Would you break the law to save your daughter?

Today I want to share a story that has gone viral across Europe—a story about a father who, in his attempt to save his daughter’s life, inadvertently put her in danger. It’s a complex, contradictory situation: last year, a father found his daughter at home suffering from severe abdominal pain; she was unresponsive. While the exact diagnosis isn’t specified, it is described as a metastatic illness, with nodules affecting her back—the poor girl must have been in terrible pain. In a desperate rush to reach the hospital in Cuenca—this took place in the province of Cuenca—the father drove his car at 228 kilometers per hour.

As it happens, he was caught by a speed camera. Driving at 228 km/h constitutes a criminal offense, which creates a difficult dilemma. The man spent over a year—nearly two—in a legal battle, until he was finally vindicated. Initially, however, he was found guilty; even though he explained why he was speeding, the court rejected his reasoning. This isn’t to suggest that the judges acted in bad faith, but it does highlight a flaw in our system and our laws. It seems that because so much effort is focused on legislation that serves other—often self-serving—agendas, there is a lack of robust legal framework to address these kinds of injustices that can arise in the everyday lives of ordinary citizens.

This took place at 5:37 a.m. on April 17, 2025. A Mercedes was traveling at high speed along a road in Cuenca; in the back seat, an 11-year-old girl was complaining incessantly—crying, feeling nauseous, and unable to find a position that would ease her pain. Her father, acting on instinct, floored the accelerator without considering the consequences. Naturally, he ended up being convicted: a speed camera caught him, the case went to trial, and he was sentenced to a year and a half of mandatory visits to soldiers.

The radar clocked him at 228 kilometers per hour in a 120 km/h zone—nearly double the limit. But consider this: the driver was heading to the oncology (cancer) unit with his child. Now, where does the issue lie? Beyond the child’s illness—and I truly, from the bottom of my heart, hope they pull through—the problem is that upon arrival at the hospital, the child was given medication for pain and nausea (as the poor thing was suffering from severe nausea). The child responded to this, but it was merely "symptomatic treatment"—not a curative treatment for the underlying disease.

Often, when doctors or veterinarians—and this happens 90% of the time—don’t have a clear diagnostic method to definitively identify what is affecting a patient (whether human or animal), the approach is to target the most prominent symptom: an antipyretic for a fever, an antiemetic for vomiting, or an analgesic for pain. This is how things are often handled, and it’s a common practice everywhere.

Despite the confirmed and recognized nature of the child’s illness, the Criminal Court No. 1 of Cuenca remained unmoved. On June 26, 2025, the court convicted the driver of a crime against road safety. Accounting for the radar’s margin of error, the speed was adjusted to 218.88 km/h—still well above the established limits. The sentence consisted of a fine to be paid over 9 months, at a rate of €6 per day, totaling €1,620. The father naturally objected—I mean, the man likely has some means, or at least he has money (since I assume he hasn’t passed away, and I certainly hope the child hasn’t either). This really highlights the bad faith on the part of the prosecution: they filed an appeal and pushed to uphold the conviction, even though they are fully aware of the medical condition in question. But what is their argument? They claim that what was administered was merely symptomatic treatment—that it wasn’t, to put it in a way that makes sense to you, an actual flare-up of the disease.

This is where you begin to understand a few things. The magistrate stated that the care the child required could not be considered an emergency that put her life at risk; therefore, driving at full speed was not deemed justified or well-founded in this instance. But just imagine—if you were the parent, what would you do? Are you a doctor? Do you have a diagnosis at that exact moment of what is happening to your child? A child might vomit because of their cancer, or perhaps—I don’t know—simply because something they ate didn’t agree with them. (I’m just using that as an example.)

Unless you’re a doctor, you’d find yourself in a desperate spot. Faced with uncertainty regarding my own daughter, I wouldn’t hesitate—I’d drive as fast as I could. My point is that there’s a clear lack of sensitivity here. Of course, having a child with such a condition doesn’t give you a "blank check" to speed or do whatever you please. But in a specific situation like this—on a weekend, with your child in that state, and with the hospital staff recognizing that your arrival is directly linked to the belief that the symptoms are related to the child’s illness rather than some unrelated cause—what are you supposed to do?

And when you read the initial court ruling, it states that the situation had to involve a "serious, real, and imminent" danger. But again, the man didn’t have a diagnostic test sitting in his glove compartment to tell him exactly what was happening to his daughter at that moment. It’s incredibly inhumane—laws should always allow for a broader scope in their application.