How much is a human life worth?

[TomJoe]

According to Mercury Energy of New Zealand, the answer is: $122 dollars (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/05/29/nz.lifesupport.ap/index.html).

[Seven of Nine]

Three years ago, I received a notice from my local power company stating that it would cut off the power due to unpaid bills whether anyone in my household needed it to maintain life-support equipment or not.
I assume that's still the company's policy... :eek:

[Zehava]

As cold and heartless as this is going to sound, I have to ask...

Since electricity was vitally important to her survival while on the respirator, why didn't any of her family step up and make good an the nearly 2 month overdue bill?

The article is very short on details. I would hope that the family had attempted to make arrangements with the power company other the telling the technician who came to cut off the electricity that she needed it to breathe. The tech likely did not have the authority to override the decision to cut the power, despite the dire need.

Another version (http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/488120/1158892)

Ok so the family was trying to make payments, but that apparently "wasn't enough for Mercury Energy." This article reads a little biased against the power company to me. The "wasn't enough" comment is repeated at least twice in the article.

And another version (http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=118330)

This article states that despite the 2 payments they still owed nearly $300. Mercury Energy is denying any knowledge that Folole Muliaga had any medical problems.

And this is going to sound callous again, but respitory failure is not a quick way to die. By all accounts it took Folole Muliaga several hours to pass away, plenty of time for the family to summon medical aid, Counties Manukau Chief Medical Officer Don Mackie agrees (http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=118321).

[D. Scarlatti]

The story makes it sound like her relatives just stood around and watched her croak after the juice was cut.

[Zehava]

The story makes it sound like her relatives just stood around and watched her croak after the juice was cut.

That was my take on it as well.

[Watser?]

Says here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6703395.stm) they did do something: Paramedics were called but she died within two hours of the power being cut, he added.
But this seems like good advice: State Owned Enterprises Minister Trevor Mallard also warned against pre-judging the outcome.

"I do think it is important that the facts are established before people rush to judgement," he said.

[Sock Puppet]

This is the Internet. Rushing to judgment is what we do best.

[Seven of Nine]

This is the Internet. Rushing to judgment is what we do best.

Too true, Sock. :ROFL:

[Watser?]

:chuckle:

[fragment]

It's a disgusting story, no matter which way you slice it. If Mercury was my supplier, I'd be switching. There's a protest outside their offices today, but I won't be there, it being the other end of the country and all.

[Shelli]

:yeahthat:

[fragment]

Wot, it's at the other end of the country from you, too?

Here's a couple of posts from a Kiwi blogger on this:
No Right Turn: This should not happen in New Zealand (http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2007/05/this-should-not-happen-in-new-zealand.html)
No Right Turn: Protest against Murder Energy (http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2007/05/protest-against-murder-energy.html)

Some of the comments depress me, take this for example:
She did not have a "right" to power in that it imposed obligations on Mercury.
This person misses the point. It is wrong to terminate a service in such a manner as to directly endanger someone's life, and this does impose obligations on Mercury. Even the power company involved doesn't dispute this.

[Freddy]

From the article:
"Six days before a Mercury Energy representative arrived Tuesday at the house to disconnect the electricity, she was $122 in arrears.

Sheehan said both Muliaga and her son told the technician she was dependent on the oxygen machine to stay alive and invited him into the house to see it. "Then he cut the power off," Sheehan told The Associated Press.

Muliaga began having difficulty breathing, became faint and then collapsed, he said. Paramedics were unable to revive her, and she was pronounced dead within two hours of the power being cut.

"The correct authority to investigate this and sort out the facts is the police," Mallard said, adding the government would expect "full accountability" if the company was found to be culpable."

There are laws in the US to prevent this type of tragedy, not sure about New Zealand laws. If the above account is true, that her death was caused by the lack of her breathing machine, then it is voluntary manslaughter in my opinion, if not in the eyes of the law.

[Dingfod]

There are laws in the US to prevent this type of tragedy, ...Are you sure about that? I know there are some states that have laws that prevent the power or gas being cut off for nonpayment in the middle of winter or during extreme heat waves, but I've not heard of any regarding medical equipment. I recognize that just because I, as informed as I am in this particular area, could be wrong, so could you provide a cite for that? Just a quickie because I'm going to start googling and find out.

[Dingfod]

So far, I'm finding nothing from google except some utility companies saying they can cut you off after 7 days notice for being 28 days late paying your bill.

[Dingfod]

Wisconsin allows for a 21 day extension in a cutoff order if the proper paperwork is filed with the power company but allows the company to cut off power after that if payment has not been made.

[Dingfod]

Oh, and what would the person that died in the story in question do during a normal storm-related power outage? We've had several where I live that have lasted over 24 hours.

[Dingfod]

Page 11 of this report (http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:9q_prW1sFGkJ:www.ncouncil.org/pdfs/stranded.pdf+medical+emergency+cut+power+nonpayment&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=28&gl=us) has a state-by-state list of just this thing.

After looking it over, only 17 states specifically mention medical emergencies or health reasons for utilities to not be cut off. One more, New Mexico, has an "informal agreement", not exactly a state law.

[Freddy]

Amazing that less than half of states, not including Massachusetts, offer protection for peoples health. Guess I will have to call my state rep and senator.

[TomJoe]

Amazing that less than half of states, not including Massachusetts, offer protection for peoples health. Guess I will have to call my state rep and senator.
Me too. Thanks for that info Dingfod.

[Angakuk]

Counties Manukau Chief Medical Officer Don Mackie said Mrs Muliaga was sent home from Middlemore Hospital earlier this month.

She had been admitted with a cardio-respiratory complaint and was discharged with a breathing support device, he said.

"We do not expect it to be used 24 hours a day. Most people use them at night, particularly just to support their breathing and to relieve any distress from breathlessness while they are sleeping."

Later, he told Radio New Zealand Mrs Muliaga would not have been sent home if she needed the machine to keep her alive.

"I feel surprised that this has happened... This is not a ventilator at the intensive care level."

The machine just supported someone's ventilation rather than doing all the work for them, he said.

"People who are on this are capable of breathing for themselves... That is why we are surprised that she deteriorated and tragically died so soon after the support was withdrawn and we need to understand more about that."

Dr Mackie said that when patients had needed a letter to support their need for continuous electricity supply the DHB had been "very willing" to provide this.

New Zealand Herald (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10442627)

In defense of the utility company, she had 7 days between the disconnect notice and the actual disconnect. If the device was necessary to sustain her life, then during that time she could have gotten a certificate of medical need and filed it with the utility company.
Mr Moulder said there was an additional policy in place to deal with issues of medical need and hardship.

