Tehachapi News

This is a pot that needs continued stirring.

When I first sat down to write this case study, I knew I was moving into difficult territory especially given the explosive nature of both the CDC hard data and the profoundly direct social implications arising from it.

The imagination of catching second hand flu breathers and locking them up is a lesser potentiality than how medical insurers will begin to move the machinery of insurance policy writing and future lobby efforts for management of a clearly preventable drain to their bottom line.

Remember the old merry-go-rounds? Gone. Remember the day when you could cook or serve for a restaurant and not wear protective gear? Gone. Remember the smokers in late night neighborhood bars? Gone. 

Risk aversion is the starting point for serious social change in our technological society.

Your heart breaking and costly experience underlines an entire society engaging in moral senselessness, even depraved indifference as some could easily describe it- yet moral persuasion doesn't resonate, money does, so I am suggesting it will be the medical insurers who carry the ball here since they don't like to part with your money.

Compelling people to wear face-masks in public places will limit the number of flu deaths, hospitalizations, and prescription costs alongside a host of flu related economic budget busters. 

And as the police television ads say, Buckle Up for Safety or we will give you a ticket, so the same rationale applies to reducing the spread of second hand breath contagions.

Such policies as I am outlining here are preventative in nature.

If there was any kind of law that would be reasonable, it would be that employees who are sick and work in customer service/retail, directly with the public or are in school should not beable to be at work or school until symptoms are gone.

Yes, the CDC recommends face masks but does not require them. What I'm saying here is that it is impossible to control the wearing of face masks because it is going to be based on people's honesty. And let's face it, if I go to a restaurant and am asked to wear a face mask, I wouldn't. Now if I knew I had the flu, I wouldn't go but so many people have the contagious virus before they have all the symptoms and/or diagnosis (i.e. the doctor who thinks he has a common cold but actually has RSV after treating a baby with RSV - see the link below for prior comment.)

I agree that the law can protect in some instances like the spread of HIV ...but it has to be proven that the person purposefully and knowingly spread the disease. Believe me, I almost want to get so mad at people who get my kids sick...but sickness is part of living in a broken world and the spread of the flu or RSV or anything similar that has the capacity to threaten lives just isn't going to be able to be controlled by the law....there are too many if's, and's or but's and any kind of conviction just wouldn't hold up in court.

That's why when you feel a doctor has made a mistake it should be reported. Even if it's as much as they didn't warn you about the contagiousness of an infection. A doctor will not have any kind of disciplinary action unless there are enough small complaints or a really big one.

Believe me, when my children get sick I'm frustrated that someone else didn't wash their kids' hands. I always teach my daughter to wash hers and I see so many moms who don't have their kids wash hands after using the bathroom....it's up to us to be a voice and remind people. Tell them when you see them at work coughing or sneezing that they should really go home so they don't get others sick.

Lucy, I read your post and it is exceptionally well written and thoughtful. Please feel free to duplicate it here if you wish. But, neither the CDC nor I agree with you that law cannot be used to limit the spread of contagion. In fact, law does change dangerous behaviors and what you painfully described is a host of monumental errors of profound moral negligence grounded in utter disregard for others.

As you said, even the CDC recommends face-masks.

As the hard data filters into the corporate offices of medical health insurers, rest assured, they will begin to examine their monetary options and add a skyrocketing penalty clause to their policies: Refuse face-masks in the workplace and pay the price.

As the insurers jump on board, they will lobby for law enforcement management. Enforcement powers can be initially domiciled in the day to day operations of the local health and safety departments. They already check to see if restaurant servers and cooks are wearing their protective gear such as gloves and hair-nets so it will be very easy to add a face-mask to their protective gear, as well check patrons. Of course, restuarants are only a starting point because we are really talking about public places of which a restaurant is only one such example.

You provided an A to Z argument that is in utter opposition to your conclusion. Anyway, if you could save a baby's life by wearing a face-mask when you are sick, why wouldn't you? 

Do otherwise moral people feel they have some special right to infect others? 

