(no subject)
Sep. 26th, 2005 04:56 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
theweaselking7-year-old-girl dies of AIDS-related pneumonia, because her HIV-positive mother refused to treat her for HIV or have her tested for AIDS, because "HIV doesn't cause AIDS"
She didn't vaccinate either child, believing the shots did more harm than good. She rejected AZT and other anti-AIDS medications as toxic. "I see no evidence that compels me that I should have exposed a developing fetus to drugs that would harm them," she said.
Maggiore hired a midwife and gave birth to her children at home; Charlie was born in an inflatable pool on her living room floor. She wanted to avoid being tested for HIV or pressured to use AZT in a hospital, although technically neither is required by California law.
She breast-fed both children, although research indicates that it increases the risk of transmission by up to 15%.
======================================================
So, this woman did everything in her power to cause her children to get HIV, then refused to treat them for it, refused to go to doctors who would treat them for it, and didn't tell the doctors that the child with the infection was HIV-positive.
Why is this not an open and shut "criminal negligence causing death" case? And why are they even considering allowing this woman to keep and continue to not treat her 3-year-old son?
She didn't vaccinate either child, believing the shots did more harm than good. She rejected AZT and other anti-AIDS medications as toxic. "I see no evidence that compels me that I should have exposed a developing fetus to drugs that would harm them," she said.
Maggiore hired a midwife and gave birth to her children at home; Charlie was born in an inflatable pool on her living room floor. She wanted to avoid being tested for HIV or pressured to use AZT in a hospital, although technically neither is required by California law.
She breast-fed both children, although research indicates that it increases the risk of transmission by up to 15%.
======================================================
So, this woman did everything in her power to cause her children to get HIV, then refused to treat them for it, refused to go to doctors who would treat them for it, and didn't tell the doctors that the child with the infection was HIV-positive.
Why is this not an open and shut "criminal negligence causing death" case? And why are they even considering allowing this woman to keep and continue to not treat her 3-year-old son?
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-28 02:44 pm (UTC)