Unhealthiness and individual rights

[aerosolben]

The mention of a businesses right to serve unhealthy food to those who request it in the smoking thread got me thinking: how far should this right extend?

For (an extreme) example, let me offer the following:
Let's say I hate homeless people, and I want to get rid of them all. I get a whole bunch of red meat, and leave it in some hazardous place for a while; the specifics aren't important, but I feel there's a good chance the meat may have picked up a terrible bacterium or something (but I don't 'know' that it has, so I can truthfully say it 'may' be unsafe).
Now, I make this giant pile of meat into patties, shape them into burgers, and season them up real good so they look and smell normal. Then I go around the city to all the homeless and say, "Well, I'm not very hungry...would you like my burger?" and if they say yes, I also add "Just so you know, the meat looked a little funny..I'm not sure how good it is." Perhaps I enlist some other people to do this with me; maybe I even start a business (trading the burgers for bottle caps or something equally easy to obtain). I do it fairly quickly, before word gets around that they're all kicking the bucket from the food, and all the homeless in the city are dead.
So, should this be legal or am I a serial killer (or at least liable for their deaths)? I provided these homeless folks with unhealthy food, but they knowingly consented. If it isn't legal, is there some small variant that would make it legal (such as giving them a more detailed warning)? How does this relate to the legal implications and requirements of business providing services that are potentially dangerous?

This is primarily intended for libertarians, to explore the limits of government regulation.

Discuss. Forgive me if I reply intermittently.

[Agammamon]

There's a difference between your example and McD's.

1. You are deliberately pushing a product that is dangerous even when used properly rather than one that hurts you if you misuse it. You wouldn't hold the manufacturer or dealer of your car responsible if you run it up to 70mph and deliberately ram it into a tree wold you? Fast food, eaten in moderation, isn't dangerous. What is unhealthy is a diet primarily of junk food coupled with a sedentary lifestyle. And it's not like smoking, where you can't see your lungs. A junk food lifestyle is readily apparent just by looking at your spreading gut.
And it's not even like McD and the others are trying to hide the dangers of too much fast food. Over the years McD's have advertised how they are making their food healthier, you can get ingredient lists showing fat content, etc.

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by Agammamon
There's a difference between your example and McD's.
Actually, my example is meant to compare to the serving rare/bloody meat example from the smoking thread.1. You are deliberately pushing a product that is dangerous even when used properly rather than one that hurts you if you misuse it. You wouldn't hold the manufacturer or dealer of your car responsible if you run it up to 70mph and deliberately ram it into a tree wold you?True. However, rare/bloody meat is dangerous when served to order at a restaurant (i.e., eating it is 'proper use'). The point was brought up that it's ok, because the customer understands the dangers and accepts the risk himself. I understand we're using different examples, so how do you think this compares to restaurant who serve meat rare?

[WMT1]

Originally posted by aerosolben
The mention of a businesses right to serve unhealthy food to those who request it in the smoking thread got me thinking: how far should this right extend?

The words "informed consent" come to mind.

So, should this be legal or am I a serial killer (or at least liable for their deaths)?

The latter.

I provided these homeless folks with unhealthy food, but they knowingly consented.

:confused:

You have some interesting ideas about what constitutes "knowingly". There was more than a bit of deception in your example. Do I need to point out where?

If it isn't legal, is there some small variant that would make it legal (such as giving them a more detailed warning)?

Full disclosure of the level of risk sounds good to me.

How does this relate to the legal implications and requirements of business providing services that are potentially dangerous?

As a scenario in which a hazard is deliberately incorporated into the service for the purpose of causing harm to the customers, and where deception is used to make the danger seem less than it is. Does that help?

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by WMT1
You have some interesting ideas about what constitutes "knowingly". There was more than a bit of deception in your example. Do I need to point out where?

The hypothetical was intended to be extreme enough that no one would consider it justified. Did I really need to point that out? There's no need to be condescending; I'm seriously attempting to gauge the boundaries of a political philosophy.