I just checked the link and it's working for right now, try it again.

Lucy, I tried to read the rest of your comments but the page comes up empty. If you would like to post them in your comment you can cut and paste it in. I am interested in your thoughts since this is an extremely important health care issue, maybe even a law enforcement problem.

 

The CDC recommends people wear a face mask....if our country had better health care options for people who can't afford doctor visits, this number of 36,000 people might be reduced. The law can only go so far....read the rest of my comment.

I have mostly stayed out of this so far because I myself am conflicted, but only on one point.  It is one thing to go in public with the flu, which might be fatal to the immunocompromised.  It is another thing to go out in public with, say, Ebola.  There are so many factors in this case, I cannot draw a definite line at what is right and what is wrong.  I believe the crux of the situation is "Was it intentional?"   People have been prosecuted for the intentional spread of HIV. 

But there is also the element of gross negligence.  If the man from Atlanta who flew to Europe after he had been diagnosed with TB had infected others with TB, I would not be even slightly sorry for him if they prosecuted him.  Everyone knows that TB is infectious and I was appalled that he believed it was okay to fly with the disease.  However, had he not been diagnosed yet, would it have been fair to prosecute him?  How can you prosecute for an act someone did not know they committed?  Especially in the case of diseases, which are infectious before they show symptoms.

And as an aside... how do you eat at a restaurant while wearing a face mask?

I personally believe that diseases are one of the natural forms of population control and the weeding out of those who are sick and so should not reproduce.  That isn't to say we shouldn't fight them, because they are terrible, but I am never surprised when they find ways around our best efforts at containment and eradication.

While the suggestion that the prosecutor in this hypothetical situation might be swayed by subtle racism is a valid point, I did not make the connection between the names and their suggestion of race. It doesn't matter to me what the races of the baby or the perpetrator are, so unless someone can prove that the flu carrier intentionally gave the child the flu, in my opinion, the suit is a waste of time and money and only serves to back up the already overlogged justice system.

Lori, I think you are referring to something like a legal case citation or a case study in that frame of reference. This is an academic exercise utilizing a narrative to display some particular facts in a human way to stimulate a discussion.

Academic style case studies are often fictitious, and there is nothing unusual about them since they are highly useful. I also call these things thought experiments.

We can reverse the names or change them entirely if that helps but I think your racial points could have merit. Some may feel it is less of a crime if the victim is black which could then take the discussion onto a different level.

For example, had the baby been white and the perp black would rm6 still feel less likely to prosecute? Does he mean it is "frivolous" because the baby was black? Some could then suggest he is motivated by subtle racism.

Also, you are correct as far as I know that forensics investigations can be quite lengthy but that is why we pay investigators good money. Procedures eliciting DNA results or flu strain evals take time but while that is going on there are still other investigative errands to play out.

Many perps are arrested long before evidence ever gets to a laboratory.

PS to lynx: Great research! The CDC is where the factual information came from. 

The names themselves sent a race message.  Shawanna - let's make a wild guess at ethnic origin of this lady.  And Carole .... who can make a guess here?  Those fictitious names were not my call - I only made an observation.

My niece is in forensics and shows like CSI are make believe in the extreme.  In real life, it takes months to get a DNA test back from the lab. 

This was not a "case study."  It was a story made up for our amusement - or distress - depending on your sensibilities. 

Anon, I might agree with you about the frivolity of such a lawsuit, but we are far from being on the same page...I don't agree with how you said we are all predestined to die at a certain time and that our conscious actions cannot prevent it, your rants about "CSI cops" and the government coming and making you wear a mask in public seemed to me to borderline on paranoia, and I flatly disagree that the anti-smoking laws are too harsh.

That being said, it's always fun to discuss even the most hypothetical of situations, granted that no one gets too worked up about it.

Lori~I see it is ficticious but you took it right to the race card.  What does the the name Shawanna and Carole have to do with their race? and how have their names sent a biased message?

anonymous~I am a smoker and i DO NOT smoke when there are people in close proximity to me.  When i am out in public, i walk away from anyone and go off by myself.  Even when i am at someones house that smokes, i go outside and smoke.  I smoke outside at my own house.  Just because i have a disgusting habit doesnt mean i can push it on everyone else. Besides, smoking in closed in areas is just gross. 

