No. These aren’t two sides of the same coin. People by default deserve to live even if they make bad calls.

The only reasonable way to live your life is under the assumption that people don’t deserve to die for being wrong about something they buy and eat. This is not something that should have to be spelled out man. The “darwin awards” argument is cruel and sociopathic if you take it beyond a morbid joke and instead actually believe people deserve to die over something as simple as not having perfect knowledge over what they consume.

But the article explicitly says that people did know what they were consuming. They bought poison honey, they got poison honey, they ate poison honey, and they got poisoned.

Now you can certainly argue we should make that impossible, but I am explicitly arguing that doing so makes society worse. I have made no claims one way or the other about what they deserve, because that is a religious claim, not an objective one.