Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

DrJawn t1_j9ulua6 wrote

If you were working on smallpox, wouldn't you get the vaccine?

56

Beaglescout15 t1_j9ut7i9 wrote

> Confronted with a ticking clock, Bedson rushed ahead with his experiments, despite warnings from a WHO inspection team that his facilities were outdated and potentially unsafe.

It wasn't just honorable, he was directly negligent.

29

Roadkill997 t1_j9v0oe3 wrote

She should have had the chance to be vaccinated as a child (routine vaccination against smallpox stopped in the UK in 1971). I guess her parents never got her the jab?

78

Arrow_to_the_knee1 t1_j9vbm7n wrote

Doctor probably thought he had accidentally released the apocalypse

309

intangible-tangerine t1_j9wdd7n wrote

Her father died a few weeks after Janet from a suspected heart attack caused by stress so he was also an indirect victim of this outbreak.

170

sksksk1989 t1_j9x44f3 wrote

When he died he left a note that said >I am sorry to have misplaced the trust which so many of my friends and colleagues have placed in me and my work.

It was proved a little while later that her infection wasn't his fault.

311

Brocephus31 t1_j9xdm3d wrote

Always remember this from house haha it's sad the stupid things we pick up from shows.

8

a_common_spring t1_j9y7qum wrote

I don't know anything about it. I'm just sharing a source that says he wasn't at fault cause someone asked.

Also I could envision a case where he was the boss of the lab, but had not been given adequate resources to make the lab safe, and had actively been trying to get them? Idk that's a made up scenario, I'm just saying there could be some way he wouldn't be at fault.

5

a_common_spring t1_j9yagvd wrote

Well I haven't read any details of the case. It did say a court, but I'm thinking there would have been some kind of inquiry into the case. Perhaps a criminal case against the lab owners and operators too. Idk. I'm thinking of reading that book.

3

hello_hellno t1_j9yflew wrote

If you're the boss, you assume responsibility with the benefits. If you're underfunded and find it a dangerous environment- you either leave or cut into areas not related to safety to ensure safety is top priority over any results. No matter the budget- the big boss is always responsible for workers safety, that's the privilege and downside of that salary.

There is no excusable scenario. Not saying he deserved to die- absolutely not- no one does. But he seemed much more in tune with his responsibility as a boss than you see. I've run several enterprises and also not sure I could live with myself if anyone died due to the negligence of my business- whether staff/customer/passerby. It doesn't matter, I'm paid to make things run in a safe and responsible environment and the only person keeping me accountable is karma/life. If I slack or fuck up- I'm not getting suspended- I'm criminally responsible and that's partly why I'm paid what i am paid.

"Great power Comes with great responsibility "

3

scootscooterson t1_j9yl947 wrote

Sorry you’re definitely not criminally liable for everything that happens when you’re a boss? Also assuming infinite responsibility with something outside of your control is both honorable and misguided. I don’t think it’s what anyone wants in a leader.

4

w0mpum OP t1_j9zwdlr wrote

the prevailing theory was originally airborne infection but they proved unequivocably she could not have gotten infected upstairs from it.

It was either by contact with a surface or person to person... rumors flew but most likely would be someone irresponsibly handled something in his lab, which couldve been Bedson himself. Either way it is his responsibility ultimately.

2

hello_hellno t1_ja1y6o5 wrote

Yeah I don't think I worded that quite right- more that as the boss you assume responsibility for any failings within your sphere of influence- which does include behavior of employees, safety issues etc.

But I see what you mean in my wording, there can Def be things outside your control no matter what- which is why these things are deeply investigated by governing bodies. But any finding that finds a failure in procedures etc is the responsibility of the boss.

Like if lightning strikes someone at an outdoor festival it shouldn't be blamed of the organizer of that festival. But if there's multiple overdoses, criminal acts etc- then yeah- that's within their sphere of influence from a procedural standpoint, and they need to be held accountable for failure to put safety over profits.

Don't know if that makes more sense on my viewpoint, but thanks for correcting me. I do see how I worded that wrong originally, and I appreciated that being pointed out to me

1