Hey...I have a cold right now and i just coughed on my plant...Geez, its already turning brown WHAT DO I DO????????????

We are not perps and how dare you say that. That is terrorism to want these laws against FREE BORN AMERICANS. Just because someone has the flu they are not criminals and I see that rm6 agrees with me now! A trillion dollars of tax payer money? You say that like taxpayers are made of gold. Well, I won't pay it.

We will need to spend a great deal of money on a national basis to get the kind of investigations  that you are talking about but I could easily envision a trillion dollars over a twenty year span.

Is there a pressing need? That's a matter of judgment, but while television media trumpets the "crisis" of Avian flu there have only been 200 cases worldwide since 2004- compared to garden variety flus killing over 108,000 children and adults; hospitalizing 600,000; infecting upwards of 180 million people in just the US alone for that same period of time.

Of course, every case would have a defense but attorneys lose cases every day that hinge on circumstantial evidence, and many times juries want to "send a message to perpetrators." Police departments all across the country are beefing up their forensics "CSI" units and are having a powerful impact catching perps.

 

I still don't buy the argument that evidence can be produced to show a causal link between the baby's death & Carole's flu. Do you know how expensive this kind of testing is? Do you know how many criminal cases are already shelved because of the cost of laboratory testing? Not every police department has the stereotypical CSI investigative unit; not every county has a Law & Order prosecution team.

People are calling me bonkers but I feel that is unfair. I just don't want to see flu laws that criminilize people who are sick. Its not right. I don't mean to sound callus that getting other people dead isn't important but I really don't want to be forced to wear a face mask at a restaurant. I don't smoke but i have lots of friends who do and they feel victimized. But will people feel victimized if they are forced to wear face masks in public places? I think they would. I would.

I don't think it's right to sue somebody for negligence because they may have given someone else a sickness that ultimately caused their death. I think that's the definition of a frivolous lawsuit. I also don't think that it is immoral to go to the store or some other public place when one is sick (unless it's an extreme circumstance like the pandemic flu), that's absurd, it's not my responsibility to see to it that everyone else stays healthy. I'll turn my head when I sneeze, but the only thing that's going to stop me from going wherever I want to go is the fact that I don't feel good enough to go out.

I wrote this as a case study to provide a narrative that is easy to understand and put a human face to what are otherwise dry statistics. Case studies are often fictional in narrative but real world as to specific facts, such is the case here. The legal ramifications are the "What if" scenario.

Lori, I think you too easily dismiss what forensics medical investigations are capable of, as do others. We are now capable of reconstructing events, ascertaining specific flu strains, and determining the likely transmission mechanism right down to the individual who transmitted. These investigation techniques are well established now so the only question left is a tipping point at which the legal system evolves to the level of our forensics and begins to methodically intervene.

The argument over evidences is easily addressed since prosecutions based on circumstantial evidence are commonplace, hardly unusual, and highly successful, and due the astronomically high numbers of casualties from irresponsible transmission of ordinary flu's there is a compelling case for addressing such issues in our courts of law. As lynx noted, the CDC has the hard data and it is extremely troubling, as well as very costly for our economy.

One example, I think it was anon who first brought up restaurants so here is a consideration for restaurant insurers: Insurers are beginning to recognize the heavy cost to them for doctors visits, hospitalizations, medicines, as well for death payouts. Will health insurers take a view to protect themselves and minimize such costs and recoup by raising insurance rates on restaurants if they refuse to require patrons to wear face masks? This is very feasible, and more importantly, rational since insurers are in business to make money.

Anon is mistaken though, spreading flu viruses is not "God's will," the research is clear in its verdict that people are making choices to spread flu to others by their behavior and the legal system is the ultimate jurisdiction of dangerous behavior. There is a strong correlation between second hand smoke and second hand flu in that both are largely controllable by law because they are behaviors.

