19-month-old dies when parents wait too long to get actual medical attention for his meningitis

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: BIGPoJo

Does not matter whether they actually knew what was wrong with the poor wee soul. Any responsible parent would know that there child was in need of medical assistance. Which they obviously did not seek or provide within an appropriate time, they are responsible for the child's death and should be prosecuted.

Yeah lets kick them while they are down. They lost their child, that is punishment enough, they will have to live with this error for ever.

BTW, the law prosecutes based on intent not outcome. Their intent was to treat the illness themselves not let the kid die.

Example. Scenario one; man drives down the street and runs over a kid playing in the street, he is sober and thus ruled an accident. Scenario two; a man drives down the street and runs over a kid playing in the street, his is drunk and thus gets prosecuted. Even if both scenarios are exactly the same and if they were both accidents, the one where alcohol was involved will always be prosecuted because he intended to drive drunk. Law 101.

If they would have brought the kid to the doctor after say four days, would the doctor have tested for meningitis? It isn't actually common in kids. They would have probably given the parents instructions on a virus treatment or maybe they would have prescribed a mild antibiotic.

We would have brought our kid in after about three or four days and that would be the response we would have gotten. Back again in another four days when the treatment didn't work. Been through that, same with the daughter with her kids.. My question is whether the doctor would have diagnosed meningitis.

originally posted by: rickymouse
If they would have brought the kid to the doctor after say four days, would the doctor have tested for meningitis? It isn't actually common in kids. They would have probably given the parents instructions on a virus treatment or maybe they would have prescribed a mild antibiotic.

We would have brought our kid in after about three or four days and that would be the response we would have gotten. Back again in another four days when the treatment didn't work. Been through that, same with the daughter with her kids.. My question is whether the doctor would have diagnosed meningitis.

Probably...go to the article that I linked.
The mother told an officer on tape that one of her friends, who is a nurse, said the child probably had meningitis. They started giving the boy maple syrup to treat his meningitis rather than go to a doctor and say, I think our child might have meningitis, could you test for it?

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: BIGPoJo

Does not matter whether they actually knew what was wrong with the poor wee soul. Any responsible parent would know that there child was in need of medical assistance. Which they obviously did not seek or provide within an appropriate time, they are responsible for the child's death and should be prosecuted.

Yeah lets kick them while they are down. They lost their child, that is punishment enough, they will have to live with this error for ever.

BTW, the law prosecutes based on intent not outcome. Their intent was to treat the illness themselves not let the kid die.

Example. Scenario one; man drives down the street and runs over a kid playing in the street, he is sober and thus ruled an accident. Scenario two; a man drives down the street and runs over a kid playing in the street, his is drunk and thus gets prosecuted. Even if both scenarios are exactly the same and if they were both accidents, the one where alcohol was involved will always be prosecuted because he intended to drive drunk. Law 101.

The drunk also never intended anyone to die...
He was negligent and it led to death.
The parents were negligent and it led to death.

originally posted by: rickymouse
If they would have brought the kid to the doctor after say four days, would the doctor have tested for meningitis? It isn't actually common in kids. They would have probably given the parents instructions on a virus treatment or maybe they would have prescribed a mild antibiotic.

We would have brought our kid in after about three or four days and that would be the response we would have gotten. Back again in another four days when the treatment didn't work. Been through that, same with the daughter with her kids.. My question is whether the doctor would have diagnosed meningitis.

That's completely irrelevant.

This is a quote from the boy's mother as relayed by their naturopath in the court hearing:

Lexie Vataman, who fills holistic prescriptions at the Lethbridge Naturopathic Medical Clinc, told a jury Wednesday that she received a call from Collet Stephan in March 2012.

"She needed something to build up her baby's immune system," said Vataman.

"She said, 'My baby might have a form of meningitis and we think it might be viral and not bacterial."'
Vataman said she asked if Stephan had taken her son to a medical doctor. She said Collet replied that a friend who was a nurse was keeping an eye on him and he didn't have a fever.

According to reports, her nurse friend told her that she thought the boy could have meningitis.


So, if you take your child to a doctor (a real one that is, not someone pretending to be one) and you say to them that you think they may have meningitis, what do you think the real doctor would do?


