-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Sunburned Babies
- Thread starter Jenna
- Start date
- Mar 24, 2002
- 12,089
- 624
- 76
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I had surgery 4 times in the last year for skin cancer, 2 of those were plastic surgery. I agree she not a criminal, but with what we know today about skin and damage from the sun, she is an idiot for sure. From what I have learned about skin cancer it actually begins with early childhood sunburns.
Blessings
Blessings
Upvote
0
Let´s stick to the facts:
Mother is arrested, because the children have allegedly second degree burns.
Story is all over the new, about a mother, who neglects her children, thus causing saecond degree burns.
Oops. Mother has to be freed. Because the children don´t have secpond degree burns. They just have red faces.
Hm. Critical thinking must have been blocked in the majority of people. If the kids would be indeed sensitive to sun exposure, then there must have been other symptoms instead of "second degree" sunburns first. Like fever, headache, dizzyness, urge to throw up. Classical signs of too much sun shining on your head.
Conclusion:
Option 1:
Arrest and imprison every parent, whose kid ever got on any part of the body red skin through excessive exposure to the sun.
Option 2:
Premature jump in on a story by desperate newspapers needing a sensation (after all it is summer and nothing much is going on) and an overeager officer, who perhaps wanted desperately media exposure.
I lean heavily towards option 2.
Mother is arrested, because the children have allegedly second degree burns.
Story is all over the new, about a mother, who neglects her children, thus causing saecond degree burns.
Oops. Mother has to be freed. Because the children don´t have secpond degree burns. They just have red faces.
Hm. Critical thinking must have been blocked in the majority of people. If the kids would be indeed sensitive to sun exposure, then there must have been other symptoms instead of "second degree" sunburns first. Like fever, headache, dizzyness, urge to throw up. Classical signs of too much sun shining on your head.
Conclusion:
Option 1:
Arrest and imprison every parent, whose kid ever got on any part of the body red skin through excessive exposure to the sun.
Option 2:
Premature jump in on a story by desperate newspapers needing a sensation (after all it is summer and nothing much is going on) and an overeager officer, who perhaps wanted desperately media exposure.
I lean heavily towards option 2.
Upvote
0
I hope all is going well now Elder.
As to the issue itself, it appears that those who considerde the charges too far fetched were correct, at least as to the present case, but I don't think that one should categorically reject even the possibility that a sunburn could amount to a genuine case of negligence. In this case though, it just wasn't.
As to the issue itself, it appears that those who considerde the charges too far fetched were correct, at least as to the present case, but I don't think that one should categorically reject even the possibility that a sunburn could amount to a genuine case of negligence. In this case though, it just wasn't.
Upvote
0
Brimshack, even the times I went on vacation with my parents, I got sometimes second degree sunburns, Although not in the face. Those second degree burns were on small parts of my body, ie shoulders. Simply because I and my parents misjudged the forrce of the sun or better the combination of all day sun and being on the water all day. That would be grounds for arrest?
Upvote
0
You have just given me a particular example. I wasn't there, but I will say 'no'. But that is 'no' to the particular example you have asked me about. It does not amount to a pre-emptive negation of the mere possibility that such a thing could ever be sufficient grounds for a charge of neglegence.
Upvote
0
Well, but this particular charge made in the debated case was huge bogus.
Second degree burns manifest itself not in form of red skin. Therefore it was reported knowingly falsely.
This article is a perfect example on a summer duck article. Sadly for the people involved this has a lot of negative consequences because of knowingly made false claims.
Second degree burns manifest itself not in form of red skin. Therefore it was reported knowingly falsely.
This article is a perfect example on a summer duck article. Sadly for the people involved this has a lot of negative consequences because of knowingly made false claims.
Upvote
0
Exactly what do you want out of this Lacmeh, I never advocated a specific position on this particular case, i have long since conceded that these particular charges were unfounded. All I have said was that I wouldn't rule out the possibility that a sunburn could be a result of actual neglect, and you respond by telling me once again that this particular case was bogus. What part of OKAY do you not understand?
is it so important that everyone walk away from this believing that no sub-burn could ever possibly be evidence of neglect, or are you just pursuing the the particular out of a lack of clairity. No-one is currently arguing with you about that. I'm not sure that anyone in this thread has argued with you about that. You are boxing at shadows.
You do not know that the claims made were knowingly false claims, btw, or examples of bad faith at all. The individual who made the charges was wrong; that much is clear, but in jumping to the conclusion that they were made by an individual who understood them to be false you assume a lot about the motives involved and thereby demonstrate precisely the sort of wreckless accusations that you claim were involved in the case.
is it so important that everyone walk away from this believing that no sub-burn could ever possibly be evidence of neglect, or are you just pursuing the the particular out of a lack of clairity. No-one is currently arguing with you about that. I'm not sure that anyone in this thread has argued with you about that. You are boxing at shadows.
