(no subject)

[theweaselking]

Batshit crazy people reject medicine, prefer asking their invisible friend for help, up on criminal negligence causing death[1] charges over toddler denied treatment.

[1]: Oddly, a much more serious charge in Canada than in the US.

Comments

[autobotsrollout.livejournal.com]

It's a more serious charge here because we equate it with manslaughter as opposed to having it be its own distinct charge.

In the linked case, it would be a pretty clear-cut charge for crim neg manslaughter, but these things vary. Canadian jurisprudence is very reluctant to condemn religious belief where it is a certainty; there's one notable case, R v. Tutton and Tutton, where the defendant mother, who believed strongly in faith healing, literally had a vision from Christ (or so she thought), telling her her son was no longer diabetic, and you can guess what happened when he didn't get his insulin.

The Supreme Court found them innocent, differing from previous cases of religious families refusing to treat children because the court found a total lack of mens rea: the belief in a religious vision was considered to remove doubt to the extent that the parents were not able to consider the possibility of harm.

But that's a very extreme case.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

Oh Christ, that poor woman.

(I'm not minimizing the child's death, here. I just can't imagine what it'd be like to know that your child had no reason to die and then have them die like that.)

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

I feel very little sympathy for her. She allowed something that was obviously not true to trump reality, and then didn't do anything when her son kept getting sick, *just as if her blatantly false vision was blatantly false*.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

> She allowed something that was obviously not true to trump reality

And I feel sorry for her because I don't think she could have done otherwise.

I can't even begin to imagine how bad I'd feel if I knew for a fact--if I'd been told by someone who absolutely could know and provide that kind of guarantee--that Toby was perfectly healthy and was going to be perfectly healthy and I could stop giving him his special diet, and then he blocked up and died two days later.

And this was her *child*.

You can call someone batshit crazy. You can hate the results. You can hate what they did. But if you're actually going to call them crazy, then it's not fair to simply treat them as if they were sane and lazy.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

And if that person was your *magic invisible friend* and there's absolutely no indication that he exists? And his "prediction" record is (within the margin of error) 0?

Hell, it's even clear that she *knew* she was insane.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

> And if that person was your *magic invisible friend* and there's
> absolutely no indication that he exists?

If I know it to be true, and have indications of his presence, why would I doubt it?

> And his "prediction" record is (within the margin of error) 0?

What prediction record? (Also: even I have a pretty fuzzy idea of what the margin of error is, and I'm passingly interested in stats. I'm not sure how or if she'd calculate it.)

> Hell, it's even clear that she *knew* she was insane.

Reference?

If she hadn't gotten the insulin for some other reason, if she'd chosen to blow it off--hell, I'd be there sharpening the hatchet for you.

But if she is insane, if her mind is not functioning correctly, if she *cannot* behave properly, if she could not honestly conceive that giving him insulin would do any good and was sure that it would instead harm him[1], if she had *no conception* that what she was doing could lead to her child's death--why any less sympathy than for anyone else?

Edited to remove inaccuracy re: no sympathy.
---
[1] 'cause I might be fuzzy on statistical margin of error, but even I'm pretty sure that you don't give insulin to someone who isn't diabetic.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Reference?

Had a LITERAL vision of Christ.

Right there: You *know* you're insane, at that point.

if she had *no conception* that what she was doing could lead to her child's death--why no sympathy?

Dying from a lack of insulin is *slow*, and deeply unpleasant. Despite her invisible friend's idiotic statements, when she stopped giving her son insulin, he started getting sick *exactly as happens when you have a diabetic who doesn't get insulin*.

And she didn't go to a doctor.

She didn't go to a hospital.

She didn't try to give him insulin.[1]

She didn't even bother to *check* to see if her patently absurd brain-squeezings had anything real to back them up, and so her son died, slowly, and for no reason.

And so I have no sympathy.

[1]: Yes, yes, insert jackass "testing my faith" argument here.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

> Right there: You *know* you're insane, at that point.

No. You would. She didn't.

Neither did anyone who dealt with his parents the last time that they stopped giving him insulin, about a year before he died.

> Despite her invisible friend's idiotic statements, when she stopped
> giving her son insulin, he started getting sick *exactly as happens
> when you have a diabetic who doesn't get insulin*.

Or a non-diabetic who has too much insulin in their system. (Or a five-year-old with stomach flu, which even knowing what was happening is what I think of when I read the statement.) About the only difference in the symptoms is additional thirst and urination; a five-year-old probably can't convey hallucinations very well.

She stopped giving him the insulin on the 14th, and he was in the hospital (and pronounced dead on arrival) by the 17th. And I think it's stupid, and horrible, and I really wish she'd had it in her to check and save that kid's life. And I wish there'd been some way or reason for someone to check on them (although after the last time they stopped giving him insulin for two days, and after they'd been giving him regular doses of it daily for over a year, I suspect even if there'd been cause to check in the first place someone might have grown lax).

And I still feel sorry for her.

[autobotsrollout.livejournal.com]

She allowed something that was obviously not true

This is working from your belief framework. If you have a thoroughly literal belief in Jesus Christ, a religious vision is simply not "obviously not true" by any stretch of the imagination.

In the case of the son, the descent to death was rapid (about twenty-four hours) and he went from "looking kind of sick" to dead very, very quickly, so there was no reasonable basis to argue that she didn't respond fast enough.

I'd like to stress that Tutton is an outlier; the mass of Canadian jurisprudence expects that the reasonable parent will make sure their child receives medical attention when necessary regardless of religious beliefs. Tutton happened because court-order psychological examination backed up the defence's assertion that the woman truly and completely believed in the vision, and that her child was cured.

And honestly, it's tragic. The poor mother (and father) lost their child and their faith in God in one day. That's just shattering.

[catlin.livejournal.com]

They tend not to charge families as much, what they do do here is remove any surviving children from the home.