Here's another snippet:
During an recorded interview on March 15, 2012, Collet Stephan told RCMP that Ezekiel's body was too stiff to get him into his car seat. The couple put a mattress in the back of their vehicle to take him to the naturopath.
David Stephan told an officer during his interview that he and his wife had come up with a "game plan" to give Ezekiel additional natural remedies for meningitis and, if the treatment didn't help, they would take him to a hospital.

So the boy's having some sort of muscle spasms and they think the best course of action is to take him to a naturopath?
Seriously?


When I counter alternative "health" nonsense on here, certain people question why I do it. I get called everything under the sun.

But this is the reason...you see that up there ^^^^^?
It's to try to prevent that happening.



Oh, if you're concerned about the family you'll be glad to know they've set up a web-site for donations to help fight their case.
Really! Yes they have.
Sometimes I weep for humanity.

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: RainbowPhoenix
The parents obviously thought it was something they could manage themselves. They were not aware of the severity of the child's condition. When they realized it was something more serious than a common cold, they sought professional help.

They knew he was seriously ill and that he may have meningits. Their friend, a registered nurse, advised to take him to the doctors and they didn't. The father said that one day the baby's body was too stiff to make him sit in his car seat, so they put a mattress in the back of the car and took him to a naturopath!!! Not a doctor. They asked for something to 'build up the baby's immune system'... their ignorance killed their gorgeous child.

Most of the blame falls on the shoulder of the medical industry.

No, the blame is on ignorant parents who don't understand the science behind the pathophysiology of diseases.
They waited two weeks, they had plenty of time to visit a real doctor.

originally posted by: DaphneApollo
Were they young parents? You have no link to story.

Nope, they are 32 and 35!

originally posted by: rickymouse
If they would have brought the kid to the doctor after say four days, would the doctor have tested for meningitis? It isn't actually common in kids. They would have probably given the parents instructions on a virus treatment or maybe they would have prescribed a mild antibiotic.

Or perhaps they would have admitted the baby to hospital seeing that his body was already stiff, a clear sign of meningitis. But instead of seeking the help of a health professional who would have recognized such a clear symptom, they took the baby to a naturopath to get some echinacea.


Here is another link to the story... my heart goes to the baby's siblings, I fear for their lives if they are allowed to live with their parents.

www.cbc.ca...

originally posted by: the owlbear

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: BIGPoJo

Does not matter whether they actually knew what was wrong with the poor wee soul. Any responsible parent would know that there child was in need of medical assistance. Which they obviously did not seek or provide within an appropriate time, they are responsible for the child's death and should be prosecuted.

Yeah lets kick them while they are down. They lost their child, that is punishment enough, they will have to live with this error for ever.

BTW, the law prosecutes based on intent not outcome. Their intent was to treat the illness themselves not let the kid die.

Example. Scenario one; man drives down the street and runs over a kid playing in the street, he is sober and thus ruled an accident. Scenario two; a man drives down the street and runs over a kid playing in the street, his is drunk and thus gets prosecuted. Even if both scenarios are exactly the same and if they were both accidents, the one where alcohol was involved will always be prosecuted because he intended to drive drunk. Law 101.

The drunk also never intended anyone to die...
He was negligent and it led to death.
The parents were negligent and it led to death.

The parents haven't been negligent in the slightest though, not one bit.
Everything they did was a deliberate act it's just that the outcome wasn't what they hoped for.

And don't forget to donate...

a reply to: DaphneApollo

I saw the pictures on MSN. He was the youngest of three, so they were not inexperienced parents.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

The family had a friend who was a trained nurse tell them that the child needed more than the care they were providing, but they chose to soldier on.

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: RainbowPhoenix

I was going to say meningitis is flu like with symptoms and can be an overnight killer... But then I read that he was ill for two weeks and now I hold my head in despair.

It's important to understand that he apparently had viral meningitis, not bacterial, which is a very different. Most people recover from it on their own, and there is no specific treatment, so the parents' own stuff was likely doing nothing either for or against and he could have gotten there on his own.

The tragic part is that these parents were so wrapped up in their own paranoia that they refused to see how sick he was and when he wasn't getting better to at least get him seen and monitored. A viral illness isn't one that responds to anti-bacteria anyhow so supportive care was all that could have been done, but it might have made the difference if they were aware of how serious things really were.

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: BIGPoJo

Does not matter whether they actually knew what was wrong with the poor wee soul. Any responsible parent would know that there child was in need of medical assistance. Which they obviously did not seek or provide within an appropriate time, they are responsible for the child's death and should be prosecuted.