I don't know if there is an element of prediction to the case study, but it does suggest some hard questions.

Why not prosecute the creeps who assault others with the flu? The CDC says 36,000 people are killed every year and 200,000 end up hospitalized. I think it is immoral to go shopping or to a restaurant if you have the flu. You don't know who you are passing it along to and what if they die? I don't think God's at fault like anon feels, and rm6 feels it is right to use the law against these idiots. Also, I would think if restaurants were responsible they would want to protect people by making it mandatory to wear a face mask like the CDC recommends.

 

Its facinating to me because I find it humorous that someone (anon) can get so worked up over a hypothetical situation. By the way, I never said, anon, that you are a paranoid wack-job, I said "you can go ahead and decide whether or not that description fits you."  

Like oohchild said, the origin of the infection would never be able to be proven.

I don't know why this subject continues to fascinate me.  "A Case of Murder" is the figment of Kat's imagination.  But, here goes ---- my thoughts on the crazy direction this site has taken. 

In my pretend summation to this story, it is unlikely the mother connects her sick baby with the sick woman.  Why?  Because she doesn't think anything about handing her baby over to a stranger (and a sick one to boot)  - it doesn't register as being wrong. 

Since we are all just writing fiction, in my story, the baby gets the flu and her immune system is strengthened.  No one is sued, no one loses their job, no one loses their home or business or goes to jail and, certainly, no one dies. 

Anon - this did NOT happen.  It's kinda like an urban legion:  i.e. a woman doesn't wash her hair, a spider gets inside the mess and over time, burrows into her skull.  She dies when baby spiders are born and eat her brain.  This "case of murder" is like that story.  Just made up. 

On the other direction in which this site has turned:  I have no problem what-so-ever that smokers are no longer allowed to carelessly suffocate me and mine.  I can now go into a restaurant or lounge and enjoy dinner and a drink and actually breath normally.  The "no smoking" laws have been passed by state and many states still allow smoking.  Get off an airplane in Nevada .... cough, cough, cough - smokers hocking up their phlegm.  It's disgusting.  Anyone who wants to die this way - go for it.  But, just know what you're getting yourself into.  Visit a nursing home and see the emphysema patient struggling for every breath. 

Anon - YOU decided to smoke. You decided to continue to smoke when the facts were in about the life threatening dangers.  Don't you dare blame your God.  Take responsibility for your actions.  Do you ever eat rat poison?   Why not?  I can only hope you're not subjecting children to your second hand smoke.

I would imagine that any good attorney would be able to get this case dismissed by the judge on first hearing, since there's no way Shawanna can prove the origin of her baby's infection. Reasonable doubt is high in this scenerio.

I'm not a paranoid whack job and to say that make me hopping mad. I'm a reasonable American who can't believe you would say giving the flu to someone is the same as shooting people. Do you wear a sugrical face-mask when you have a flu or cold, Mr. Smarty Pants? Do you protect the public from your second hand flu breath? Thats why this makes me really angry is because that our laws will change and CSI Flu Police will be knocking on everyone's doors demanding evidence and making arrests of YOUR sister or mother for breathing the flu on someone. That off the rocker legal system is frustrating and they want to grab at everything to change our laws and make slaves of us. 

"God made man and God takes everyone's life in His good time so we aren't ultimately responsible like Kat is saying." So anonymous, you're using God or the idea of such an entity to imply that we are not responsible for our own actions? So I can go around today and do whatever I want, like, say, drive a tank the wrong way down the freeway and if someone happens to die, I can just write it off as "oh well, I guess God decided it was his time to die?" It doesn't work like that.

"God's will that someone dies, not mans."  If I decided to go to my neighbor's house with a gun and kill them while they're sleeping, is that God's will that they died or is that my will?

You make it sound like you don't care if children are suffering from second hand smoke...Smoking is being vilified because of the obvious health dangers it poses to the general population not to mention the smokers themselves, not just because "they said children were dying." By the way, no one is stopping you from puffing your life away, we just don't want you to take our health away too.

