10
   

Jury convicts mom who withheld cancer meds

 
 
Linkat
 
  2  
Reply Wed 13 Apr, 2011 04:23 pm
@lockeWiggins,
No please don't give me the credit - it is all due to you.
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  2  
Reply Wed 13 Apr, 2011 04:24 pm
@Mame,
I'm peeing my pants....I'm peeing my pants!
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Apr, 2011 04:26 pm
@Linkat,
Smile

Maybe he'll think we're not worth it and bugger off.
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Apr, 2011 04:30 pm
@Mame,
But he's so entertaining! He could be making this up you know - I can't imagine a real human being would think it morally ok to kill their children even someone who thinks its ok to beat a child. That is just plain old whacked.

I gotta go - but this has been a hoot!
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2011 01:42 pm
Quote:
LAWRENCE, Mass. — A woman who withheld potentially life-saving medications from her autistic, cancer-stricken son was sentenced Friday to eight to 10 years in prison by a judge who said her actions "really do chill one's soul."

snip

The judge expressed sympathy for LaBrie, saying she was placed "in an extremely trying and exhausting situation" as a single mother with financial troubles raising a severely autistic boy. He said the cancer diagnosis added to her burden and acknowledged she was under "tremendous pressures."

snip

The sentence was higher than the 5 to 7 1/2 years called for under nonbinding state sentencing guidelines but significantly less than the 15 to 17 years sought by prosecutors

More


I'm still conflicted on this thing. I guess a mid-term sentence is appropriate....

I guess...
dyslexia
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2011 01:59 pm
@JPB,
I'm thinking --- community service in a medical facility for terminally ill children, I don't have any idea what purpose a prison term would serve.
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2011 02:06 pm
@dyslexia,
I agree with you, esp in light of the fact that she was financially burdened, single parenting, and likely very stressed with her child's mental and health conditions. She may have made the wrong decision, but she kept her son with her and I think her sentence was way too harsh. Way. too. harsh.
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2011 03:02 pm
@Mame,
Her son's final year was with his father.

I keep trying to figure out what the 'nuances' to this case are. I don't see them.
sozobe
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2011 03:13 pm
@ehBeth,
For me, a nuance (or at least information that I haven't yet seen) is what his survival chances were at the point that she stopped giving him medication. What I read indicated that his chances of survival were very good at the outset of the whole thing, but she stopped two years in, when (she said) he was doing really badly and she felt like the cancer meds were worse than the cancer.

So:

1.) If she had continued to give him medication (from the point at which she stopped), what was his prognosis?

2.) How bad was he at that point, really, in general? I definitely sympathize with stopping cancer drugs for someone who will be dying soon anyway, to improve the quality of remaining life.

She acted irresponsibly no matter what. But there seems to be a pretty big spectrum of of possible scenarios (just how irresponsibly) from the info I've seen.
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2011 03:33 pm
@sozobe,
I don't think they give enough information in the article to draw that conclusion...

He was diagnosed in 2006. (January? December? That makes a big difference.)

The doctor recommended a 2 year, 5 phase treatment plan.

He lived with his dad for the last year of his life, dying in 2009. (Again, what month of the year makes a big difference.)

So he must have gone to live with his dad in 2008 meaning she stopped giving him drugs at least 5 months prior to that.

He could have just been nearing the end of treatment when she stopped giving him the drugs.
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2011 04:01 pm
@boomerang,
Right.

This has a little more info, and is a little more damning IMO than the original article, though it still doesn't provide all the info I'm looking for:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Autism/kristen-labrie-sentenced-10-years-prison-withholding-sons/story?id=13383251&page=1

Quote:
In October 2006, 9-year-old Jeremy [sic -- he was 6 years old at that point, since he died at age 9 in 2009) was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, but doctors gave him an 85 percent to 90 percent chance of recovery, MacDougall said during the arraignment in 2009. Large doses of chemotherapy were given to the boy in the hospital, and his cancer went into remission.

His mother was given prescriptions for medications he was to be given at home. During the arraignment, MacDougall said LaBrie repeatedly failed to pick up prescriptions but led doctors to believe she was getting them filled, even asking at one point for a liquid version of the medication because her son was having difficulty swallowing pills.

"Miss LaBrie never expressed any misgivings about the treatment," MacDougall said.

In February 2008, after one of Jeremy's doctors called LaBrie's pharmacy and learned she had not been filling prescriptions, LaBrie said the pharmacy must have made a mistake, MacDougall said.

It was at that point that doctors learned the boy's cancer had returned as leukemia and was no longer treatable with chemotherapy, she said. The boy died in 2009.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2011 05:33 pm
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:

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.


I wonder about this. I guess I'm not convinced that given the same circumstances, but a child in foster care due to his autism, would have received the same cancer treatments that he was prescribed in home care. Maybe I'm jaded (and quite possibly naive about state-run care programs), but I don't see the state forcing a severely autistic child to endure cancer treatments.

That's one of the nuances that I'm struggling with. Another is that we simply don't know how severely he reacted to the chemo. Where I do think she failed is in not putting him into state care or paternal custody if she wasn't going to continue the treatments. I think that she was negligent and the charge of reckless endangerment was appropriate.

Soz's new link indicates that she actively tried to convince the docs that she was continuing the treatments when she obviously wasn't. That still doesn't raise the bar to assault and battery and/or attempted murder, imo.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2011 05:35 pm
@dyslexia,
Yeah, I think that would have been appropriate. The prison term is purely punitive.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2011 06:18 pm
Quote:
LaBrie's older son, Matthew, 18, wrote a letter to the judge asking for leniency.

"My mother was nothing but unbelievably kind, caring and completely devoted to Jeremy in every aspect of her life," he wrote.

He described his mother sitting by Jeremy's bedside while he was treated for cancer at Massachusetts General Hospital.

"Something like that takes a toll on a person and after all that, could anybody so easily sit by and watch while a cure is making a child feel worse?"

Jeremy's uncle, Andrew Fraser, spoke to the judge before sentencing, saying he wanted to represent Jeremy and Jeremy's father, Eric, who was killed in a motorcycle accident seven months after Jeremy died.

Andrew Fraser said his brother would have asked for a "fair and just" punishment for LaBrie, despite the contentious relationship they had.

"The jury has spoken and nothing you can do will bring us back my nephew and my brother," he said.

"Somewhere, they are playing ball together and watching over all of us." Yahoo


I just don't see attempted murder.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/24/2021 at 08:43:32