whence personal responsibility?

[cellio]

A story in today's paper reported that in Richmond VA, in a city park with fenced areas for animals, the park-keepers killed two black bears because one of them bit a child and they had to find out if there was a threat of rabies. (The only test for rabies in an animal kills the animal.) These bears have been in that park for years, and when the news broke (days after the deed was done), people in the community were outraged.

The child, four years old and accompanied by his mother, bypassed one four-foot-high barrier and then put his hand through a larger chain-link fence. The article didn't say, but I assume there were plenty of "keep away from the bears" signs too, in case two fences didn't make that point. The child got bitten (not badly enough to require stitches). Mom couldn't identify the biting bear, so both of the bears in that pen were killed.

Rabies is an unpleasant disease, but it is treatable. The treatment is painful, but many people have to undergo it because they have no choice. Sometimes you do something stupid and have to suffer the consequences; sometimes you're just in the wrong place at the wrong time and, yet, you still have to suffer the consequences. Life isn't fair, and sometimes no one is at fault.

Accidents happen, and the kid here is not to blame. For all we know, neither is the mother -- there are conflicting reports about whether she helped him climb the first barrier or looked away for a moment and he did it on his own. But that doesn't matter (except for settling the tort); even if this was completely an accident, a fluke, people have to accept some personal responsibility. It appears that someone made a decision to test the bears instead of treating the kid just in case; I think that decision was wrong.

There was clearly no fault on the part of the park or the bears themselves, so the child's discomfort is not adequate reason for killing the bears. The child, and the mother, could have gotten a valuable lesson about personal responsibility here, but they didn't. It probably didn't even occur to the parents, because we increasingly live in a world where the meme is "protection over everything, and when that doesn't work find someone to take it out on". But that doesn't help kids grow up into responsible adults, and you can't child-proof (and idiot-proof) the world anyway.

We are becoming, and raising, a nation of spoiled brats, who think that if they're unhappy, there must be someone to punish -- as if that makes anything any better. Punishment should be reserved for willful acts (including negligence). When there is clearly no fault, we need to minimize the overall damage, not our personal damage.

By the way, the bears tested negative.

Comments

[cvirtue.livejournal.com]

So your interpretation is that killing the bears (in order to test them) was punishing them for biting someone?

[cellio]

I don't think the park people were punishing the bears. The parents who decided not to treat absent a test might have been.

[estherchaya.livejournal.com]

I didn't read the article, so my question may have no merit. But you do seem to be blaming the parents here. Are you certain that the parents were the ones who unilaterally decided not to test in the absences of knowing if rabies was even present?

Rabies treatment in children is a very dangerous thing to be avoided if possible.

In other circumstances where animal life is not as highly regarded as human life I generally agree with you. But in the absence of more facts, I'm not sure how I feel about this incident. I think it's tragic, but I'm not sure there's really anyone to blame.

[cellio]

A little digging has turned up the following timeline. The child was bitten on a Saturday but no one told the park officials. On Tuesday the family went to the hospital and the incident was reported. On Thursday they killed the bears. I haven't found anything that says what the parents did or didn't say, but they had two days after going to the hospital in which to consider treatment and they did not choose that. I assume, though of course I don't know, that the doctors at the hospital advised them about all possible courses of action.

The parents probably didn't get to make the call to kill the bears directly. However, all they had to do to stop it was to treat their child. Now maybe there were good reasons not to do so; treatment is non-trivial. (The parents aren't talking to the media, and the family's identity hasn't been released.) Personally, I think if I were already at day 3 of a possible rabies infection I might treat sooner rather than waiting several days more for test results, but I've never had to make that decision so I'm speculating.

[estherchaya.livejournal.com]

First, I may be completely naive, but my guess is that the family did talk to their doctors about prophylactic treatment for their child. My guess is that the pros and cons weren't evenly balanced particularly if the animals were available for testing.

As for the bears... are you absolutely certain that the bears wouldn't have been killed if the parents had started just-in-case-treatment? My guess is that it isn't that clear cut. Treating the kid still doesn't answer whether you've got a rabid bear. Though I suppose they could have waited to see if the bear became symptomatic down the line.

How long does it take a human to become symptomatic of rabies?

I can't imagine why the parents would have waited three days for medical attention, but maybe rabies didn't occur to them until their doctor brought it up.

[cellio]

As for the bears... are you absolutely certain that the bears wouldn't have been killed if the parents had started just-in-case-treatment?

I'm not certain, of course. I strongly suspect that if the child were being treated anyway, quarantine would have been an option (as it is for pets who bite and are suspected of carrying the disease). Treatment changes the problem from "we have to know or someone will die" to "we have to know lest someone get bitten and die in the future".

How long does it take a human to become symptomatic of rabies?

According to this, two to eight weeks.

[estherchaya.livejournal.com]

good point on the quarantine. I'm not sure why I didn't think of that.

I still stand by the fact that the medical professionals may have (and possibly with good reason) discouraged the family from beginning treatment without knowing for sure, since it WAS possible to determine the facts.

I'm not disagreeing that it's a tragedy and that people are stupid and coddled. However, if treatment had a strong possibility of being seriously detrimental to a 3 year old's long-term health, one can hardly punish the three year old who probably just isn't old enough to make judgment calls for his or herself. So yes, it's coddling, but punishing a 3 year old isn't really going to do anyone any good.

If the child had been older, I'd likely have been in full agreement with you.

But if it's the parents you think are being coddled, and the treatment would be painful and dangerous for a three year old, why punish the three year old?