You do not know that the claims made were knowingly false claims, btw, or examples of bad faith at all. The individual who made the charges was wrong; that much is clear, but in jumping to the conclusion that they were made by an individual who understood them to be false you assume a lot about the motives involved and thereby demonstrate precisely the sort of wreckless accusations that you claim were involved in the case.
Upvote
0
Well, I suppose police officers do in fact have to have first aid education.
Every first aid course I went through the stages of burns were explained.
Therefore I have to conclude, that the claim, that the kids had second degree sunburns was made deliberately false. The claims were then published by reporters, who are most likely car drivers, thus they should have gotten basic first aid education, too. Most likely those kids were taken to a hospital, those doctors there don´t need a full night examination to see, that those aren´t second degree sunburns. The reporters have written at best with utmost ignorance and not bothering to research properly, at worst they have written against better knowledge. Both options deserve a huge lawsuit on the injured party.
There is nothing wrong with an average individual seeing thos ekids and being concerned. There is much wrong, when official authorities, who should know better, act in the way they did.
Every first aid course I went through the stages of burns were explained.
Therefore I have to conclude, that the claim, that the kids had second degree sunburns was made deliberately false. The claims were then published by reporters, who are most likely car drivers, thus they should have gotten basic first aid education, too. Most likely those kids were taken to a hospital, those doctors there don´t need a full night examination to see, that those aren´t second degree sunburns. The reporters have written at best with utmost ignorance and not bothering to research properly, at worst they have written against better knowledge. Both options deserve a huge lawsuit on the injured party.
There is nothing wrong with an average individual seeing thos ekids and being concerned. There is much wrong, when official authorities, who should know better, act in the way they did.
Upvote
0
You like to follow the least productive line of inquiry don't you. You just made an argument, the conclusion of which would be that the charges were rediculous, but none of your evidence adds up to the assertion that the initial charge was knowingly false. You could argue that he was an idiot. You could also argue that those reporters you already claim to be wreckless didn't report the basis for the charges accurately. There is a whole strong of information that we do not have access to, and hence there are a number of possibilities other than the one you consider so glaringly obvious. (BTW: I wonder how many car drivers could recite the difference between all the different degrees of burns accurately, that little leap from car driver to first aid knowledge was a doozy.)
And you are still adding onto the claim that these particular charges were inappropriate. So what? The point was conceded. the only thing I've claimed is that such a charge is not in principle beyond the pale. I always wonder why people have to turn perfectly good probabalistic reasoning into categorical reasoning. Is a trace of uncertainty that hard to live with?
And you are still adding onto the claim that these particular charges were inappropriate. So what? The point was conceded. the only thing I've claimed is that such a charge is not in principle beyond the pale. I always wonder why people have to turn perfectly good probabalistic reasoning into categorical reasoning. Is a trace of uncertainty that hard to live with?
Upvote
0
VOW
Moderator
- Feb 7, 2002
- 6,912
- 15
- 72
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
Too little information.
My experience with sunburn has been that the extent of the burn isn't known until that evening, long after coming out of the sun's rays. It seems quite curious that the burn damage here was DOWNGRADED later.
Wouldn't it have been more effective if the sheriff had escorted the woman to shade, provided her with cold compresses, and suggested she take the kids home? Many hospitals provide sample packets of sunscreen at health fairs; the sheriff could have looked into having a special "Prevent Sun Damage" booth at the next county festival.
Methinks Mommy got just as fried as the babies.
Peace,
~VOW
My experience with sunburn has been that the extent of the burn isn't known until that evening, long after coming out of the sun's rays. It seems quite curious that the burn damage here was DOWNGRADED later.
Wouldn't it have been more effective if the sheriff had escorted the woman to shade, provided her with cold compresses, and suggested she take the kids home? Many hospitals provide sample packets of sunscreen at health fairs; the sheriff could have looked into having a special "Prevent Sun Damage" booth at the next county festival.
Methinks Mommy got just as fried as the babies.
Peace,
~VOW
Upvote
0
A small comment here: all sunburn and sun tan is skin damage. And the medical community now knows that most skin damage occurs when you are under 20. For those of us over that age, we still need to be careful in the sun--most importantly because of the risk of skin cancer, but (for we vain people) because sun damage causes wrinkles too! Wear sunscreen everyday!
sun safety
Personally, I think that the police did over-react in this situation, but I also am aware that I wasn't present and that the media may have distorted the "facts" of the case in order to get attention. Who knows, maybe the woman became belligerent when the officer tried to speak to her about this.
Anyway, good sunscreen is an important part of good health. Now I'm off of my sunscreen soapbox. (As a redhead in the South with a family hist. of skin cancer, I get on this soapbox a lot--sorry!)
--tibac
Upvote
0
Aussie_Tash
cRaZiEsT mEmBeR
I mean getting sunburn is aweful and especially for little kids, but this dosen't make her a criminal, I put sunscreen on my children who are 5/3/20months, but i have forgotten too and my 5 year old has gotten really red arms, but no i don't think it warrents her to be chraged, i mean come on !! It would be different if she was abusing them or neglecting them
Upvote
0
Similar threads