"Once we've been notified that someone is dependent on electricity-powered medical support, we...request evidence from a medical practitioner and then we move into another process which puts them onto different payment terms," he said.

Also, according to the report, it was at her insistance that the family did not call an ambulance immediately.
Mr Sheehan said after the machine went off Mrs Muliaga had become faint, had difficulty breathing, and complained of headaches and being unable to see, before collapsing.

Her son told TV One News his mother had initially asked that he not call an ambulance and when he did so later officers were unable to revive her.

"That is a typical Samoan thing. They don't like their kids to be worried," Mr Sheehan told NZPA.

He said the family was awaiting a post mortem to confirm the cause of death and the woman's husband was a "mess".

What really astonishes me is that someone who was (allegedly) dependant upon oxygen support did not have an emergency reserve in the form of a tank of compressed oxygen. As Dingfod has pointed out, electric power can fail for reasons other than a disconnect.

[Petra]

If I were using Mercury, I would definitely change. But I'm already with a different company.

The contractor was cold in the execution of his duty. He could have easily phoned in to Mercury supervivors and informed them that he was going to delay the disconnection due to the woman's condition and tell them that he would wait for a medical certificate. Fortunately, this tragedy has resulted in medical practitioners agreeing to give people certificates in advance, without being requested, in order to avoid this kind of thing in the future.


Mr. Sheehan is right in saying that the families shyness in coming forward and doing something earlier - either by contacting Mercury Energy, or asking extended family to help them - is a Samoan thing. Samoans are shy people, and they are very family-orientated. They are proud, and asking for help would have been shameful begging to them. They aren't always the sharpest tools in the shed (I know, that sounded racist - sue me), but they are usually honest and humble. They don't like to worry their kids, and they don't like to 'be a nuisance'. Of all the Pacific peoples, Samoans are among the sweetest. They are simple people, with loving families, a strong Christian faith (that they don't ram down your throat - they're not evangelists), and are often poor and uneducated. I only wish they had gone to WINZ to ask for help, because they would've got some income support to help out. In fact, WINZ would have paid their outstanding power bill outright, and they wouldn't have had to pay it back to them. :(

I know that power supply can be cut due to problems with supply, lines, etc, but this was not the case here. Mercury were just fucking callous. The vicyim support worker who called Mercury to request connection so that the family could carry out the funeral, explained to the call centre that the reason the woman was dead was because they'd cut the power, and Mercury still wouldn't give them enough supply to even see that through, despite their own hand in the tragedy. Although, thanks to the huge stink it's caused over here - and extended family/community members coming forward to pay the bill - they have now.

The contactor sent to cut off the power should be charged with at least manslaughter, if not murder. And Mercury should be held accountable to some degree, too.

It's my guess that the contactor thought "fucking useless Islanders" and ignored their pleas 'cos he was a racist arsehole. He made no attempt to validate or even consider their circumstances.

My heart really goes out to that family, and I'm pleased that they have an articulate white Kiwi relative to speak for them. It's a very, very sad situation and one that should not happen here. We should be better than that, dammit. :fuming:

[Petra]

What really astonishes me is that someone who was (allegedly) dependant upon oxygen support did not have an emergency reserve in the form of a tank of compressed oxygen.


These are poor, simple people who have only been here for 6 years. In Samoa, many of the houses don't even have walls!

Besides that, our health services are stretched beyond belief. Kiwis seem to think it is better to build new sports stadiums to honour the fucking All Blacks and host World Cup Rugby with our tax dollars, than it is to have real first world medical systems and supplies in place. :fuming:

[wei yau]

Angakuk, thanks for the excerpts. I was wondering how did someone who needed a breathing apparatus would be sent home. At first blush, it did seem as though the machine in question was a life-support machine and I didn't think they made versions of the machine for private home use.

[Deadlokd]

What really astonishes me is that someone who was (allegedly) dependant upon oxygen support did not have an emergency reserve in the form of a tank of compressed oxygen.


These are poor, simple people who have only been here for 6 years. In Samoa, many of the houses don't even have walls!

Besides that, our health services are stretched beyond belief. Kiwis seem to think it is better to build new sports stadiums to honour the fucking All Blacks and host World Cup Rugby with our tax dollars, than it is to have real first world medical systems and supplies in place. :fuming:

They've been in New Zealand for six years. I assume they have had electricity for that long. They are aware that there are things called 'bills' that come every three months and must be paid to ensure continuous electricity supply. If these 'bills' aren't paid then there ain't no more electricity. People need to take responsibility for their own actions. At the very least her family or church could have stepped in and helped. It isn't the companies fault she didn't pay her bill. Or tell them about her 'life-threatening' medical emergency. Stop blaming them.

[BDS]

"They's" avatar seems appropriate.

[Petra]

They've been in New Zealand for six years. I assume they have had electricity for that long. They are aware that there are things called 'bills' that come every three months and must be paid to ensure continuous electricity supply. If these 'bills' aren't paid then there ain't no more electricity. People need to take responsibility for their own actions. At the very least her family or church could have stepped in and helped. It isn't the companies fault she didn't pay her bill. Or tell them about her 'life-threatening' medical emergency. Stop blaming them.

Bills come monthly here. And over the 6 years they have been here, they have kept up with their bills. It was only since February that things became dire for this family, as Mrs Muliaga became sick and Mr. Muliaga had to cut back his own work hours to take care of her. They live in a desperately poor community, so I doubt there would've been many people who could help them financially. Most help would have come in the form of time and friendship, not money.

I am in full agreement with Brian Rudman's opinion piece here (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10443039).

[Petra]

"They's" avatar seems appropriate.

No shit! :eek:

[Deadlokd]

There is a trend nowadays to blame everyone except the person who put themselves in that mess in the first place. It's called personal responsibility. It isn't that hard to understand. You do this and that happens. The family had a responsibility to inform the company of changed circumstances. It is tragic that a woman has died. But trying to put all the blame on Mercury because of the families Samoan heritage is.......I don't know. Stupid is the best I can come up with.

I resent the implication that because I believe in personal responsibility I am a bad human. I resent you implying that I am callous because of my avatar. Want to know what else I believe in? I believe that the war in Iraq is immoral. I believe that the west is culpable in the genocides happening in Africa as we speak. I believe that the animals that stoned that Yezidi girl to death should be rounded up and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I believe in justice. I believe in the sanctity of life. I also happen to believe in personal responsibility.