I want to know what you think I would have had to do to secure informed consent? Is it even possible to secure informed consent in that situation?

Full disclosure of the level of risk sounds good to me.

All right. Would you say restaurant's should be able to serve customers anything, provided they give "full disclosure" on the level of risk? What constitutes full disclosure, and how explicit must the customers acknowledgement of the risks be?

For example, let's say I don't know that bloody meat is bad for me, but my buddy says they're tasty, so I go in to "Joe's Diner" and order a rare and bloody steak. I get violently ill. Have I given informed consent for the restaurant to serve me a potentially dangerous dish? What does the restaurant need to do to ensure that my order is given "knowingly"?

As a scenario in which a hazard is deliberately incorporated into the service for the purpose of causing harm to the customers, and where deception is used to make the danger seem less than it is. Does that help?

Let's assume my alibi is that I 'accidently' left them out, and no witnesses can speak to the contrary. Did I deceive the homeless guys? I told them the meat might be bad, and they took it. What else do I need for informed consent? (NB: this is not a rhetorical question)

[WMT1]

Originally posted by WMT1
You have some interesting ideas about what constitutes "knowingly". There was more than a bit of deception in your example. Do I need to point out where?

Originally posted by aerosolben
The hypothetical was intended to be extreme enough that no one would consider it justified. Did I really need to point that out?

:confused:

Uh ... no. Is there something I said to make you think it needed to be pointed out? If you'll notice, what I was taking issue with was not whether your hypothetical was "extreme", but your assertion that they consented knowingly. In the example you described, they clearly did not.

There's no need to be condescending;

No need perhaps, but given your ridiculous claim that they consented knowingly, a little condescension was certainly not out of line.

I want to know what you think I would have had to do to secure informed consent?

I'd start by informing them of the following:

1. You hate homeless people, and want to get rid of them all.
2. You left the meat in some hazardous place for a while, and you feel there's a good chance the meat may have picked up a terrible bacterium or something.
3. You seasoned it to try and make it look and smell normal.

And oh yeah, you could refrain from trying to pass it off as a burger you were going to eat, but decided you no longer want.

Would you say restaurant's should be able to serve customers anything, provided they give "full disclosure" on the level of risk.

I can't think of a reason why not.

For example, let's say I don't know that bloody meat is bad for me, but my buddy says they're tasty, so I go in to "Joe's Diner" and order a rare and bloody steak. I get violently ill. Have I given informed consent for the restaurant to serve me a potentially dangerous dish?

Close call, but based on the information you've provided, I'd probably go with a "no" on this one.

What does the restaurant need to do to ensure that my order is given "knowingly"?

Well, one option might be to have a warning in the menu itself, about the potential risks associated with eating rare meat. This may not "ensure" it in every case, any more than putting a warning on packs of cigarettes means everyone who smokes will read it, but it seems like a reasonable way of handling the situation. You can lead a horse to water, and all that. And I suppose something more dangerous could call for different measures, like signing a waiver. Hey, I'm flexible.

Let's assume my alibi is that I 'accidently' left them out, and no witnesses can speak to the contrary. Did I deceive the homeless guys? I told them the meat might be bad, and they took it. What else do I need for informed consent? (NB: this is not a rhetorical question)

Are you just going to keep altering your initial scenario? If so, you didn't do so very clearly in this case. For instance, are you saying that your alibi is a lie, or that it really was an accident?

And frankly, I'm losing interest anyway. I initially thought you were going for some kind of point about the smoking ban thing, where businesses are providing something that people know is hazardous, and which some of them want anyway. And you only seem to be moving further away from that. Questions about where the line is drawn in any given scenario could go on forever.

In any case, my position is that you are responsible for making a reasonable attempt to make customers aware of the danger, and in doing so, you are also responsible for the accuracy of the information you provide.