That happens pretty commonly even in a traditional view of debt, though the dividing line for whether the lender or lendee is more to blame varies. At one extreme, if you lend money to an alcoholic who's well known for not paying back his loans, and he spends it on alcohol and doesn't pay you back, not too many people will be sympathetic to you for making an obviously-stupid loan. In fact they might blame you for enabling bad behavior in an entirely predictable way. And if you lend so much money that his failure to repay puts you in risk of going bankrupt yourself, then people will really think you're irresponsible...

This is a fundamental tenet of what lending is all about. It's why a bank won't just give money to anyone for any reason at all. It's something everyone has considered in their personal life on a micro level, at some point. Yet in certain contexts the very idea of a difference between responsible and irresponsible lending, and accountability for same, goes right out the window. Conveniently when it does it always seems to be in support of funneling huge amounts of taxpayer money to large banks, or foisting indentured servitude on the bankrupt.