2024-12-22
"Mistake" is an ambiguous word. On the one hand it can reflect a happenstance where the effect is unwanted but was not intended, on the other hand it may indicate that the action was intended but that the result was unwanted. Unhappily, some events such as "yes I thought that hitting the cricket ball out of the field was a good idea, but I hadn't reckoned with it smashing a window or hitting a passer-by on the head" might be considered a "mistake" on both counts.
However, deliberately throwing the cricket ball out of the ground at the head of a passer-by would not normally be regarded as a mistake, as the result would be clearly intended.
So we could recognise an intermediate state where hitting the ball out of the ground may avoid damage to windows and heads most of the time, but not all the time, so may be considered deliberately reckless, and thus culpable.
So we may transpose the argument to a different situation, and ask whether recommending a novel vaccination that had just been developed "at warp speed", for application to an age-group that was demonstrably at negligible statistical risk of serious ill-health from the target disease, would qualify as a mere "mistake"?
Actually, it's worse than that, because it was allegedly done without supporting advice from the responsible regulatory body that such a recommendation would be justified.
How long before such revelations as these will soon end up before a jury?
UsForThem-UK on YouTube (you may wish to subscribe for further postings).