[livius drusus]

They had been working with the company to pay their bill, so the personal responsibility cliché doesn't really apply. Hell, my landlady didn't pay the water bill at all for 6 months due to an address mixup, and they didn't shut us off until they literally hadn't heard a word from her for half a year.

These guys jumped the gun for no reason. $122 bucks is half my monthly cable bill, for chrissakes. Let's not pretend the corporation didn't act irresponsibly while we're bemoaning the "no personal responsibility trend".

(Got any proof that's an actual trend, btw? Because I hear people whining about it a lot, but they don't seem to take on the responsibility of proving their case.)

[Deadlokd]

They had been working with the company to pay their bill, so the personal responsibility cliché doesn't really apply. Hell, my landlady didn't pay the water bill at all for 6 months due to an address mixup, and they didn't shut us off until they literally hadn't heard a word from her for half a year.

These guys jumped the gun for no reason. $122 bucks is half my monthly cable bill, for chrissakes. Let's not pretend the corporation didn't act irresponsibly while we're bemoaning the "no personal responsibility trend".

(Got any proof that's an actual trend, btw? Because I hear people whining about it a lot, but they don't seem to take on the responsibility of proving their case.)

All they had to do was inform the company of the medical emergency and they would have put them on different payment arrangements. That's all it would have taken. That puts the onus back on the family. I find it very strange that she had a machine that was only meant to assist her heart and lung functions, not maintain them for her, and when the power went out she died. How bad was her condition? Had it become worse since she was discharged from hospital? If it had, why didn't she tell anyone? Once again, personal responsibility comes to the fore.

$122 was apparently 1/3rd of their weekly income. Economies of scale and all that.

Just some of the "It's not my fault" lawsuits in recent times:

Overlawyered.com -- Personal responsibility links (http://www.overlawyered.com/topics/responsib.html)
Tipple your way to court, 2003: "Shouldn't have let him get so drunk" (Australia), May 12. 2002: "'Woman freezes; sues city, cabbie'", Sept. 18-19; "Wasn't his fault for lying drunk under truck", Aug. 16-18; "Hey, no fair talking about the pot" (highway rollover), Apr. 12-14; "European workplace notes" (employer responsible for vodka overdose), Feb. 25-26; "'Drunken Driver's Widow Wins Court's OK To Sue Carmaker'", Feb. 25-26. 2001: "'Teen hit by train while asleep on tracks sues railroad'", Dec. 12; "'Man suing after drunken driving crash'", Aug. 20-21; "Don't rock the Coke machine", Jul. 20-22; "Court says tipsy topless dancer can sue club", Jul. 3-4; "Jury: drunk driver hardly responsible at all for fatal crash", Jun. 15-17; "It was the bar's fault", Apr. 13-15; "'Court upholds workers compensation for drunk, injured worker'", Apr. 6-8; "'Woman who drove drunk gets $300,000'" (Ontario), Feb. 7-8 (& see Sept. 24, second case: $18 million); "'All you can drink' winner sues over fall", Jan. 31-Feb. 1. 2000: "'Fla. DUI Teen Sues Police'" (should have arrested him, he argues), Nov. 14; "$65 million Texas verdict: driver at twice the legal blood limit" (estate sues automaker), Mar. 28 (& Oct. 13, 2003: reversed on appeal); "Zapped pylon-climber sues liquor-servers, utility", Mar. 6. 1999: "Personal responsibility wins a round" (judge rejects case from Pa. man who got drunk and climbed high voltage catenary), Sept. 17-19.

Maybe crime does pay, 2003: "'Robber sues clerk who shot him during holdup'", May 6; "Not an April Fool's joke", Apr. 1; "'Burglars to be banned from suing victims'" (U.K.), Mar. 10-11; "'Family of electrocuted thief gets $75,000'", Feb. 26; "Tried to outrun Coast Guard in chase", Feb. 14-16; "'No suits by lawbreakers, please'", Jan. 27-28 (& Jan. 31-Feb. 2). 2002: "'Mom who drugged kids' ice cream sues'", Nov. 1-3; "'Patient sues hospital for letting him out on night he killed'" (Australia, psychiatric case), Oct. 16-17; "'Crime pays for teenage lout'" (Australia), Sept. 3-4; "'After stabbing son, mom sues doctors'", May 31-Jun. 2; "'Barbed wire might hurt burglars, pensioner warned'", May 28-29; "Hospital rapist sues hospital", May 22-23 (& Mar. 5-7, 2003: court dismisses case); "Lawyers say taxpayers owe $41 million to smuggled illegals' survivors", May 10-12; "L.A. police sued, and sued" (by family of gunman killed in shootout), Apr. 12-14; "Should have arrested him faster" (frostbite in the open), Mar. 1-3; "Vandal's dad sues store over blaze", Feb. 6-7; "Paroled prisoner: pay for not supervising me", Jan. 4-6. 2001: "Firefighter's demand: back pay for time facing criminal rap", Aug. 29-30; "'Man suing after drunken driving crash'", Aug. 20-21; "'Criminals could sue their victims'" (U.K.), Jul. 26; "'Woman who drove drunk gets $300,000'" (Ontario), Feb. 7-8; "Crime does pay" (Denver burglar shot by police gets $1.2 million), Feb. 2. 2000: "'Burglar sues for compensation'" (Australia), Nov. 21 (& see Apr. 1-2, 2002); "'Fla. DUI Teen Sues Police'" (should have arrested him, he argues), Nov. 14; "Killed his mother, now suing his psychiatrists", Oct. 2; "Not my fault, I" (woman who murdered daughter sues psychiatrists), May 17; "From the labor arbitration front" (disallowed firing of employee who pleaded no contest to larceny), Mar. 28; "Crime does pay, cont'd" (North Hollywood, Calif. bank robber killed in police shootout), Feb. 23 (& update Mar. 23: mistrial declared after jury deadlock); "County to pay 'mountain man' burglar $412,500", Feb. 15. 1999: "'Two men shot in suspected drug deal win $1.7 million'", Dec. 15 (& update Jun. 6, 2001: appeals court overturns); "California's worst?" (bank robber sues after hidden tear-gas device goes off in loot), Dec. 14; "Drunks have rights, too", Dec. 1 (& update Jul. 24-25, 2000: appeals court throws out award). See also our editor's article on New York's "mugger millionaire" case.

