More questions about the Bear Affair
I have a few lingering questions about the whole Bear Affair:
1. How much pressure did the Virginia Department of Health and the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries put on Maymont to euthanize the bears? What about the CDC? Was their recommendation to euthanize the last word?
2. A VCU Health System pediatric emergency doctor was quoted in the paper as saying that she starts a child on the rabies treatment regimen at least once a month after a child has been bitten by a dog or scratched by a cat. Does that mean it is standard procedure to start rabies treatment with any bite from a wild animal or unknown domesticated animal? If so, why didn't the boy receive immediate treatment for rabies (other than antibiotics) at St. Mary's on Sunday after he was bitten?
3. Maymont said that quarantining the bears was not an option because rabies symptoms could take a very long time to develop and by then it would be "too late" for the child. Was it possible, though, to treat the child with the shots AND quarantine the bears for several months, even, until they safely showed no signs of rabies?
4. When we will learn who these parents are?
5. Now that Mayor Wilder is involved, do I smell yet another commission?
posted by Janet Freisner @ 2/27/2006 11:16:00 AM
3 Comments:
i have no way of confirming this of course, but i'm going to bet there were lawyers involved and the parents threatened to sue.
i think it's horrible that the bears had to die and i think the child should have had to go through with the rabies treatment -
I couldn't help but laugh when I saw 12 News tonight - with Wilder saying he wouldn't hesitate to ruffle feathers over whatever actions needed to be taken about the Bear Issue. (Definitely not his wording, but anyway - words to that effect.) What? Mayor Wilder? Not afraid of stirring up controversy? I am shocked and scandalized.
That said, the columnist with the Times-Dispatch who wrote about the disconnect between citizens' feelings on murders of local humans, versus those of bears, weren't without merit (a tad insensitive, but that's the prerogative of opinion journalism). That Wilder evidently hasn't graced various crime scenes with his fist-shaking, not-afraid-to-take-on-anybody presence lately, but might be erring on the side of grandstanding over the Bear Issue is unfortunate.
(Caveat: I'm two miles north of the city line, in Henrico, so I'm less obviously affected by the wild things done by Wilder within Richmond proper, but it seems to me that no one in these parts can get away from his megalomaniac - or, if you prefer, simply "charismatic" - presence.)
- V.
I am quite amazed at the lightening speed at which hundreds (or perhaps thousands) of people first hearing about this story have condemned all parties involved without getting answers to these questions and others. I, too, care about those bears. I, too, wonder how a parent could have let a small child approach the bears. But apparently my reluctance to condemn people (and that's putting it nicely) until more information is shared with the public is uncommon.
No wonder politicians employ double-speak and politically-correct generalities. This bear incident is a perfect example of how quickly the public will viciously attack a person or entity even when there is only a tiny sliver of information. In my opinion, we should be focusing our efforts on demanding answers from Maymont and the mom, rather than making assumptions and vicous accusations.
-NR
Post a Comment
<< Home