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.
English
-
Edited by Banned n3rd: 10/21/2013 10:25:41 PMThe parents' actions? In this, the parents don't do anything besides exist and keep medicine in the cabinet. Not saying you're wrong, but I'm a bit confused, so could you please be a little more specific?
-
The parent's actions in this situation was, as you put it, "telling the child not to take the medication." That, while seemingly insignificant, holds vastly significant value. The manner of which they told the child (i.e. a simple "don't do it," or a complex explanation as to why the drug is unsafe for the child's use, the dangers of prescription medications in a recreational manner, etc) is greatly important, but was reasonably simplified.
-
It was very clear that they weren't supposed to take it.
-
Still, it matters how the parent's stressed this. If they didn't treat that rule seriously, the child might not have taken it as seriously as they should have in the first place. Not to mention, the relationship between the child and the parents is also important to understand, as it has the largest impact on who's at fault. If the parents aren't good parents, then it is by all means their fault for not having brought up the child better as a person.