Any goal-seeking ethical action has the risk of coming out the wrong way. That doesn't mean you discard the goal, rather it means that you must be prepared to address the unforeseens.
Statistically every choice to begin consuming alcohol puts the person at risk of being unable to handle it. You can take the Mormon approach (don't start) or the free market approach (your choice, your tough shit) or find ways to allow consumption while still addressing the unavoidable percentage of bad outcomes.
Vague nonspecific plan that elevates a moral imperative. Also you listed it with a moral choice and an ethical societal policy. Not saying you're wrong. Just saying that your analogy makes no sense and I don't know what your point was.
Empathetic response is often goal-seeking, teleological ethics. I perceive someone's pain so I want to fix it expeditiously. But my attempt to help will only have a probabilistic chance of success. There is always a chance that my best intentions go awry.
But that does not excuse my decision not to act. It simply says I need to act smarter, with eyes open, and a backup plan.