4 ms·
> I knew a guy who was a surgeon at a big children's hospital. He said that, if a kid came in with damage from abuse, and they didn't detect it and intervene, t
by baobabKoodaa 2y ago
> I knew a guy who was a surgeon at a big children's hospital. He said that, if a kid came in with damage from abuse, and they didn't detect it and intervene, the odds were 50% that the next time they saw the child, it would be dead.
If I interpret this charitably, maybe they only saw the worst of the worst because of their position as a surgeon?
If I interpret this less than charitably, you are implying that a single incidence of child abuse has about 50% fatality rate. This would be simply false. You don't have to go back further in time than 40 years, and it was commonplace for pretty much everybody to beat their children. If 50% was an actual fatality rate for a single incidence, population worldwide would have dwindled due to these fatalities.
- AnimalMuppet 2y agoI think it's like this: If there is child abuse serious enough to require hospitalization, and the authorities don't intervene at that time, the next instance of child abuse serious enough to come to the attention of the authorities has a 50% chance of being fatal. (So I guess that I'm agreeing with your "worst of the worst" interpretation.) In the case in question, the kid was already in the hospital. So at that point, we're at the "worst of the worst" situation... if it's abuse. So they want to be really sure whether it's abuse. Note well: This is not to defend CPS for the things they did in this case. I am merely saying that this is why CPS wants to look very carefully at such cases.