Basically a child that they knew had a severe dairy allergy, was given a grilled cheese sandwich which sent the child into convulsions and the school, instead of calling 911, called the childs mother. The mother came to the school and rushed the kid to the hospital but the child later died.
Could the school personnel be charged with negligent homicide?
I read this story, and I’m convinced the worker did not know that cheese = dairy. S/He probably thought dairy meant milk only. Seriously. One ought to be able to assume that an adult would know what “dairy” is, but there is a lot if ignorance around.
Having said that, I didn’t get as far as the part where the center didn’t call 911. They should have had a clear policy in place regarding health emergencies. A child with a fever? Okay, call parents. But convulsions? 
As to your original question, it does seem possible. A lot of balls were dropped here–training for staff, emergency procedures, awareness of the child’s allergies AND WHAT THAT MEANT IN EVERYDAY LIFE.
Anaphylactic shock, not convulsions.
It also mentions the non-availability of an Epipen - up from $47 (each) in 2007 to $600 now (per pair) in the USA (and contrasting with $14 bought in bulk by the NHS and $60 over-the-counter in the UK).
A simple injection at school would have saved him.
An Epipen only buys some time. Considering that not only did the staff not recognize the need for EMS, neither did the mother.
It’s still possible an injection wouldn’t have been enough depending on how much time was wasted.
An Epipen was the obvious immediate response.
Well, we know a phone call is a lot cheaper but that’s about all.
Calling 9-1-1 is still the next/simultaneous step. You’re buying time for EMS to arrive, transport and supply life support as needed.
It’s a failure that the staff didn’t recognize a life-threatening condition. It’s a failure that the mother, knowing her child had an allergy, didn’t know enough to call 9-1-1 rather than attempt transport herself.
I wonder how these parents still feel safe sending such kids to school. Didn’t a kid with a peanut allergy die in school a while back too, like this? Knowing the immense potential for exposure to the allergen (hundreds of kids, dozens of substances, nobody can remember everything,) how do they have peace of mind?
Ask if the staff is First Aid/CPR/AED certified. Are there AEDs at the location and does the staff have access? Does the school have Epipens(or other brands)? Does the staff have access?
And does everyone know that cheese = diary. :dubious:
That doesn’t matter as long as they can recognize and properly treat anaphylaxis.
Granted, it would be nice if they don’t cause the emergency but the treatment is the same whatever the cause.
When I’ve taken first aid courses, a review of common allergens was part of the anaphylaxis section.
WTF do you think allergic people do when they grow up? Stay at home?
Here’s the problem - if you keep the kid at home they will never learn to deal with the hazards in real life. For better or worse, life-threatening allergies are NOT considered a disability as far as getting payments in lieu of work. At some point, you have to let these kids/people out of the house to get an education, get jobs, and get a life. People with potentially life-threatening allergies (and I happen to be one of them) risk encountering their problem item every day. “Keep them at home” is NOT a viable strategy.
I could go into a long dissertation about what needs to be done with the kids, the parents, and the schools but I don’t feel like writing it at the moment, and I’m not sure anyone is actually interested. I’ll do it on request, though.
The access question was always the worst problem when I was growing up. It did no good to inform all the adults in the camp that I was allergic when the needed medications were kept locked up in a “nurse’s office” open only part time hours and I was 5 miles away on a hike or it was the middle of the night. My parents finally got it arranged that I could carry my allergy meds on my person at all times which largely solved the access problem, but geez, I can only imagine it’s gotten worse.
I immediately assumed the same. It has (almost) stopped surprising me how many people are so ignorant about even the most basic facts.
Doesn’t surprise me - I landed in the ER on Halloween 1995 because some ditz didn’t know that ketchup contains tomatoes (to which I am deathly allergic).
If that’s the case, then I would totally agree with a charge of negligent homicide (at least in my non-lawyer understanding of the term ‘negligent homicide’). Not knowing what ‘dairy’ is seems grossly negligent on the face of it to me. To then compound that with not calling for immediate medical assistance definitely consists of a complete failure to take reasonable actions to prevent a death, which considering they caused the situation in the first place, seems to make for a really good description of being both negligent and a homicide (or manslaughter; is ‘negligent manslaughter’ a thing? Cause that actually sounds like it fits a little better, since to me, ‘homicide’ implies some level of intention).
To not hold them accountable for failing to understand basic, common language (it would be different if it were some obscure terminology or word that’s not in common use) seems little different than not holding someone accountable for any number of obvious things no reasonable person would fail to understand. It appears to me somewhat along the lines of, say, starting a campfire with a pile of charcoal briquets and having it turn into a forest fire, then claiming ignorance of the fact that the leaves around the charcoal might catch fire, or ignorance of the fact that the forest itself might burn, because only the charcoal is supposed to burn! It’s not reasonable to be so ignorant unless one is genuinely mentally deficient, in which case it doesn’t seem appropriate to entrust such a person with the care of children.
“Murder” suggests a conscious effort to end someone else’s life. I do not think that is the case here.
Maybe negligent homicide? Different states have different names and lines drawn for this stuff.
Here is one definition. I’m not sure if this is how it is implemented everywhere or even if this site has the right of it:
The OP said:
Maybe you just read the title of the thread but not the whole OP?
Guess so. I did read the OP but somehow not the last line (or it just did not register somehow). :smack:
To be fair murder is a whole different thing from negligent homicide so REALLY bad thread title. Murder must have premeditation.
Yes, I agree.