|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's the problem: it could be argued that the child was already dead, and the life support machines were only giving him the appearance of life. I also wouldn't equate turning off life support with murder. People have to make that decision all the time in real life... should we continue to allow an individual to suffer, even though the doctors say there's absolutely no chance of recovery, or do we turn off the life support and let them go?
Now, on the other hand, if the child had a decent chance of recovery, and living on his own, then turning off life support too soon like that *is* unfair to the father (and alleged abuser) because he's being charged with a crime he hadn't committed yet. In that case, he should be charged with child abuse, or maybe attempted murder.
Wow. This one's tough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday December 15, @01:24PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
But if the childs already dead, why charge the father with murder?
I don't think anyone condones the fathers alleged abuse of the kid, its the double standard in what each parent was charged with thats the issue here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But if the childs already dead, why charge the father with murder?
Because his abuse was directly responsible for the child's death in that case. That's the way the law works (at least in the U.S.). If you put someone in the hospital, and that someone dies in the hospital as a result of the wounds inflicted by your actions, you're going to be charged with murder.
So, if the life support machine was simply keeping a corpse breathing, then the child may have died as a direct result of his alleged abusers' actions, and his alleged abuser should therefore be charged with murder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're drunk, or otherwise driving recklessly. You hit another car. The driver of the other car is a Jehovah's Witness. They are taken to the hospital. A blood transfusion will almost certainly save this person's life, but being a devout JH, they refuse the treatment. They die.
Should you be charged with murder? I still don't know what my opinion is on cases like this. Cases involving JH's and refusal of blood transfusions are being played out in appellate courts right now across the nation.
***********************
"I also wouldn't equate turning off life support with murder. People have to make that decision all the time in real life... should we continue to allow an individual to suffer, even though the doctors say there's absolutely no chance of recovery, or do we turn off the life support and let them go?"
If an animal is suffering terribly, and their condition is terminal, we do the humane thing and give the animal a lethal injection. To do otherwise would be considered cruel. Why make the animal suffer needlessly in a situation where there is no hope?
It burns my ass that if I, as a human, contracted a terminal illness and was suffering, I would not have the choice to end my life gently and painlessly. If both my cat and I had terminal cancer, more compassion would be shown to the cat than to me.
I have already told my partner my wishes regarding life support in the event of a catastrophic accident or illness. I don't want it. I want to be let go. He supports my decision, and actually feels the same way on his part.
Whatever the outcome of this particular case, I don't want to see turning off life support equated with murder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It burns my ass that if I, as a human, contracted a terminal illness and was suffering, I would not have the choice to end my life gently and painlessly. If both my cat and I had terminal cancer, more compassion would be shown to the cat than to me.
Hey, Claire, remind me sometime to tell you about Cleopatra the Cat. It's a case I wrote about when I was handling the police beat at a newspaper in Franklin, Tenn. Being an animal lover, you'll appreciate that particular case.
Oh, and that case does relate to this situation, too. Oh, what the hell. I'll go ahead and tell the story.
A young man one night at a party thought it would be fun to torture a cat. Said cat was an adult orange-and-white striped female. IIRC, she was apparently a stray someone had allowed in the house during the party.
Well, this young man kept chasing the cat throughout the house. When he finally caught up with her, he took a surgical scalpel and sliced open her anus. Understandably, the cat screamed and scratched and clawed at the young man.
Well, the cat managed to scratch the young man's arm up. He had the nerve to act surprised: "That damned cat scratched me!" he was reported to have shouted. So, he found some gasoline, doused the cat with it, threw her in the fireplace, and lit her on fire.
The next day, a couple of girls who were also at the party reported the young man's actions to the police. Remarkably, the cat was still alive, and Animal Control officers took her to a local animal hospital. The young man was arrested and charged with animal cruelty.
Cleopatra, the name given to her by Animal Control officers, fought a good fight. She managed to survive for a little more than a month before the veterinarians finally had to put her down.
