. Person gets on a plane, AND
2. knowing he is infected with H1N1, AND
3. knowing H1N1 is contagious, AND
4. knowing that it could be potentially hazardous to others.

Does the above intersection constitute "the occurrence of some sort of property rights violation"?

MMMark:

Thurs. 10/03/25 11:29 EDT
.post #31

Why do you do this?

Anyhow, to make a case, I think that a person would have to know they have an infectious disease AND it must be proven that this persons actions caused infection of another (i.e. the "victim" didn't pick it up somewhere else). More likely, an airport might be able to use the person's diseased state as an excuse to breach the contract of allowing them on a plane or around other customers. This would probably develop as preemptive clauses in commercail contracts.

MMMark:

Does the above intersection constitute "the occurrence of some sort of property rights violation"?

A property rights violation occurs when one individual damages the person or property of another individual.  In the above scenario if no one is infected with H1N1 due to the actions of whoever is carrying the virus then they have not violated anyone else's property rights.  If the infected person transfers the virus to someone else then they have violated that persons property rights.  A persons intentions has no bearing on rather or not a property rights violation has occurred.  Intentions only come into play when considering what punishment and or reparations the concerned parties deem appropriate.

Thurs. 10/03/25 12:20 EDT
.post #34

socialdtk:

In the above scenario if no one is infected with H1N1 due to the actions of whoever is carrying the virus then they have not violated anyone else's property rights.

Then, since the above scenario does not include the violation of anyone else's property rights, why do you "...believe that it is criminal"?

E. R. Olovetto:

Why do you do this?

I know the date time is redundant, but I like to have the post's ordinal status recorded, plus an easy way of sequentially stepping backward.

MMMark:

Then, since the above scenario does not include the violation of anyone else's property rights, why do you "...believe that it is criminal"?

I don't.  I was responding to Mt Dew who established a scenario in which a baby caught H1N1 and died.

Thurs. 10/03/25 12:39 EDT
.post #35

socialdtk:

I don't.  I was responding to Mt Dew who established a scenario in which a baby caught H1N1 and died.

Ah, only criminal in Mtn Dew's "case 3."  Got it, sorry, and thanks.

Thurs. 10/03/25 12:59 EDT
.post #36

Assuming we absolutely know and can prove:
1. H1N1 exists AND
2. H1N1 is communicable AND
3. H1N1 "causes" death AND
4. person B died from H1N1 AND
5. it "came from" person A,

then at what point does person A's behavior become "criminal"?

As an extreme example, let's suppose person A was just sitting on his porch, breathing, and a lone H1N1 virus escaped his nostrils, was carried by the wind into a passing car and inhaled by that car's driver, person B, who consequently got sick and died, and we had some way of objectively establishing all of this.

Would person A's behavior be "criminal"?

MMMark:

As an extreme example, let's suppose person A was just sitting on his porch, breathing, and a lone H1N1 virus escaped his nostrils, was carried by the wind into a passing car and inhaled by that car's driver, person B, who consequently got sick and died, and we had some way of objectively establishing all of this.

If person B or whoever is representing him were able to prove ( which he couldn't in the real world ) that person A  was responsible for his death person B could choose to treat the situation as a criminal matter.  If this were to happen both parties and those who they choose to represent them would settle the matter under terms mutually agreed upon.

If I were person B I would except that person A's intent probably wasn't to infect me with H1N1 and drop the case but everyone is different and would be free to make up their own mind.

Thurs. 10/03/25 18:53 EDT
.post #39

socialdtk:

If person B ... were able to prove ( which he couldn't in the real world ) that person A  was responsible...

Is this true in every case of "infection," in some cases, or just in my extreme example?

And is "responsible" the right word to use here?  In general, when person A plays a passive role in violating person B's property, is it proper to speak of person A as "responsible"?

A small meteorite drops from the sky and hurtles toward the trampoline in person A's back yard, bounces off, and lands on person B's car, damaging it.  Is person A "responsible"?

MMMark:

Is this true in every case of "infection," in some cases, or just in my extreme example?

Are you serious?  I think the answer to this question is very obvious.

MMMark:

And is "responsible" the right word to use here?  In general, when person A plays a passive role in violating person B's property, is it proper to speak of person A as "responsible"?

Is it right to use the word "responsible" when a factory unknowingly emits toxic fumes into the air that cause a series of medical conditions in the surrounding area?

MMMark:

A small meteorite drops from the sky and hurtles toward the trampoline in person A's back yard, bounces off, and lands on person B's car, damaging it.  Is person A "responsible"?

No, It's the meteors fault...  Person A and B have nothing to do with it.

Guys, what do you think?

Assuming we absolutely know and can prove:
1. H1N1 exists AND
2. H1N1 is communicable AND
3. H1N1 "causes" death AND
4. person B died from H1N1 AND
5. it "came from" person A,

Assuming we absolutely know and can prove:

1.  Person B knew H1N1 exists AND

2.  Person B knew H1N1 is communicable AND

3.  Person B knew H1N1 "causes" death AND

4.  Person B did not know all persons or things infected with H1N1 AND

5.  Person B interacted with persons or things despite not knowing all persons or things infected with H1N1

At what point does person B become negligent?

I don't think person A is liable. The virus is a violent creature. Person A doesn't own the virus. The virus is independent even though it currently resides in person A's body. If the virus decides to attack another person, then person A should not be liable for not preventing death. He has no such obligation.

Any more opinions?

 

Tues. 12/04/10 14:36 EDT
.post #126

Eugene:

Guys, what do you think?

Well, I think, in socialdtk's last post in this thread, he did not answer my first two questions.