Pools & swimming, 2003: "'Lawyers spoil fun'" (Ga. water park), May 19; "'Florida jury awards $100M for pool accident'", Feb. 13. 2002: "Australia's litigation debate", May 24-26. 2001: "Australian roundup" (bodysurfer), Nov. 23-25; "Needed: assumption of risk", Jul. 27-29. 2000: "'How's the pool?'" (Las Vegas Strip's Frontier Hotel recommended for its pre-big-lawsuits deep end), Feb. 23; "Latest shallow-end pool dive case", Jan. 24 (& update Oct. 13, 2003). 1999: "Razor wire on the pool fence" (homeowner finds it too big a legal risk to let local kids swim), Jul. 27.

"Should have watched his step answering call of nature", Mar. 8-9, 2003.

Couldn't help eating it, 2003: "Give me my million", Jun. 20-22; "Judge tosses McDonald's obesity case", Jan. 23 (& Jan. 27-28); "Anti-diet activist hopes to sue Weight Watchers", Jan. 13-14. 2002: Letter to the editor, Oct. 23; "Claim: docs should have done more to help woman quit smoking and lose weight", Sept. 18-19; "Personal responsibility roundup", Sept. 12; "Fat suits, cont'd", Jul. 26-28; "'Ailing man sues fast-food firms'", Jul. 25; "Sin-suit city", Jun. 10; "McArdle on food as next-tobacco", May 27; "'Targeting "big food"'", Apr. 29-30; "Life imitates parody: 'Whose Fault Is Fat?'", Jan. 23-24. 2001: "'Diabetic German judge sues Coca-Cola for his health condition'", Nov. 18. 2000: "'Caffeine added to sodas aims to addict -- study'", Aug. 18-20. 1999: "Toffee maker sued for tooth irritation", Nov. 5-7; "Not just our imagination" (calls for class-action suits against fast-food, meat purveyors), Sept. 25-26.

Warning labels and disclaimers, 2003: "'Wacky Warning Label' winners", Jan. 13-14. 2002: "Satirical-disclaimer Hall of Fame" (Australian humor magazine), Oct. 28-29; "'Warning ...'" (Dave Barry humor column), Aug. 16-18; "Read the label, then ignore it if you like" (flammable carpet adhesive), Jul. 12-14; "Pitcher, hit by line drive, sues maker of baseball bat", Apr. 19-21; "Injured in 'human hockey puck' stunt", Mar. 18; "'Before you cheer ... "Sign here"'", Mar. 15-17; "Didn't know cinema seats retracted", Feb. 13-14; "Warning on fireplace log: 'risk of fire'", Jan. 25-27. 2001: "Et tu, UT?" (Utah will not enforce parent-signed release forms for children), Nov. 16-18; "Disclaimer rage?", Oct. 15; "Needed: assumption of risk", Jul. 27-29; "Quite an ankle sprain" (failure to warn of gopher holes in parks), Apr. 20-22; "'Wacky Warning Label' winners", Jan. 19-21. 2000: "Columnist-fest" (Girl Scout horseback riding disclaimer), Apr. 6; "Rise of the high school sleepover disclaimer", Mar. 22; "From our mail sack: skin art disclaimers" (tattoo consent form), Mar. 1; "Weekend reading: columnist-fest" (Laura Pulfer on warning labels), Feb. 5-6; "Never iron clothes while they're being worn" (Wacky Warning Label contest winners), Jan. 18 (& letter to editor, Jan. 21-23). 1999: "Christmas lawyer humor" (Yuletide greetings consisting entirely of disclaimers), Dec. 23-26; "Weekend reading" (disclaimers "creeping into nearly every aspect of American life"), Jul. 31-Aug. 1.

Blamed for suicides, 2003: "'No suits by lawbreakers, please'", Jan. 27-28 (& Jan. 31-Feb. 2). 2002: "The blame for suicide", Sept. 25-26; "'Addictive' computer game blamed for suicide", Apr. 3-4. 2001: "Utah: rescue searchers sued", Nov. 26, 2001; "'Shooting range sued over suicide'", Sept. 27; "$3 million verdict for selling gun used in suicide", Sept. 17; "'Suicide- Attempt Survivor Sues'" (department that issued cop his gun), Jan. 24-25.

Excuse syndromes, 2002: "Blue-ribbon excuses" (sex on train), Oct. 7-8; "So depressed he stole $300K", Mar. 19; "Rough divorce predisposed him to hire hitman", Feb. 13-14. 2001: "Stories that got away" (multiple-personality defense), Jul. 23; "'Pseudologica fantastica' won't fly" (judge's fibs on resume), Jun. 7 (& Aug. 20-21); "Judge buys shopaholic defense in embezzling", May 25-27; "The malaria drug made him do it", Mar. 28. 2000: "Blue-ribbon excuses" (baked goods mutilator, lawyer pleading incompetent self-representation), Oct. 6-9; "Predestination made him do it" (Pope's assassin and Fatima prophecy), June 6; "Victim of the century?" (misbehaving school principal collects disability benefits for sexual compulsion), Jun. 2-4; "Prozac made him rob banks", Mar. 1; "Blue-ribbon excuse syndromes", Feb. 12-13; "Latest excuse syndromes", Jan. 13-14. 1999: "Doctor sues insurer, claims sex addiction", Oct. 13.

"Lightning bolt in amusement park's parking lot", Jun. 23, 2003; "'Woman attacked by goose sues county'", Jan. 27-28, 2003; "Quite an ankle sprain" (watch where you're going in parks), Apr. 20-22, 2001.

"MIT sued over student's nitrous-oxide death", Feb. 25, 2003; "By reader acclaim: 'Parents file suit over student's drug death'" (abuse of Oxycontin), Jul. 25, 2001.

"Take care of myself? That's the doc's job", Feb. 14-16, 2003; "Claim: docs should have done more to help woman quit smoking and lose weight" (Pa.), Sept. 18-19, 2002.

"Satirical-disclaimer Hall of Fame" (Australian humor magazine), Oct. 28-29, 2002; "Tobacco: Boeken record" (The Onion parody), June 19, 2001; "Jury orders 'Big Chocolate' to pay $135 billion to obese consumers" (parody), Aug. 3, 2000; "This side of parodies" (fictional account of self-inflicted icepick injury), Oct. 5-6, 1999.