It's not the law and order types that are dangerous as terrorists, its paranoid wack-jobs that think that the government is out to get them that threaten normal society. You can go ahead and decide whether or not that description fits you.

The story is realistic and thats its danger. They said children were dying because of cigarette smoke and look what is happening to smokers. This country is going off its rocker and it makes me mad. Just because Kat feels it is wrong to give someone the flu doesn't make it that way. God made man and God takes everyone's life in His good time so we aren't ultimately responsible like Kat is saying. And 36,000 people dying every year... where did she get that, HUH? And why should madkow have to think about these things, shes a mother for goodness sakes! It is plain wrong and you should stand up and say it loud and clear.

Anon - the story is fictitious.  Made up.  Fairy tale.  Not true.  The workings of someone's inner mind.  Didn't happen.  Pretend subject. 

In summary:  No one is suing anyone for a baby that died because someone coughed.

You a smoker by any chance?

I'm sorry lori, but you are really wrong. This is how it started with that second had smoke business. Oh! the poor children dying in the streets from cigarette smoke and whoopty doo! now we can't smoke. These law and order types like kat who are out to purify us with all these new laws are as dangerous as terrorists. You have to stop that kind of talk right at its source or YOU will be next sitting in a courtroom accused of murder for simply coughing in some stupid restaurant. Someone will sue you for making them sick or something. God, I'm going to move to Mexico.

Hey, hey ----- Katatak made up this senerio.  It's a bogus story.  Her last sentence tells you everything.  No need to get upset over a fake story.

I am even madder now that I think about this. You are making mothers feel like criminals, aren't you ashamed of yourself? It's God's will that someone dies, not mans. Do you expect us to wear face masks at work? If someone gets sick or dies because I had the flu, whats that to you? Who do you think you are? And why make a federal case out of it? The police and courts don't need to stick their cotton picking noses where they don't belong. They should fight crime, not make sure someone is wearing a stupid mask in a restaurant.

So if I get the flu, cough on my child while I am taking care of him, and he dies as a result-- I should be considered a murderer?

This is going to sound like a bad comparison, but here goes.  Anyone who has ever owned a puppy knows that it should not be taken around any place that may have had other dogs in the area.  The big risk when they are that young is Parvo, among several other potentially fatal canine diseases/conditions.  You wait until they have their vaccines, and are generally considered safe to go out once they have had their Rabies shot.

I have a four month old son.  He has had two rounds of vaccinations so far and I feel relatively safe to take him out in public.  Do I allow obviously sick people to cuddle with him?  Of course not.  And most people who are sick have the sense to stay away from obviously immunocompromised people (including the young and the elderly).  But accidents happen.  Many viruses and colds are infectious before they even show symptoms.  Such is the world we live in.  We can't control everything.

If I were in the jury I could not justify sending this woman or the doctor to prison without sending the mother as well. If this woman was to be held accountable for the babies death why not the mother as well? She was aware of the woman's sneezes and still allowed her to hold her child. Do I feel the woman in this story should have been more considerate?...yes, but I don't think she should live her life behind bars because of it. 

* As a mother I have to say that I find it hard to believe that a mother of two and a teacher would hold and cuddle a newborn child when she knew she had the flu. Especially the type of woman you are trying to portray here. Not that it couldn't happen. Just my opinion.

 

I'm confused.  You can not have a fictitious case study that is also an everyday occurrence.  You'll need to decide which it is. 

P.S.  I find your fictitious names have sent a significantly biased message:  Shawanna and Carole.  My, my, my - I wonder which is black and which is white?

This law and order business makes me sick. What! do you want cops investigating every second hand breather for a flu bug? Arrest people for heavy breathing? These right wing demands for more and more police officers to investigate every little thing is as anti-American as it gets. If some CSI cop comes looking for me or if restaurants demand we start wearing face masks to sit down to a meal then I will quit the good ol' USA and move to Mexico. This is so dangerous that you shouldn't ever write about it again.