Alcohol Issues &DUI Defense hudson on 19 May 2007 05:29 pm
DIABETES:Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don’t.
Recently a terrible accident occurred in Santa Clara County. John Mayfield, a diabetic, suffered some sort of lapse from low glucose levels. Rapid and unpredictable swings in glucose, blood sugar, levels is one of the main aspects of diabetes. It is for this reason that responsible diabetics regularly monitor their food intake and their sugar levels. In order to keep a “normal” blood sugar level, they adjust their insulin according to some general guidelines. However, this is not an exact science.
By all accounts this is what Mr. Mayfield had done prior to his driving back in July. Unfortunately, and with no warning, his sugar level dropped and an accident ensued. Mr. Mayfield’s truck lost control, flipped over and exited the freeway. The vehicle then collided with another truck, they burst in to flames and the passengers in the other vehicle died. Obviously a horrendous accident.
BUT THAT IS WHAT IT WAS, AN ACCIDENT. Mr. Mayfield did not intend to go in to diabetic shock. He did not disregard the warning signs. He did not overindulge. He did what is responsible, and more importantly, WHAT WAS REQUIRED BY LAW.
You see, in California, and most every state, people with certain medical conditions, such as diabetes or epilepsy, which may lead to lapse of control, can only drive if a doctor indicates the condition is under control from medication, such as insulin, and is relatively unlikely to occur. Such as Mr. Mayfield. In fact, it is unclear if Mr. Mayfield had ever suffered a similar situation.
So Mr. Mayfield was left with a choice; drive without his taking insulin, which violates his medical protocol, or take the insulin as directed. He did the prudent act, took his medication after checking his levels. It was not enough, and despite his intelligent and responsible actions, the accident occurred.
Now the District Attorney wants to prosecute John for driving under the influence of drugs; the drug being his insulin. So John is damned for what he did. Of course, we can easily surmise that had John NOT taken the required medication he would be charged with a crime for that omission, damned if he didn’t.
Not every event in life, no matter how tragic, is a crime. Accidents happen despite the best intentions and precautions of all involved. The mere fact that a death or deaths occurred does not elevate the event from tragedy to manslaughter. Prosecuting John Mayfield is the definition of persecution.
2 Responses to “DIABETES:Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don’t.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
on 07 Feb 2009 at 9:13 pm 1.madyankee said …
Reading this post has made my blood boil, anyone who has been following this case as I have realizes that
a: Mr. Mayfield did not take his medication as prescribed…in fact he skipped his morning dose and later that day double dosed his insulin so you comment “BUT THAT IS WHAT IT WAS, AN ACCIDENT. Mr. Mayfield did not intend to go in to diabetic shock. He did not disregard the warning signs. He did not overindulge. He did what is responsible, and more importantly, WHAT WAS REQUIRED BY LAW” is simply ignorant and uninformed.
b: “BUT THAT IS WHAT IT WAS, AN ACCIDENT. Mr. Mayfield did not intend to go in to diabetic shock. He did not disregard the warning signs. He did not overindulge. He did what is responsible, and more importantly, WHAT WAS REQUIRED BY LAW”
No, he did not do what was required by law. 2 innocent college students were burned to death by this idiot and I must say I am pleased the State of California chooses to prosecute him, impaired driving is the same as drunk driving.
My brother, Patrick Smith was killed by a hypoglycemic driver in December 2007 by a man who chose to not check his blood sugar levels before or after taking his insulin AND did not eat a meal with his Humalog as directed on the bottle….
I say burn in hell Mayfield.
Michael Smith
on 22 Feb 2009 at 11:43 am 2.jlbernst said …
“Mr. Mayfield did not intend to go in to diabetic shock. He did not disregard the warning signs. He did not overindulge. He did what is responsible, and more importantly, WHAT WAS REQUIRED BY LAW.”
This is untrue, and dishonest for you to post. When he believed his insulin injection failed, he drove to Longs drugs for a new one without checking his blood first. He believed he didn’t get the insulin he needed, yet he still made the conscious choice to get in his car and drive. Is that not negligent? After getting to Longs and injecting himself in the parking lot with more insulin, he then got in his car, without checking his blood, and headed back to his motel. He, again, made the conscious decision to drive unsure of his blood glucose levels. How is that responsible?
“In fact, it is unclear if Mr. Mayfield had ever suffered a similar situation.”
Untrue. He does have a history of not managing his diabetes, and he’s been hospitalized in the past for it. He neglected to go to diabetes education classes recommended by his doctor.
“So Mr. Mayfield was left with a choice; drive without his taking insulin, which violates his medical protocol, or take the insulin as directed. He did the prudent act, took his medication after checking his levels. It was not enough, and despite his intelligent and responsible actions, the accident occurred.”
Untrue. He never checked his levels, not once. The responsible and intelligent action, and correct choice, would have been to not drive immediately after injecting yourself with insulin.
“Of course, we can easily surmise that had John NOT taken the required medication he would be charged with a crime for that omission, damned if he didn’t.”
This is true. If he hadn’t taken the medication and caused two fatalities, he would still be negligent for not checking his blood.
“Not every event in life, no matter how tragic, is a crime. Accidents happen despite the best intentions and precautions of all involved.”
What precautions were involved in this case?