Sports risks: "Sis-Boom-Sue" (cheerleading), Jan. 15-16, 2003; "Skating first, instructions later", Sept. 25-26, 2002; "Pitcher hit by line drive sues maker of baseball bat", Apr. 19-21, 2002; "Australian roundup" (Perth bodysurfer), Nov. 23-25, 2001; "Needed: assumption of risk" (baseball thrown into stands, skydiving), July 27-29; "'Lawsuits could tame ski slopes'", Feb. 6, 2001; "Promising areas for suits" (foul-ball cases and other stadium injuries), Dec. 7, 2000; "Teams liable for fans' safety" (Colorado: hockey puck hit into stands), Aug. 15; "'Skydivers don't sue'", May 26-29; "Trips on shoelace, demands $10 million from Nike", April 7-9, 2000.

Gambling: Letter to the editor, Oct. 23, 2002; "Personal responsibility roundup", Sept. 12; "Sin-suit city", Jun. 10; "'Next tobacco' watch: gambling", May 20-21, 2002 (& May 31, Jun. 28); "'Gambling addiction' class action" (Quebec), June 20, 2001.

Hot beverages: "Litigation good for the country?" (Carl T. Bogus), Aug. 19, 2002; "British judge rejects hot-drink suits", Mar. 29-31, 2002 (& Aug. 10, 2000); "By reader acclaim" (Illinois case; complainant sues mother), Jan. 11, 2001; "'Court says warning about hot coffee unnecessary'" (Nevada Supreme Court), Jul. 18, 2000; "Now it's hot chocolate", Apr. 4, 2000.

"'Family of boy injured by leopard may sue'", Jul. 18, 2002; "Skinny-dipping with killer whale: 'incredibly bad judgment'", Sept. 21, 1999 (Oct. 7 update: case dropped).

"Wasn't his fault for lying drunk under truck", Aug. 16-18, 2002; "'Win Big! Lie in Front of a Train!'", Jun. 26-27, 2002 (& Jul. 12-14); "Australian roundup" (graffiti artist on train), Nov. 23-25, 2001; "Hit after laying on RR tracks; sues railroad", Oct. 23, 2001.

"'Man awarded $60,000 for falling over barrier'", Mar. 5, 2002.

"Utah: rescue searchers sued", Nov. 26, 2001.

"Suit blames drugmaker for Columbine", Oct. 24-25, 2001.

"Mosh pit mayhem", Sept. 7-9, 2001.

"Urban legend alert: six 'irresponsibility' lawsuits", Aug. 27-28, 2001.

"Don't rock the Coke machine", Jul. 20-22, 2001.

"Tobacco: Boeken record", June 19, 2001.

Scary!: "From dinner party to court" (U.K. hypnotist), May 22, 2001; "Hypnotist sued by entranced spectator", March 3-14, 2001; "Girl puts head under guillotine; sues when hurt", March 8, 2000; "Haunted house too scary", Jan. 6, 2000; "'Scared out of business'" (decline of community Halloween haunted houses), Nov. 5-7, 1999.

Stop having fun (children's recreation): see schools page.

"Tendency of elastic items to recoil well known", Mar. 6, 2001.

"By reader acclaim" (sues alleged crack dealers over own addiction), Jan. 11, 2001.

"Smoker's suit nixed in Norway", Dec. 18-19, 2000; "Personal responsibility takes a vacation in Miami" (Engle tobacco verdict), July 8, 1999.

"Highway responsibility" (Derrick Thomas suit), Nov. 28, 2000.

"Fat tax proposed in New Zealand", Oct. 31, 2000.

"More things you can't have: raw-milk cheeses", Oct. 3, 2000; "More things you can't have" (unpasteurized cider, New England square dances), Sept. 27, 1999; "More things you can't have" (rare hamburgers, food sent to summer camp), August 9, 1999.

"Smoking and responsibility: columnists weigh in" (after Florida verdict), Jul. 28-30, 2000.

"'"Whiplash!" America's most frivolous lawsuits'" (book collects cases), Jul. 14-16, 2000.

"Inmate: you didn't supervise me" (horseplay alone in cell), Jul. 7, 2000.

"Can't sue over affair with doctor" (court rules it was consensual), Jun. 13, 2000.

"Risky? Who'da thunk it?" (currency speculator sues over losses), Jun. 9-11, 2000.

"'Jury awards apparent record $220,000 for broken finger'" (hurt while dancing), May 22, 2000.

"Videogame maker agrees to furnish safety gloves", Mar. 13, 2000.

"Letourneau scandal: now where's my million?" (boy sues), Apr. 20, 2000.

"All dressed up", Apr. 19, 2000.

"Down repressed-memory lane I: costly fender-bender" (eggshell-psyche plaintiff), Dec. 29-30, 1999.

"Down repressed-memory lane II: distracted when she signed" (separation agreement), Dec. 29-30, 1999.

"GM verdict roundup" (lawyers shift drunk drivers' responsibility to automakers), Dec. 16, 1999; "Drunks have rights, too", Dec. 1, 1999.

"Rolling the dice (cont'd)" (Internet gambler sues credit card companies that advanced him money), Dec. 7, 1999; "Rolling the dice" (same), Aug. 26, 1999.

"Responsibility, RIP" (columnist Mona Charen), Nov. 2, 1999.

"The art of blame" (death of child left in hot van), Oct. 20, 1999.

"Nominated by reader acclamation" (killer's parents sue school district, lawmen for failing to prevent Columbine massacre), Oct. 18, 1999.

"Block PATH to lawsuits" (fall out of tree in yard, sue your employer), Sept. 1, 1999.

"To restore individual responsibility, bring back contract principles" (Cato Institute paper by Prof. Michael Krauss), Aug. 16, 1999.

"Somebody might trip" (NYC condemns prints-of-the- Hollywood-stars sidewalk as slip hazard), Aug. 13, 1999.

"All have lost, and all must have damages" (huge award to salesman who hawked bad insurance policies since he's a victim too), Aug. 3, 1999.

[Deadlokd]

Apologies for the size of the previous post. I didn't realise it would be that large :blush:

[fragment]

I've yet to figure out why some people seem to think that one person or party having responsibility for a situation removes any responsibility others might have for it.

To illustrate with the case in point, perhaps the family should have taken the woman back to hospital if she was that ill. That doesn't mean the subcontractor had no responsibility for her death if he cut the power after being informed that it was a medical necessity.

[Petra]

$122 was apparently 1/3rd of their weekly income. Economies of scale and all that.

Rents in Mangere (mostly a low income suburb, depending on which part of Mangere you live in)): http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/CategoryAttributeSearchResults.aspx?search=1&mcat=0350-5748-4233-&sidebar=1&132=FLAT&selected135=&selected136=&134=1&135=8&136=32&153=&29=&122=0&122=0&59=0&59=0&x=46&y=14

Doesn't leave them much for food, power, phone, transport, etc, does it?


