Law May Have Unintended Consequences
Posted: Monday, June 07, 2010
by Terry Mitchell
http://commenterry.blogs.com
A Petersburg, Virginia woman was recently arrested and charged with felony child neglect. She was immediately jailed without bond, pending her next court date later this month. Many citizens of central Virginia, including myself, were outraged and puzzled at the way this woman was treated.
So, what exactly was it that she did to deserve such a fate? Well, her 3-year-old daughter died of a heart defect that neither she nor the child's doctors were previously aware of. The mother's offense was that she did not seek medical help earlier in the day when the child first began exhibiting breathing problems. This is something she admitted to the police and emergency personnel after the child suddenly fell unconscious.
Virginia law mandates that parents seek help immediately when a child begins to demonstrate serious medical issues. Failure to do so can result in a conviction of felony child neglect. However, I can see where this law could have some serious unintended consequences.
Let's say, for example, a 9-year-old boy becomes seriously ill due to food poisoning and is taken to the emergency room by his parents, but not until about five hours after eating a meal. Then let's assume that the doctors, having not diagnosed the problem yet, begin questioning the parents.
They ask if the boy showed any kind of symptoms earlier. The parents, fearing the same fate as the Petersburg mother, say they didn't, even though they are aware of the fact that the child became nauseated two hours after eating. This causes the doctors to misdiagnose the boy's illness and, as a result, he dies.
This may seem like an extreme scenario, but it could happen. And it would be a direct consequence of how the law is enforced. Don't get me wrong. I don't disagree with the law itself. I believe it's on the books to save the lives of children, and does exactly that. However, the problem lies with the way it is sometimes enforced.
The law should be preserved, but modified with a kind of "truth immunity," for lack of a better term. Parents should be given immunity from prosecution if they tell everything they know the about child's condition, symptoms, etc. within 48 hours after finally seeking medical help. Anything they are later found to have held back or lied about during that period would be used against them, with the judge being encouraged to impose the maximum sentence.
So, what exactly was it that she did to deserve such a fate? Well, her 3-year-old daughter died of a heart defect that neither she nor the child's doctors were previously aware of. The mother's offense was that she did not seek medical help earlier in the day when the child first began exhibiting breathing problems. This is something she admitted to the police and emergency personnel after the child suddenly fell unconscious.
Let's say, for example, a 9-year-old boy becomes seriously ill due to food poisoning and is taken to the emergency room by his parents, but not until about five hours after eating a meal. Then let's assume that the doctors, having not diagnosed the problem yet, begin questioning the parents.
They ask if the boy showed any kind of symptoms earlier. The parents, fearing the same fate as the Petersburg mother, say they didn't, even though they are aware of the fact that the child became nauseated two hours after eating. This causes the doctors to misdiagnose the boy's illness and, as a result, he dies.
This may seem like an extreme scenario, but it could happen. And it would be a direct consequence of how the law is enforced. Don't get me wrong. I don't disagree with the law itself. I believe it's on the books to save the lives of children, and does exactly that. However, the problem lies with the way it is sometimes enforced.
The law should be preserved, but modified with a kind of "truth immunity," for lack of a better term. Parents should be given immunity from prosecution if they tell everything they know the about child's condition, symptoms, etc. within 48 hours after finally seeking medical help. Anything they are later found to have held back or lied about during that period would be used against them, with the judge being encouraged to impose the maximum sentence.
Update: Good news! On June 21, 2010, the charges against this lady were dropped.
This Article has been viewed 482 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (6 total)Hi Terry, I agree with you completely here. It is horrible enough for a loving parent to lose a child, but to be jailed for it when they were unaware of any serious illness is outrageous. My children are all grown and away from home now. But I can recall their becoming ill that we felt was nothing serious, and all turned out well. Maybe not a good practice, but if one ran a child to the doctor each time he became nauseous, or some rather common other symptom, they would be on the road constantly, I think . Good article Terry.Hi Joel, thanks for reading and commenting. I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one who sees a problem here.
What a horrifying experience for the woman! I like your solution, but I don't like the law, although I understand and support the purpose of the it. Need to think about it. Thanks for provoking thought...Jennifer, thanks for reading and commenting. You are right, this is something that is defintely thought-provoking.
Bad law, too many variables to enforce fairly. And let's face it, a vast number of parents can't afford to go to a doctor unless it is a dire emergency thanks to our health care insurers, and to the skyrocketing medical costs that are completely unregulated. Free enterprise is working; when things get too expensive, people quit buying, even if it kills them.Good point. It does seem quite arbitrary and unfair.
We do need to protect children as you said but circumstances vary so much from case to case. Sometimes what may seem like a simple case of the flu can turn out to be something much more serious. Also, mothers are sometimes made to feel they run to the doctor with their child too quickly for every little thing. They might wait a day thinking the child will get better on their own, not knowing it is something more serious. I can't imagine what that poor women you wrote about has gone through. It's a tough one Terry.Excellent points, Brianna! Yeah, that poor has already lost her child, not she has been thrown in jail.
Hi Terry.I don't think your scenario is all that unlikely. And I think you've come up with a good solution to it. I hope that someone takes note and makes this change to the law. Good work.Dianne
Very interesting article. This law I am sure is meant to serve a very good purpose but I can see where it could also be very dangerous. My daughter was diagnosed as a streph carrier when she was very young and I wound up taking her to the emergency room because she couldn't stay awake plus other symptoms and it turns out she had diabetes. I wonder how that law would have effected that situation.Linda, thanks for providing another example of how this law could backfire.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.