Now, in Tennessee there is no higher crime for hurting an animal than animal cruelty (which could carry a sentence of 11 months, 29 days in jail and a $1,000 fine), but local animal advocates were screaming for something stronger than that as a result of the cat's injuries depriving the cat of its life. Unfortunately for the advocates, the young man could not be charged with destruction of property to go along with animal cruelty (as he could have been had it been, say, a farmer's cow) because the cat was apparently a stray.
Just before sentencing, the judge asked him "Do you have anything to say for yourself?" His reply was: "What's everybody so upset about? It was just a cat."
The judge slapped him with the maximum she could, but also told him that if she was allowed to give him more time and a higher fine under the law, she would.
This case and others like it have had animal advocates in Tennessee screaming for different degrees of animal cruelty and different punishments for each degree. In other words, they want it to be like justice for humans: if an individual dies as a result of your actions, you can be charged with murder.
Whew. That's a long story. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can definitely see the point of the animal advocates. My first thought would have been to toss homeboy into the fire *G* BUT I'm always afraid they'll push for something that goes too far.
I am against animal rights. Instead, I am an animal welfarist. The difference in wording is very important. Animal rights proponents believe that animals should have the exact same rights as humans. Therefore, they believe that the guy in this case should have faced the same sentence he would have had he done what he did to a person. As much of a piece of shit I think he is, there's something wrong with that.
Many people are probably familiar with Ingrid Newkirk's (head of PETA) statements about how the slaughter of broiler chickens is comparable to the Holocaust, and about how if a cure for AIDS came about through animal testing, PETA would be against it. However, a lot of people who join PETA, including many celebrities, do not realize what PETA stands for.
OTOH, animal welfare proponents believe that humans have dominion over animals, and therefore are responsible for their well-being. We are not against using animals for food, by-products, sport or medical/product testing, so long as the animal is treated humanely and not put through undue suffering.
While in many cases I think the punishments for animal cruelty are too lenient in light of the crimes, especially when someone's beloved pet is killed, I never want to see the murder of an animal carry the same sentence as the murder of a person. There's just something wrong with that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"You're drunk, or otherwise driving recklessly. You hit another car. The driver of the other car is a Jehovah's Witness. They are taken to the hospital. A blood transfusion will almost certainly save this person's life, but being a devout JH, they refuse the treatment. They die.
Should you be charged with murder? "
The answer to this is yes. First JW's will allow blood expanders which are similar to real blood in effects. The real issue is that the entire issue would not have been necessary if the person wasn't drinking. Their death was a result of injuries due to the neglect of another individual regardless of their religious values they hold the cause of the death was the injuries not the need for a blood transfusion. A similar argument would be if a woman got in a car accident and the baby was injured and she needed an abortion to save her life for some reason and refused due to religious/moral reasons.
The real issue is that the mother took the life of a child into her hands. If she consulted a doctor about the chances, fine. If the child was an adult and made their wishes known about life support, fine. She is justified in both these cases, legally and morally. It sounds like that she just arbitrarily decided to end the life of the child on her own. I won't try to defend the actions of the father, you cannot justify abuse.
I feel that the father should be charged with murder but the mother should as well.
"Whatever the outcome of this particular case, I don't want to see turning off life support equated with murder."
I live in Oregon and we have a doctor assisted suicide law that passed twice. Currently the self-righteous DA Ashcroft is attempting to undermine.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mother kills child, what an inflammatory title. The child was on life-support, and not expected to recover. That was a horrible, heartrending situation and I hope that no parent reading this post has ever had to make that decision nor will ever have to. Twisting the context so outrageously is shameful. And yes, the father should be charged with murder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree, it did not read to me like she arbitrariy decided to end the child's life. Sounded to me like the father fought all the way to the Supreme Court to keep her from terminating life support, and he lost. Read the article again - he challenged her guardianship to make health decisions for their son.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
State Supreme Court, that should have said, not US.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
