EDITORIAL: Medical amnesty for minors hospitalized with alcohol poisoning has waited too long
Medical amnesty for minors who seek medical help while intoxicated should not be delayed any longer.
The Student Government Association, which approved a resolution supporting State House Bill 4372 for this purpose in its meeting Monday night, is on the right track.
Some might argue that the bill, which was introduced in March by state Rep. Mark Meadows, D-East Lansing, would give minors too much freedom to commit an otherwise illegal act. But inspection of the amendments to the bill do not lend this any credence. The new subsection proposed by HB 4372 reads as follows:
“A minor who has consumed alcoholic liquor and who voluntarily presents himself or herself to a health facility or agency for treatment or for observation, any minor who accompanies a minor who has consumed alcoholic liquor and who voluntarily presents himself or herself to a health facility or agency for treatment or for observation and any minor who initiates contact with a peace officer or emergency medical services personnel for the purpose of obtaining medical assistance are not considered in violation of (the law forbidding underage drinking).”
Medical amnesty has sat in legislation for too long for a bill with so much common sense behind it.
It would legitimize underage alcohol abuse just as much as becoming dangerously ill from drinking encourages people to do it again the next weekend. That is to say, not at all.
Drinking to the point of self-harm is never good, but minors who do so will be punished enough by hospital fees and a horrible hangover for the next week without being stuck with an MIP.
Lives are put in jeopardy because underage kids at a party feel afraid to call an ambulance for their passed-out friend.
In addition to those with alcohol poisoning, the bill would keep those experiencing a non-alcohol related medical emergency from worrying about getting help because they have imbibed.
Even the Mount Pleasant Police Department only writes MIPs at the hospital “less than a percent” of the time, according to a 2010 Central Michigan Life interview with Public Information Officer Jeff Browne.
If even those responsible for enforcing the law do not feel it is right to uphold, why does it remain unchanged on the books?
This topic has been the subject of a CM Life editorial before and it will be again if this issue goes another year without resolution.
How many kids have to sweat as they decide between potentially saving a life and not getting an MIP on their record until medical amnesty is enacted?
