10
   

Jury convicts mom who withheld cancer meds

 
 
JPB
 
Reply Tue 12 Apr, 2011 04:04 pm
There are so many nuances to this story that I think I would have voted not guilty. How about you? Attempted murder? I don't think so.

Quote:
LAWRENCE, Mass. — A Massachusetts woman who withheld at-home chemotherapy medications from her autistic, cancer-stricken son was convicted of attempted murder Tuesday by jurors who dismissed her claim that she thought the side effects of the treatment could kill him.

snip...

LaBrie will be sentenced Friday morning. She faces a maximum sentence of 20 years on the attempted murder charge, 10 years on a charge of assault and battery on a disabled person, five years on assault and battery on a child causing substantial injury and 2½ years on reckless endangerment of a child. More
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 10 • Views: 4,079 • Replies: 73

 
lockeWiggins
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Apr, 2011 04:11 pm
@JPB,
Well in my opinion she did kill that boy, but im conflicted because I do believe that parenting is one of the many rights that the american adult has been relieved of. It is sad to see a child in such a situation, but call me old school I feel that it is her child and if she chooses to take his life its her motherly right (Given no objections by the father).
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Apr, 2011 04:27 pm
@lockeWiggins,
lockeWiggins wrote:

It is sad to see a child in such a situation, but call me old school I feel that it is her child and if she chooses to take his life its her motherly right (Given no objections by the father).


First of all, how is that opinion 'old school'?

Secondly, it appears she didn't 'choose to take his life', she thought she was helping him.

Thirdly, I've never heard of taking your child's life as a 'motherly right'... what the hell are the rest of the motherly rights?
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Apr, 2011 04:30 pm
@lockeWiggins,
lockeWiggins wrote:
(Given no objections by the father).


on another thread where this is discussed, it was pointed out that the original complaint was made by the father
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Tue 12 Apr, 2011 04:33 pm
I can see where she thought the boy was too frail to withstand the treatments. After watching what it did to my brother, I can't condemn anyone for opposing it. He told me, "If I knew then what I know now, I would have refused chemotherapy."
JPB
 
  3  
Reply Tue 12 Apr, 2011 04:42 pm
@lockeWiggins,
I don't think she killed him. Cancer killed him. That's why I don't see this as attempted murder. Some of the lesser charges may be appropriate, but I don't think I would have voted to convict there either.

I don't get the "motherly right" thing. That's not old school. It's more like medieval.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Apr, 2011 04:44 pm
@ehBeth,
Other thread?

oops. I looked and didn't see one.

Multiple nuances where the father is concerned too.
Quote:
LaBrie and the boy's father, Eric Fraser, had a contentious relationship. LaBrie said she received very little help from him, even after their son was diagnosed with cancer.

After doctors discovered LaBrie had withheld the medications, Jeremy went to live with his father for the last year of his life. Eric Fraser was killed in a motorcycle accident seven months after his son died.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Apr, 2011 04:46 pm
@edgarblythe,
Yep, it can see it too, edgar.

This is a case where the state is saying that she's a criminal for not giving him his chemotherapy. I don't think I could get there.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  3  
Reply Tue 12 Apr, 2011 05:05 pm
I could probably go along with letting her off the hook except for this:

Quote:
Jeremy's oncologist, Dr. Alison Friedmann of Massachusetts General Hospital, had testified that she told LaBrie her son's cancer had a cure rate of 85 percent to 90 percent under a two-year, five-phase treatment plan that included some hospital stays, regular visits to the hospital clinic to receive chemotherapy treatments and at-home administration of several cancer medications.


So.... I don't know how I would have decided if I'd been on the jury.

My city has recently cracked down on people failing to treat their sick children with medicine because they believe God will do the work. I'm completely in favor of ending that exemption. I don't think parents should get to decide whether their child lives or dies when there are treatments available.

JPB
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Apr, 2011 05:11 pm
@boomerang,
Yeah, that's why I think some of the lesser charges may hit my litmus test - still not sure.

Not the case here apparently, but what if the family is uninsured or under-insured? Do you still think they are criminally negligent if they don't give a child any and all available treatments?
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Apr, 2011 05:30 pm
@JPB,
I think society is criminally negligent if they don't give the child available treatments.

If someone is in that position they might not even get a diagnosis until it's too late.

I wish I had the answers.
0 Replies
 
dadpad
 
  2  
Reply Tue 12 Apr, 2011 05:38 pm
As a matter of case law I think the verdict should stand. If not then myriad other looney nutters with children who would otherwise lead a normal life would take advantage.

