Avoiding harm how simple a duty is it?
THE London High Court judgement on arsenic poisoning cases in Bangladesh (see: Far-reaching verdict; see also: Hoping for relief, April 30, 2003) explicity clears the way for affected people to claim compensation. Implicity, it raises other issues of far-reaching consequence.
For one, the verdict delivers a stern message to international agencies working in developing countries: the necessity of being accountable for what they do in the name, and ethical promise, of public good. While the defendants, the British Geological Survey (BGS), claimed they owed no "duty of care' to the victim, the judgement ruled otherwise. The bgs could so claim because, its counsel argued, there was no relationship of "proximity' or "neighbourhood' to the victim. But as the judgement puts it, quoting another case, proximity is "merely a description of circumstances from which, pragmatically, the courts conclude that a duty of care exists'. The court specifically pointed out that the BGS defence