Overlawyered.com -- Personal responsibility links (http://www.overlawyered.com/topics/responsib.html)

Overlawyered.com? Give me a fucking break!

[livius drusus]

All they had to do was inform the company of the medical emergency and they would have put them on different payment arrangements. That's all it would have taken.
As long as they were working with the company and making payments of some kind, why should they have to beg medical emergency? It seems to me it shows a lot more "personal responsibility" to pay as much as you can without making excuses than claiming medical emergency.

I find it very strange that she had a machine that was only meant to assist her heart and lung functions, not maintain them for her, and when the power went out she died. How bad was her condition? Had it become worse since she was discharged from hospital? If it had, why didn't she tell anyone? Once again, personal responsibility comes to the fore.
Uh huh. As does your rush to judgment based on virtually no data.

$122 was apparently 1/3rd of their weekly income. Economies of scale and all that.
So the company made a calculation that since they were poor, they would cut them off at a measly $122 in arrears? Do you think the company makes calculations "of scale" for all their customers? I wonder how many hundreds of thousands of dollars a business would have to be in arrears before they got cut off then.

As for the lawsuit list, you don't really know any of the circumstances of those suits, or whether they even went to court at all. You're just taking the site's word for it. Perhaps you should take personal responsibility for the data you cite and actually research it instead of just repeating it verbatim.

Besides, a list of lawsuits, even if they all went down as the site implies, is hardly evidence of a trend against personal responsibility. I betcha I could find an even longer list of instances of corporate negligence. Would you accept that as evidence of a trend of corporate irresponsibility?

[Deadlokd]

I didn't get my point across that well here. I'm discussing this on two forums simultaneously. I agree that the contractor has some responsibility, but not the only responsibility as Pepperspray is saying. I maintain that there were many things that the family could have done that would have prevented this situation. The electricity company is not solely responsible.

What's the issue with overlawyered.com? Livius asked for some proof that personal responsibility was becoming obsolete and I provided a list of cases in which people did not take responsibility for their own actions. Some of those cases happened in Australia. I remember the last time I watched A Current Affair, a second rate news/current affairs/ low brow entertainment program in Australia. It was about two years ago. They started by running a story on how insurance premiums were rising because everyone was suing everyone else. Then, the very next story was about a little old lady who was suing her local council for hundreds of thousands of dollars because she tripped on an uneven path. That is the society we have become. Once upon a time, the lady would have been helped up and called herself a goose, had herself checked by a doctor and been on her way. Now councils have to ensure that all paths are even. FFS!

[fragment]

I didn't get my point across that well here. I'm discussing this on two forums simultaneously. I agree that the contractor has some responsibility, but not the only responsibility as Pepperspray is saying. I maintain that there were many things that the family could have done that would have prevented this situation. The electricity company is not solely responsible.
While a final determination of that will depends on facts which I don't think we have to hand, you're probably right. What I'm trying to say is that this is not really a useful point, when it comes to assessing the power company's culpability.

Responsibility isn't a conservative quantity - one party being identified as having responsibility does not reduce the responsibility any other party might have. I don't think the power company or sub-contractors levels of moral responsibility for this death are actually meaningfully affected by the family's actions or lack of actions.

When it comes down to it there seems to have been someone, somewhere, in the power company/subcontractor set-up who had both the ability to stop the power termination and the information that going ahead with it might be a risk to someone's life.

There is a different point that can be made from recognising other responsibilities, though, and one I consider to be important. That is, that the society I live in is now one in which a family can find themselves in such a situation, and one in which no-one helped them out. Corporate culpability isn't the only take-home message, for me.

[Deadlokd]

All they had to do was inform the company of the medical emergency and they would have put them on different payment arrangements. That's all it would have taken.
As long as they were working with the company and making payments of some kind, why should they have to beg medical emergency? It seems to me it shows a lot more "personal responsibility" to pay as much as you can without making excuses than claiming medical emergency.

Making payments is great, but when there is a chance of a human dying without electricity then any reasonable person would inform the electricity company of such. It isn't begging, it's informing. If a disconnection notice was issued a week before the event, I would assume that they had missed some payments.

I find it very strange that she had a machine that was only meant to assist her heart and lung functions, not maintain them for her, and when the power went out she died. How bad was her condition? Had it become worse since she was discharged from hospital? If it had, why didn't she tell anyone? Once again, personal responsibility comes to the fore.
Uh huh. As does your rush to judgment based on virtually no data.

Here is the data I based my judgement on. From the New Zealand Herald:

She had been admitted with a cardio-respiratory complaint and was discharged with a breathing support device, he said.

"We do not expect it to be used 24 hours a day. Most people use them at night, particularly just to support their breathing and to relieve any distress from breathlessness while they are sleeping."

Later, he told Radio New Zealand Mrs Muliaga would not have been sent home if she needed the machine to keep her alive.

"I feel surprised that this has happened... This is not a ventilator at the intensive care level."

The machine just supported someone's ventilation rather than doing all the work for them, he said.

"People who are on this are capable of breathing for themselves... That is why we are surprised that she deteriorated and tragically died so soon after the support was withdrawn and we need to understand more about that."

As I said before, it was not meant to be her lungs, just to help her lungs.

$122 was apparently 1/3rd of their weekly income. Economies of scale and all that.
So the company made a calculation that since they were poor, they would cut them off at a measly $122 in arrears? Do you think the company makes calculations "of scale" for all their customers? I wonder how many hundreds of thousands of dollars a business would have to be in arrears before they got cut off then.

You said that $122 was half your monthly cable bill. I was making the point that for you $122 wasn't a lot of money. For the family, it certainly was.

As for the lawsuit list, you don't really know any of the circumstances of those suits, or whether they even went to court at all. You're just taking the site's word for it. Perhaps you should take personal responsibility for the data you cite and actually research it instead of just repeating it verbatim.

Besides, a list of lawsuits, even if they all went down as the site implies, is hardly evidence of a trend against personal responsibility. I betcha I could find an even longer list of instances of corporate negligence. Would you accept that as evidence of a trend of corporate irresponsibility?

No question there is a trend of corporate irresponsibility and that is where the tort system is necessary. If it turns out that the company was wholly negligent then I will change my stance. As it stands now, there were many things that the lady and her family could have done to change the way events transpired. I'm still reading through the cases I mentioned. Most have me shaking my head at the stupidity of humans.

