Remember the year 2009, when swine flu was all the rage? Back then, child-ren who absented themselves from school on account of sickness or infection were obliged to present two medical certificates upon their return – one justifying and attesting to their illness, and the other, to their clean bill of health; a measure intended to ensure that they were no longer contagious or carrying remnants of any virus.

I’m not sure what happened to that particular pearl of wisdom and protocol but I can hardly imagine that it stood the test of time or amounted to anything.

What I definitely do remember about 2009 is that schools were very reluctant to accept glazed and glassy-eyed children with the mildest of runny noses or the beginnings of a cough.

Back then, the prevailing philosophy was that prevention was definitely better than cure. Parents were urged to keep children away for as long as possible and only to send them when all was well – later rather than sooner.

Five years later, in what seems to be a turnabout move designed to get a handle on truancy, the State is threatening to require parents to produce medical certificates for every single day that their children are away from school.

As the system stands now, children can apparently avail themselves of a three-day grace period a month (approximately 27 days sick leave in a scholastic year) and not have to justify their absence with a medical certificate – which seems pretty reasonable, to my mind.

I took the liberty of accessing some of my son’s school records before writing this. On average and for the first eight years of his school life, as far as I can tell, my son missed between four to eight days of school per scholastic year – give or take. I’d be very surprised if any of those days were actually covered by a medical certificate.

In Year 9 – the Form 3 equivalent – in a rather unusual departure from the norm, he was absent for 16 days, three of which were unusually covered by a medical certificate.

I say unusually, because I don’t automatically equate being unwell with needing a doctor. In fact, I never feel the need to rush to a doctor whenever I happen to feel out of sorts or in need a 24-, or even 48-, hour time-out. It’s not unusual for me to wake up with a sore throat, a splitting headache or generally feeling run down and completely sapped of energy.

When that happens, rather than face the world with a weakened immune system, feeling like a rag and risk contracting a full blown sickness (or passing something on), I give myself a day or two off and recharge my batteries. Naturally, what’s good for the goose is certainly good for the gander – or the gosling in this case. If my son has a sore throat, a cough, bad tummy or is looking the worse for wear, he stays at home for a day or two. And, no, we don’t call the doctor.

I can appreciate a situation where three consecutive absent days and longer would necessitate a medical certificate. I can also appreciate a situation where select individuals who are systematically absent would have to be clamped down on and seriously monitored.

But, to create a blanket requirement across the board where isolated ‘one offs’ have got to be covered by a medical certificate will ultimately do more harm than good and could lead to a far more pernicious situation. It’s an altogether unwelcome burden on families, doctors, schools and ultimately the State.

I do fear that rather than go through the rigmarole and hassle of procuring a medical certificate – which is undeniably time consuming, costly and impractical – children who are clearly not up to going to school might now find themselves there ‘by force’.

I reckon that this is definitely something that ought to be tackled on a case-by-case basis and not at macro level. Schools are certainly in a position to zoom in on the individual cases which require surveillance.

• Thokozile Matilda Masipa, the South African judge who presided over the hotly debated Oscar Pistorius case, effectively ruled that firing a gun through a closed door four times and killing someone in the process was not indisputable proof of an intention to kill. The judge’s decision, finding Pistorius guilty of negligent or culpable homicide instead, has been criticised as negligent at best.

Requiring parents to produce medical certificates for every single day that their children are away from school is an unwelcome burden on families, doctors, schools and ultimately the State

I am not here to discuss the merits of that decision but I dread to think what would have happened had a jury or a judge returned the same sort of verdict here. You know, how can you shoot (stab) someone four (14) times and not intend to kill?

Does that sound vaguely familiar and reminiscent of one of our recent trial verdicts which came under fire? If nothing else, at least we can take comfort in knowing that justice apparently ‘not being served’ particularly when it comes to crimes where women are killed or maimed by men, is an issue the world over.

The verdict, which undoubtedly will be appealed, might serve as a lesson to the vast number of critics out there, who frequently choose to pass judgment, making their mind up with crystal clarity about matters they know next to nothing about.

What this verdict has shown is that you can showcase a trial for the world to see but ultimately when it comes to meting out a sentence, you’re on your own. It’s between you, the evidence and your conscience and there can be no room for hype or emotion.

You can’t decide a case based on conjecture, public opinion or on what everyone else expects. The law shouldn’t ever be used to settle scores – political, emotional – or to win public approval. However passionately and strongly everyone else may feel, being a judge is essentially a lonely and dispassionate business.

michelaspiteri@gmail.com

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.