Socialdtk thinks the answer to my first question is "very obvious," but I do not think so.

I intended my first question to expose the assumptions socialdtk might be making about "pathogenic viruses," which seem to be:

1. Pathogenic viruses exist;
2. We can objectively and irrefutably establish that they exist in some people;
3. We know that these viruses are contagious;
4. We can establish beyond doubt that a virus from person A infected person B;
5. The infection "caused" person B's death.

Assuming all five of the assumptions listed above can be established as facts, then I think the case of the airplane can easily be dealt with using contracts. For example, every purchaser of a flight pass agrees, as a condition of being a passenger, to not knowingly board the plane while harboring a deadly and contagious virus.

However, I believe NONE of the five assumptions can currently be established to a degree even approaching factuality. None of them are currently "knowable," in my opinion. The reality is that knowledge is scarce and life is inherently risky. We can not eliminate every risk, but we can choose our personally acceptable ratio of risk to cost. For example, if you want to eliminate the risk of contracting a sexually transmitted disease, you can abstain from sex. You obtain complete safety at the cost of foregoing the pleasure of sex.

Eugene:

Any more opinions?

This thread is, in my opinion, an attempt to explore what does and does not constitute "aggression."

See also An attempt to commit a crime.

If A surreptitiously slips deadly poison into B's drink and B dies, did A commit aggression?

If A, who knowingly harbors a deadly, saliva-communicable virus, asks for a sip of B's drink, then after drinking from the contaminated cup B becomes sick and dies, did A commit aggression?

 

Edit:

Eugene:

Let's say an alien found a way into your body. This alien is known to explode when the body significantly overheats, for example from running very fast. Now suppose you did run very fast and your body exploded maiming you and hurting another person next to you. Should you be liable for hurting that other person? (We assume here that the alien is not a rational agent capable of understanding rights).

Since the condition under which the alien explodes "is known," then running very fast is analogous tantamount to attempted suicide.

So, let's make your scenario more realistic:

Suppose someone jumps off a building in a suicide attempt. He lands on another person. Both persons survive, but both are injured.

Is the jumper liable? I'd answer "yes." So, I'd also answer "yes" to your hypothetical question.

Your saliva poision example is actually an example of an implicit contract (for a lack of a better word). That is you assume by default that if someone offered you a drink he doesn't know about a deadly disease that he may have. If he is sick and does offer you a drink, he breaks this contract. I don't think this consitutes a muder, but it is a crime.

However there is no implicit or any contract between you and a person just walking next to you. At least I think so. So I don't think you break any contract if you happen to be sick and someone catches it.

Tues. 12/04/10 15:18 EDT
.post #127

Eugene:

Your saliva poision example is actually an example of an implicit contract (for a lack of a better word).

haha. Well, I'm not convinced; I think that's taking the concept of "implicit contract" too far. Also, the "cause/effect" mechanism is less obvious in my second example than it is in my first. But this raises the questions: What constitutes "a contract?" and its corollary "What constitutes a breach of contract?"

it's obvious that someone that infects another person with AIDS on purpose should face penalties

That is not at all obvious. Substitute "flu" instead of AIDS. Both are viruses. Both can be deadly. Yet I doubt you would agree that people should be punished for infecting others with the flu.

Clayton -

Tues. 12/04/10 20:24 EDT
.post #128

Clayton:

That is not at all obvious. Substitute "flu" instead of AIDS. Both are viruses. Both can be deadly.

And some people question even these assertions.

@MMMark: But that is really beside the point of the question. Assuming AIDs is what it is said to be, is someone culpable for (knowingly) spreading it? I think the answer is pretty clearly no unless they restrained or otherwise coerced the victim into the circumstances in which he or she was infected.

Clayton -

@Clayton

Is this your opinion whether or not the infected withholds information from the victim?

@gotlucky: Yes, because how can you specify a "duty to tell"? It just doesn't make any sense. If I have the flu, I have a duty to inform everyone that may come into contact with me? It's just absurd. The fact is, by stepping out your front door, you take on the risk that you may be infected with the flu. Similarly, if you have sex, you are taking the risk that someone you have sex with may have an STD, perhaps a deadly one like HIV/AIDS. Because you acted, you cannot complain about the natural consequences that any acting being risks. And the social consequence of reversing this principle is redistribution - it is up to the infected to protect everyone who is not infected rather than everyone looking to their own protection.

Clayton -

@Clayton

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.  I also see no reason why people couldn't ostracize those who did withhold such information about particularly nasty diseases/viruses.

Clayton, you ignore implict contract here. When you go to the doctor you expect to get treatment. When you shake hands with a person you expect him not to have tuberculosis. 

@Eugene: Don't be silly, there is no implicit contract in the shaking of hands. What is the property being exchanged?

Clayton -

I don't hold the Rothbardian view that contracts always imply exchange of property.  I think when people interact with each other there are certain assumptions taken for granted. Contract is a bad word in this context. One such assumption for instance is that partners tell each other whether they have AIDS or other STD before they have sex. Another such assumption is that people don't shake hands when they have TB or other deadly disease. Without some granted assumptions society can't function well.

@Eugene: The problem is that you're confusing decency with legal obligations. Legal obligations arise from actual settlements to real disputes. So, whether shaking someone's hand when you have TB is a "crime" is dependent on the rules that arise based on how past such cases have been settled. That said, we can make educated guesses on the basis of the actual rules that have arisen within the current system and in historical, freer systems. On that basis (not on the basis of Rothbardian ethics), I think that the acting individual (the person choosing to have sex or choosing to go out in public and shake people's hands) bears the resonsibility for the consequences of his own actions. It only makes sense.

Clayton -