[Angakuk]

Speaking of rushing to judgement. Shouldn't we wait for the post-mortem before we start blaming anyone for the woman's death? It could be a coincidence that she died shortly after her electricity was cut off. She did have an underlying cardiac condition. As it stands we don't know that the utility's action actually led to the cause of death.

Having said that, I do think that the utility (as represented by the technician who carried out the disconnect) had an obligation to exercise caution under those circumstances.

[Petra]

...the utility (as represented by the technician who carried out the disconnect) had an obligation to exercise caution under those circumstances.

And that, to me, is the heart of it.


Incidentally, I know that there were many factors that contributed to this woman's death: her morbid obesity, causing such life-threatening health issues; the family's inability to think clearly enough to do what they needed to do outside their cultural comfort zone; the health services that failed them by not providing a back up oxygen tank; and other compounding circumstances.

And even if she had died of heart failure over respiratory failure, I'm certain that the stress of the immediate situation hastened that dark inevitable, greatly.


But the pivottal point, the catalyst for it all, was the cruelty with which the contractor and Mercury disconnected supply, despite the family trying to make payments and despite the contractor seeing the woman with a freaking tube out of her nose and her family in distress. And that is why I am all over that one, and not so much all over the other exacerbating issues. It was at that point that everything changed. Everything else, to me, is like telling a young woman who's been brutally raped, that it's all her own fault for wearing such bright red lipstick.

[Deadlokd]

...the utility (as represented by the technician who carried out the disconnect) had an obligation to exercise caution under those circumstances.

And that, to me, is the heart of it.

Incidentally, I know that there were many factors that contributed to this woman's death: her morbid obesity, causing such life-threatening health issues; the family's inability to think clearly enough to do what they needed to do outside their cultural comfort zone; the health services that failed them by not providing a back up oxygen tank; and other compounding circumstances.

Not to mention that she was misusing the medical equipment she was provided. All of those things were in place before the disconnection day. Three out of four things could have been rectified by her.

And even if she had died of heart failure over respiratory failure, I'm certain that the stress of the immediate situation hastened that dark inevitable, greatly.

But the pivottal point, the catalyst for it all, was the cruelty with which the contractor and Mercury disconnected supply, despite the family trying to make payments and despite the contractor seeing the woman with a freaking tube out of her nose and her family in distress. And that is why I am all over that one, and not so much all over the other exacerbating issues. It was at that point that everything changed. Everything else, to me, is like telling a young woman who's been brutally raped, that it's all her own fault for wearing such bright red lipstick.

Nuh. To me it sounds like corporate bashing. "Like, yeah, there were all these other things that she had done, yeah, but then the big evil corporate company came in and scared her! And BOOM! She was dead and those corporate bigshots did it!" There were many things that would have prevented this situation and instead of wondering why the family didn't call the ambulance quicker (the dying woman told them not to?) or get her registered as someone who needed a respirator ('cause originally she didn't) or get herself back into hospital to be checked again when it became apparent she was needing the respirator more you blame the one event THAT COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED!

I'm going to wait for the autopsy. She caused her own death. What culpability the electricity company has will be determined by the coroner.

Oh yes, your last sentence? That is an insult to every woman who has been told that shit. That is an asinine observation. Apples and oranges.

[Petra]

Nuh. To me it sounds like corporate bashing. "Like, yeah, there were all these other things that she had done, yeah, but then the big evil corporate company

You do realise that this big, bad corporation is owned by the government, and therefore all the people of NZ, don't you?

Oh yes, your last sentence? That is an insult to every woman who has been told that shit.

Way to miss my point, man. :whoosh:

[Petra]

There is a different point that can be made from recognising other responsibilities, though, and one I consider to be important. That is, that the society I live in is now one in which a family can find themselves in such a situation, and one in which no-one helped them out. Corporate culpability isn't the only take-home message, for me.

Indeed. Horrible, isn't it?

Corporate culpability isn't the only take home message for me, either - but it is, in this instance, the fulcrum.

[Deadlokd]

I hope I did. A woman who is raped is a victim through no fault of her own. Now, someone can tell her anything they like, but it wasn't her fault. This lady's death could have been prevented by a simple phone call. How many rapes can be prevented as easily.

[fragment]

I hope I did. A woman who is raped is a victim through no fault of her own. Now, someone can tell her anything they like, but it wasn't her fault. This lady's death could have been prevented by a simple phone call. How many rapes can be prevented as easily.
Seemed to me she was just using a particularly graphic way of making the same point I was trying to make in this post (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=383604#post383604). I even thought of that very example, but decided the better of using it.

[Zehava]

I've yet to figure out why some people seem to think that one person or party having responsibility for a situation removes any responsibility others might have for it.

To illustrate with the case in point, perhaps the family should have taken the woman back to hospital if she was that ill. That doesn't mean the subcontractor had no responsibility for her death if he cut the power after being informed that it was a medical necessity.

QFT

Neither "side" in this issue is entirely blameless. One decision going the other way by either party could very well have save this woman's life.

[Deadlokd]

I've yet to figure out why some people seem to think that one person or party having responsibility for a situation removes any responsibility others might have for it.

To illustrate with the case in point, perhaps the family should have taken the woman back to hospital if she was that ill. That doesn't mean the subcontractor had no responsibility for her death if he cut the power after being informed that it was a medical necessity.

QFT

Neither "side" in this issue is entirely blameless. One decision going the other way by either party could very well have save this woman's life.

YES! Exactly! I go a little bit farther though. One decision by the people most affected by a power disconnection could have prevented this whole sorry mess from happening.

[Deadlokd]

Turns out she had a much reduced life span. And she refused to take the medication that would have kept her alive, instead preferring to rely on traditional Samoan medicine. Would anyone like to personally attack my avatar or me, now. Frankly, I'm disgusted.

[fragment]

Linky?

[viscousmemories]

Yeah, I'd like to see some support for those claims too. I've done a little Googling around and the newest information I can find is articles about Mercury Energy giving the family $10,000 and apologizing (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/dominionpost/4080943a6000.html) for their actions. Apparently the police investigation is still ongoing, but the Prime Minister supports the family's decision to litigate - saying that under the circumstances, she would too. If there's new information about the culpability of the victim herself, I'm surprised I can't find a hint of press about it.

[viscousmemories]

On a slightly different note, I understand that Mercury Energy is a state-owned company. I assume that means it's regulated differently than a private company or government agency, does anyone know what the main differences are?

