The following is a purely hypothetical scenario. I don't want to hear any "it depends" or "this wouldn't happen in real life." That defeats the purpose of a hypothetical.
Let's say that there are two parents and a child [u]in his/her teens.[/u]One of the parents has a prescription medication. They keep it in their medicine cabinet. One day, the kid opens the medicine cabinet and takes the medication. This causes health problems for the child and generally messes them up. Who is tho blame for the child's problems in this scenario?
Edit:
Assume that before the incident, the child is perfectly healthy, both physically and mentally. The parents have told the child not to take the medication, and the child understood. The child knew what the medication was prior to taking it. The medication is not necessary to the survival of the parent taking it, but it eases the symptoms of his/her condition.
-
It's Obama's fault.
-
Parents fault. There is a reason why we have minimum ages for independence, smoking, drinking, etc.
-
It would be the parents' fault for not supervising their children. Let's use this scenario. Your seventeen year old gets in your liquor cabinet and gets wasted, drives you vehicle and crashes into a house. Who do you think is responsible for that monetary compensation?
-
legally: parents's fault morally: kid's fault I'm voting on the legal perspective. You can tell a kid not to touch the shotgun on the kitchen counter all damn day, but if that mofo picks it up and blows his sister's brains out her ass, at the end of the day it's the parents' fault.
-
By the age of 12, you should be self-aware enough to know NOT to do stupid shit like that. Especially if you've been brought up by decent parents that made things perfectly clear.
-
uhuwhe u21n3e[wqe e dkmcx fsd f sd rfqe l;rlkw3 ';ek 32'lklelfrsd4f 3 ew ed '3l 2;l';asl;'lxzl,z s xc xzc zx xz cxzczs xd sadwd ds g f 34 2'3 'rl43 545 2 q5 4 25 2 5 24 9iu yj ';r t'yh ;e 'gw 'lf 'ewf w 23 wq es dfm 23;lje 32j4klj32io 4'we;fjksdnufnuj3nuenbduh983yh4o n3r+f3r d2+65e 2rtg 3324t53r1t984d1f2g149834rf2e1f edf sd f sdf ew r' 3;kq24l 31[]4844rtfe44uehru23h uirh23i dsf se 'leieytunp y ]sada sda sd madmax[sdakmaskfmak s'l;v,dslc,dsl,clsduneoi23noi23jeijweidnhwe;shdweourhwuie
-
It's OP's fault
-
Edited by Claire: 10/22/2013 2:46:04 AMHow young of a kid are we talking? If it's a teen then they should know better, if they're young it should be kept safe. It's just like why you keep a gun safe, it makes sure nobody hurts themselves.
-
It depends but this wouldn't happen in real life.
-
When your a teen, you should know not to take shit that is not prescribed to you.
-
-
The parents fault.
-
Edited by Uncle Putin: 10/22/2013 1:58:07 AMWhen a kid is a teenager, they are [i]supposed[/i] to be smart enough to know that taking medicine not prescribed to you is stupid. If a teen did that and suffered consequences from it, I have no sympathy for them. It is completely their fault.
-
Edited by KingWhovian: 10/22/2013 1:57:40 AMIt's the kids fault. If somebody is in their teens, they should know better than to be popping pills from a medical cabinet.
-
Age of the child has to be taken into consideration. Otherwise, I would say parents.
-
It would be easy to blame the parents, and your summaration of the parent's actions lead me to believe that it was the fault of the parent's to some degree, but inevitably, it was the choice of the child. There are qualms about "how" did the parents tell the child not to take it, and how much respect the child has for the parents. In this scenario, the child lacked any respect, and deliberately disobeyed the orders of their parents. To that, both partys are at fault, but the child more so than the parents.
-
It's the child's fault.
-
It's still the parents' fault. The child is still their own responsibility. The part of your brain that rationalizes risky, dangerous behavior isn't fully developed until you're 25. Not to say that the kid isn't stupid for doing it, but the parents should have kept their medicine locked up. Unless of course, the teen is independent/emancipated, then it's %100 their own fault. That's my legal/logical argument. On a more subjective note, the teen is more than old enough to know that taking medicine not prescribed to him/her is dangerous. They deserve what ever condition they're left in after taking it.
-
The kid knows not to take the drugs. Takes them anyway. Gets sick. It's their fault.
-
If the teen is perfectly healthy and there's nothing from with them, why would they go snoopin' in someone else's medicine cabinet and take medication that's not theirs? If they're healthy, at least mentally, they know right from wrong.
-
How was the child told not to take the drugs? By shouting, by warning, or just a "don't take those, they aren't for you" way? Most likely though it is the child's fault.
-
Whelp in this scenario the answer is obvious. The kid MUST suffer from an extreme case of stupid. The parents must have known about his/her condition as they lived with this kid for how many years? (assuming the kid isn't adopted) The parents should keep their meds in a safe. It is their fault. [spoiler]srsly it's teh keds fult[/spoiler]
-
The teen, no question. They had no reason to just take something from their parent's med cabinet. They are old enough to read, and should have had some form of cognitive thought that maybe, just maybe the prescription maybe harmful if misused.
-
Up to around 8, its the parents. From then on its the kids.
-
[i] [/i]
-
Edited by BaconShelf: 10/21/2013 9:45:30 PM[quote]Two patents[/quote] Depends on copyright law Though seriously, the kid. But what age is the kid? If they're like, 4, it's more understandable than a 14 year old doing it.