Medication Tampering Scope

Medication Tampering is stated to be about any tampering with meds that leads to death. Dying is part of the requirement.

What about cases where someone gives another person meds to make them terminally ill or paralyzed like in The Act and Run? Do they count as downplayed examples or would they be shoehorns since death is not present?

Bump.

I think the requirement that the tampering lead to death is a bit overly strict, and I wouldn't be opposed to changing that part of the description.

Wouldn't this require TRS? That's how the trope is defined. We can't remove a requirement like that, methinks.

I just threw together this wick check to see what the usage was like. 24% of the examples were of the illness kind, and over 50% were of the murder kind (with an additional 16% zero- or partial-context examples).

Is this enough for TRS? And if it is, do you want to take it in Selkies, or should I?

Thank you for your effort and speed in handling this.

I asked in the Meta TRS thread, and we'll see. This wick check is certainly useful even without TRS.

On the discussion page the original sponsor says "while the majority of examples are intended for homicide, it can be used for less lethal purposes", but that doesn't seem to be in evidence on the original draft, even as it says it's a split from the more general Tampering with Food and Drink.

Edited by MorganWick on Jul 1st 2023 at 3:23:00 AM

So, the creator made it too specific for no reason?

Why didn't they just expand the draft back then, it doesn't make sense.

I decided to check their troper page to see if they'd edited recently enough that they might respond to a ping aaaaaaand it turns out they're a ban evader.

I want to say they may not have realized that their emphasis on fatality, without mentioning non-lethal medication tampering, made the trope look more specific than it needed to be or was intended to be. If I wanted to stir up trouble, I could point to the discussion page comment as evidence that the trope was never meant to be that specific, even though the description was always that specific, and thus argue that a description clarification shouldn't need TRS, but that might be a bit of a stretch and could lead to a slippery slope.

I'd say TRS is still needed. Foxley might not have intended for the trope to be limited to fatalities but they made no attempt to update the trope's laconic or description prior to launch. The trope's current definition/description never made room for non- fatality examples so the trope's scope is still limited to that.

Speaking of that, even procedurally TRS is needed, what is needed to initiate a TRS in situations like this: to expand the definition of a trope without evidence of Not Thriving (it has 155 wicks)?

A wick check was already done at Medication Tampering Wick Check and that's what I'd recommend. It will help us see how the trope is generally used on the wiki.

Edited by MacronNotes on Jul 2nd 2023 at 2:59:27 PM

Doublepost

Edited by MacronNotes on Jul 2nd 2023 at 2:59:20 PM

SamCurt, What does that mean? The trope isn't Not Thriving, and the issue here is that it's too specific, unlike its sistertrope Tampering with Food and Drink. So, since there are 12 examples of non-fatal tampering, we'll request to expand the trope to fit them; that's all.