[Deadlokd]

Sorry, forgot to put that bit in. Also from the New Zealand Herald, here (83AC8622-C750A1E3-6D8C60C5-31786BF4-D05DDD8D-1DAFB66C-5155386E-15B7F3F3-C0E26B08-9EBD4515-89ACABD2-9407EF1D-051A5F5A-74A58381-A1F59FF9-94E6E326).

Middlemore Hospital bosses have refused to comment further on the case, citing the family's right to privacy. But police will be able to bypass privacy concerns in their investigation and will study medical records showing Mrs Muliaga had previously stopped taking medication given to her on release from hospital - instead opting to seek help through traditional Pacific Island healing methods.

The medication was critical to keeping her alive - although she had been told "her days were numbered", the Herald on Sunday learned.

[viscousmemories]

Your link doesn't work, but this one should: link (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10443390)

In any case I'm skeptical of the article's accuracy. The police investigation is ongoing and the family spokesperson said he believed she was taking the medication, yet the author of the article repeatedly alleges (without once citing a source) that she was not. His language is confusing, too. He claims she "had previously turned her back on using the drugs", which leaves it unclear whether he's saying that he knows of a past circumstance in which she turned her back on using the drugs (the illness went on for five years) but whether she was taking them before her death was unknown, or that she had stopped taking the drugs previous to (and perhaps resulting in) her death.

It'll be interesting to see the results of the official investigation.

[Deadlokd]

Brendan Sheehan said,

Sheehan said he believed she had been taking her medication but did not know definitely. You seem to have missed the rest of the sentence.

The NZ Herald has also been the prime source during this discussion. It has never been impugned before. Here's another important 'fact'.

The obesity-related heart and lung disease which was killing Mrs Muliaga was being kept at bay by a cocktail of powerful medication - not the oxygen machine.

I'm reading this as Mercury not having killed her. The disconnection may have put undue stress on her but there is no evidence that the lack of power to the machine killed her.

Agreed. The official investigation will be interesting.

[fragment]

On a slightly different note, I understand that Mercury Energy is a state-owned company. I assume that means it's regulated differently than a private company or government agency, does anyone know what the main differences are?
I'm not entirely clear about that. Initially state-owned enterprises (SOEs) were set up as part of a massive privatisation move that took place here in the 80s and 90s, whereby many activities and the associated assets that had previously been the responsibility of government departments were transformed into private companies and sold off. The SOE was initially an intermediate form, which looks and behaves like a private company, but the government is the only shareholder. The setup is governed by the SOE Act, I can't tell you much about that though.

Privatisation was never a very popular policy, especially when it came to utilities. As a result, when the current Government came into power in 1999 SOE sales were stopped, and we're left with these companies whose nature is a bit ambiguous. There's another recent case involving an SOE which operates a coal mine subject to environmental protests. The SOE hired a private investigation firm which engaged a guy to infiltrate and spy on the protest group. Dodgy enough when it's a private company, but when it's a government-owned one...

[fragment]

Turns out she had a much reduced life span. And she refused to take the medication that would have kept her alive, instead preferring to rely on traditional Samoan medicine. Would anyone like to personally attack my avatar or me, now. Frankly, I'm disgusted.
Sounds like that eggshell-skull situation, legally speaking.

[viscousmemories]

You seem to have missed the rest of the sentence.
Um, no. I read the whole sentence and paraphrased it accurately. As I said, the family spokesperson said he believed she was taking the medication. That he didn't know definitely is irrelevant to that fact.

The NZ Herald has also been the prime source during this discussion. It has never been impugned before.
So? I'm not impugning the Herald now. I was just pointing out that because the author of that article used vague, indeterminate language about whether the victim had been taking her medication at the time of her death, it is weak evidence that she was not. Good enough for you, perhaps, but not for me.

[Petra]

Firstly, I retract much of my initial reaction that Mercury or it's contractor should be tried for manslaughter. I'll await the coroner's and police's investigative findings.

Secondly, I STILL think that any contractor, whatever his or her explicit orders from above are, should disobey orders for a period of time when they encounter people with tubes coming out of their noses or any other obvious signs of serious illness or disability, and to contact their supervivors with that information and negotiate a period of grace in which sufferers can get medical certificates and the like. Let's face it, to callously disregard serious illness and possible dependency on medical equipment could result in death, as this case illustrates. But then, I am one of those pinko commie lib'ruls who will always put people before profits.

Thirdly, having recently been misquoted, taken out of context, and have a whole phrase that I supposedly said be completely made up, in a Herald article that related to historic Police sex crimes in Rotorua, I can assure you that the Herald is not totally unimpugnable (which probably even isn't a word, but what the hell - you know what I mean!).

[Clutch Munny]

I've yet to figure out why some people seem to think that one person or party having responsibility for a situation removes any responsibility others might have for it.

It's a peculiar form of false dichotomy endemic in some folks' moral reasoning. It makes it particularly difficult to reason about problems with complex causes. (Why are we blaming the video game industry for teen violence, when parents should be raising the kids better?)

[Petra]

It's a peculiar form of false dichotomy endemic in some folks' moral reasoning. It makes it particularly difficult to reason about problems with complex causes.

:caught:

[Deadlokd]

It's a peculiar form of false dichotomy endemic in some folks' moral reasoning. It makes it particularly difficult to reason about problems with complex causes.

:caught:

Yeah, I'm not so pearly white either. In my defence........nah, I over-reacted. Sorry Petra.

[Petra]

Apology graciously accepted; and back at'cha, They. :)

[fragment]

The police have decided (http://www.stuff.co.nz/4092602a10.html) not to lay any criminal charges. The case has been referred to the coroner.

[mosquitobite]

so the family isn't going to sue the contractor (probably not deep enough pockets) but is looking to sue the electric company even though the evidence shows no liability and that Ms Muliaga wasn't supposed to *need* this device to live? Civil court = not having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Just have to convince a jury your side is right. :nono:

Sound like overlawyered yet?

I just wonder what it will mean for the people of NZ (since it's a SOE) when the Muliaga's win. No one's power will ever be shut off again no matter how much they owe?

[fragment]

There's a few assumptions about the nature of the claim (which hasn't even been filed) and the family's motives there.

Us Kiwis aren't anywhere near as lawsuit happy as Americans have a reputation for being, and judging by this (http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?62+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+103+(Spring+1999)) jury trial is a rarity in civil cases here. Perhaps you could consider potential differences in context before rushing to judgement.