A serverly autistic non verbal developmetaly delayed child would not have a great quality of life and serverly restrict the quality of life for the mother. If the state is willing to punish the mother for making the decision she did then the state shoud take responsibility for the lives of such children when parents are no longer in a state to do so.

However individual cases should be judged on its merits. My feeling In this case is any punishment should be quite lenient given the circumstances.

I see similarities with cases of "do not rescusitate". A loyal and trusted partner is required to make the call when treament will only prolong pain and low quality of life.
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Apr, 2011 05:41 pm
@dadpad,
Quote:
f the state is willing to punish the mother for making the decision she did then the state shoud take responsibility for the lives of such children when parents are no longer in a state to do so.


That happens -- the state takes over it's called therapeutic foster care.
lockeWiggins
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Apr, 2011 06:09 pm
@Mame,
Lol have you read up on the story before you posted this, she neglected him throughout his death. It wasnt as if she was right there by his side, caring for him and confessing her love untill he passed. She did this for herself, to rid herself of the burden. however, as i said im old school not 1950's old school biblical old school and I believe that a parents rights are just that a parents rights, which include discipline as well as the right to take that childs life if they deem it necessary... (also it cleanses the crazies from the gene pool)
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Apr, 2011 06:14 pm
@lockeWiggins,
Quote:
(also it cleanses the crazies from the gene pool)


Not of crazy, murderous mothers.
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Apr, 2011 09:31 am
@lockeWiggins,
My understanding of the case is the father did have objections. Unfortunately he died in a motorcycle accident prior to this case so he couldn't be questioned.

She actually lost custody of the child to his father after doctors realized the boy was not taking medication. According to the report this was treatable lymphoma so neglicting the medication would cause death.

Also, recently, the state Supreme Judicial Court, determined in a previous case that parents have a legal duty to provide medical care for gravely ill children, regardless of religious faith.

According to the law (whether you agree with or not) in MA is should be guilty as she did not provide medical (and even in this case prevented) care for the child. The jurors actually said they did not want to say guilty, but under the law she was.

Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Apr, 2011 09:34 am
@Linkat,
That being said - I doubt she will get much of a sentence - it does appear there is sympathy on her side.
0 Replies
 
lockeWiggins
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Apr, 2011 09:48 am
@boomerang,
CRAZY MURDEROUS MOTHER KILLS HER CHILDREN WHAT DOES THAT MEAN.
YES HER CRAZY MURDEROUS GENES CLEANSED FROM THE GENE POOL!
0 Replies
 
lockeWiggins
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Apr, 2011 09:54 am
@Linkat,
Yes legally the case was cut and dry,
but ethically I think the courts play way too much of a role in decisions of parenting. It is the job of the parent to work in the best interest of their child, its a primitive instinct that make mothers protect their children. But just like in nature if a mother feels that she cant provide for her child, and it would be better off dead she will not hesitate to kick it out of her nest. This is natural, as natural as the survival instinct and should be protected as such.

of course some people will take advantage of their children, such as fathers raping daughters and mothers such as the "a child called it" mother. Yet still this is their way of parenting and it should be protected.
contrary to what is currently the legal precedent.
Mame
 
  2  
Reply Wed 13 Apr, 2011 01:48 pm
@lockeWiggins,
lockeWiggins wrote:

Yes legally the case was cut and dry,
but ethically I think the courts play way too much of a role in decisions of parenting. It is the job of the parent to work in the best interest of their child, its a primitive instinct that make mothers protect their children. But just like in nature if a mother feels that she cant provide for her child, and it would be better off dead she will not hesitate to kick it out of her nest. This is natural, as natural as the survival instinct and should be protected as such.

of course some people will take advantage of their children, such as fathers raping daughters and mothers such as the "a child called it" mother. Yet still this is their way of parenting and it should be protected.
contrary to what is currently the legal precedent.


I think you mean "cut and dried".

Not all mothers have that protective, nurturing instinct. You think it's 'natural' for a mother think if her child would be "better off dead she will kick it out of the nest"??? Did that happen to you? Is that why you think that? Why would a mother think the child would be better off dead in the first place? And if a mother does think all that and kick it out, she should be protected because it's 'natural'?

Yikes. I think you must have been dropped on your head as a baby... probably by your mother, for some kind of instinctive reason.
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Jury convicts mom who withheld cancer meds
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/24/2021 at 09:43:32