Opinion
4A
Tuesday, August 18, 2020
Our View
State takes
important
action to
protect kids
W
hat happened to Karly Sheehan
of Corvallis should never happen
again.
She was 3 years old when she died in June
2005 of injuries suffered from her mother’s boy-
friend, Shawn Field.
The Oregon Department of Human Services
and police had investigated suspicions that Karly
was a victim of child abuse. They closed the
case in December 2004 as unfounded. Pictures
showing injuries to Karly were lost. A medical
professional with specialized training in child
abuse did not evaluate her injuries.
The Oregon Legislature took action in 2007.
It passed House Bill 3328, unanimously. The law
became known as Karly’s Law. The law has been
tightened since then, but it basically has three
requirements:
1. When conducting an investigation of a child
who suffered suspicious physical injury, photo-
graphs must be taken immediately.
2. Teams that investigate child abuse must
have a medical professional trained in child
abuse who is regularly available.
3. Investigators who observe a child with sus-
picious physical injury must ensure that such a
trained medical professional conducts a medical
examination of a child within 48 hours.
That’s good. But it’s not good enough. The law
must be followed. There needs to be money to
ensure the investigations happen that way.
Across the state, child advocacy centers, such
as the Mt. Emily Safe Center, La Grande, per-
form that and other work to protect children
from all types of abuse. They are essential. They
can’t just close because of the pandemic. Fund-
raising for most nonprofi ts has plummeted due
to COVID-19. And child advocacy centers only
ever got a fraction of the money they need to
operate from the state, according to Becky Jones,
state executive director for Oregon Child Abuse
Solutions. State funding has covered about 17%
of their costs, Jones said.
But last week, legislators stepped up with
bipartisan approval of $1 million in additional
funding to child advocacy centers. When you
think about where the state and individuals can
make smart investments to protect children and
invest in Oregon’s future, it can be hard to do
better than that.
The Mt. Emily Safe Center website is an
excellent place to start if you want more infor-
mation, www.mtemily.org. Another good place
is the website for Oregon Child Abuse Solutions,
www.oregoncas.org.
Write to us
The Observer welcomes letters to the editor. Letters are limited
to 350 words and must be signed and carry the author’s address
and phone number (for verifi cation purposes only). Email your let-
ters to news@lagrandeobserver.com or mail them to the address
below.
Our View
The limits of contact tracing
C
ontact tracing — until
level of uncertainty is the lim-
views would at a minimum
this year a process
ited nature of contact tracer
yield additional data. And if
familiar mainly to epi- interviews. Oregon Public
ever there was a situation when
demiologists — is elegant in its
Broadcasting and The Ore-
more information is welcome,
simplicity.
gonian recently reported that
surely the coronavirus pan-
Or so it seemed.
contact tracers aren’t asking
demic is that situation.
The idea is to track the
people who tested positive for
The purpose isn’t to target
spread of communicable dis-
COVID-19 whether they’ve
bars, restaurants and gyms,
eases by interviewing people
patronized a bar, restaurant or
many of which have been dev-
who may be infected and fi nd
gym during the period when
astated fi nancially during the
out who they
pandemic. The
have had close
Responses to (contact tracers) questions, besides Oregon Health
contact with and
Authority hasn’t
the obvious benefi t of potentially identifying
thus might have
reported any
sources
of
community
spread
and
making
it
spread the dis-
COVID-19 out-
ease to.
breaks at a bar
possible to deal with those sources, could help
In some
or gym, and
businesses by alerting them to potential gaps in
cases the poten-
the agency has
their COVID-19 precautions.
tial infectious
announced just
encounter is
six relatively
obvious — a person who tests
they might have been infectious. small outbreaks at restaurants,
positive spends a couple of days
Health offi cials from Mult-
involving fi ve to 14 infections.
in a small house with a group of nomah County told The Ore-
But the OHA limits disclosure
friends.
gonian this question isn’t part
of such outbreaks — it doesn’t
But the limitations of contact of contact tracing interviews
announce ones involving fewer
tracing have become apparent
because there aren’t enough
than fi ve people or ones at busi-
in Oregon during the corona-
tracers to track potential infec-
nesses that employ fewer than
virus pandemic. For much of
tions based on places the
30.
this summer, contact tracers
infected person visited, and
But the OHA is unlikely
haven’t been able to deter-
the primary goal is to identify
to reveal latent infection pat-
mine the source of infection for people who might have been in
terns if contact tracers aren’t
more than 40% of Oregonians
close contact with an infected
asking possibly relevant ques-
who tested positive. The rate of person. Those people are then
tions. Responses to those ques-
“mystery” infections recently is asked to voluntarily quarantine
tions, besides the obvious ben-
even higher in some counties,
during the period when they
efi t of potentially identifying
including 62% in Multnomah
might be infectious.
sources of community spread
County, the state’s most pop-
But even if health agencies
and making it possible to deal
ulous, and 67% in Clackamas,
don’t have resources to back-
with those sources, could
which ranks third in population, track every infected person’s
help businesses by alerting
according to The Oregonian.
movements, conducting more
them to potential gaps in their
A potential reason for this
thorough contact tracing inter-
COVID-19 precautions.