> There is no such thing as "statistical murder".
Sure there is.
Denying categories of potentially life-saving treatments due to provincial laws causing hospitals to value legal considerations over medical decisions is one example.
Perhaps the phrase "statistical manslaughter" is a better description however.
I don’t think you need the statistical:
If you engage in behavior with known and predictable risks, which then kills somebody, it is manslaughter. Like recklessly operating a vehicle or blindly throwing knives.
That sometimes your behavior doesn’t kill people is immaterial — manslaughter is being intentionally risky in your actions which leads to a death.
Or in the case of UnitedHealthcare, felony murder: their felony fraud in issuing false denials for their clients resulted in deaths — and deaths that result from a felony have a special charge.
> If you engage in behavior with known and predictable risks, which then kills somebody, it is manslaughter.
> That sometimes your behavior doesn’t kill people is immaterial — manslaughter is being intentionally risky in your actions which leads to a death.
I was thinking more about laws enacted in the last couple of years in various US states which have guaranteed a rise in pregnancy-related deaths[0].
0 - https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2025/04/u-s-pregnancy...
Which laws do you mean?
Abortion bans.
> Or in the case of UnitedHealthcare, felony murder: their felony fraud in issuing false denials for their clients resulted in deaths — and deaths that result from a felony have a special charge.
Sadly, the insurers have a defense to this, and it has largely held up in court:
"We did not deny that person the healthcare that could save their life. We just declined to be the party to pay for it."