Yeah lets kick them while they are down. They lost their child, that is punishment enough, they will have to live with this error for ever.

BTW, the law prosecutes based on intent not outcome. Their intent was to treat the illness themselves not let the kid die.

Example. Scenario one; man drives down the street and runs over a kid playing in the street, he is sober and thus ruled an accident. Scenario two; a man drives down the street and runs over a kid playing in the street, his is drunk and thus gets prosecuted. Even if both scenarios are exactly the same and if they were both accidents, the one where alcohol was involved will always be prosecuted because he intended to drive drunk. Law 101.

Intent is irrelevant in the eyes of the law.

The parents are most certainly negligent in this case given that they waited two weeks before seeing a doctor when the child was obviously sick. I get that children get sniffles all the time. My own son does. I don't call our pediatrician at the first sign of a snot bubble, but I do take his temperature and monitor him constantly. If it goes on longer than two days, I then call pediatrician and discuss symptoms. Often times, she says do nothing, sometimes she says give simple cold medicine. Sometimes she says bring him for examination. The point is you don't just say I'm going to give my kid some Aunt Jemima and rub a fig leaf on his forehead like some backwater South American tribe used to do for two freaking weeks.

Many crimes are committed with no intent of ill will by perpetrators. How many times have you seen someone crying in court that "They didn't mean to do it..."

Drunk driver's typically aren't intending to kill anyone, but if they get in an accident, they most certainly will be prosecuted regardless.

I do believe that we are over prescribing drugs, etc but at the same time you have to use some common sense and logic.

originally posted by: the owlbear

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: BIGPoJo

Does not matter whether they actually knew what was wrong with the poor wee soul. Any responsible parent would know that there child was in need of medical assistance. Which they obviously did not seek or provide within an appropriate time, they are responsible for the child's death and should be prosecuted.

Yeah lets kick them while they are down. They lost their child, that is punishment enough, they will have to live with this error for ever.

BTW, the law prosecutes based on intent not outcome. Their intent was to treat the illness themselves not let the kid die.

Example. Scenario one; man drives down the street and runs over a kid playing in the street, he is sober and thus ruled an accident. Scenario two; a man drives down the street and runs over a kid playing in the street, his is drunk and thus gets prosecuted. Even if both scenarios are exactly the same and if they were both accidents, the one where alcohol was involved will always be prosecuted because he intended to drive drunk. Law 101.

The drunk also never intended anyone to die...
He was negligent and it led to death.
The parents were negligent and it led to death.

He intended to drive drunk.

2nd.

a reply to: Edumakated

The problem I do have with this is where does it cross the line?

These parents are on the other side of the line from the religious folks who believe that some things are God's will.

You can cite negligence, but how negligent were they? Clearly they were doing everything they believed was best. To me, that separates them from the parent who locks their kid in the basement and throws away the key for long periods of time, something we also call negligent.

Are those even in the same category?

I am not defending them per se, but I do put them in a slightly different category than the person who locks a kid in a dark corner and doesn't gives flying rat's @ss what happens. Is it just that their idea of "best" looks practically alien to you and I who embrace modern mainstream practices?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Edumakated

The problem I do have with this is where does it cross the line?

These parents are on the other side of the line from the religious folks who believe that some things are God's will.

You can cite negligence, but how negligent were they? Clearly they were doing everything they believed was best. To me, that separates them from the parent who locks their kid in the basement and throws away the key for long periods of time, something we also call negligent.

Are those even in the same category?

I am not defending them per se, but I do put them in a slightly different category than the person who locks a kid in a dark corner and doesn't gives flying rat's @ss what happens. Is it just that their idea of "best" looks practically alien to you and I who embrace modern mainstream practices?

I don't think the parents should be punished to the extent of say the crazy parent that locks their kid in the basement. It is definitely nuanced though. At some point you have to say someone is being willfully negligent.

Children cannot make life and death decisions. If an adult wants to cure their meningitis with syrup and berries, I could careless. If they die as a result, it is on them. However, with children things becomes more nuanced as there is definitely a line that crosses over to child abuse whether intention or not.

Nearly lost my first son this same way almost....
he had a worrisome fever so we took him to a doctor but he told us to give him asprin and come back if things got worse....
By a few hours later his fever unabated we took him to the university hospital...emergency....
They soon diagnosed him and we applied the appropriate treatments...(Anti biotics and an ice water bath....as I recall)
The kid just didn't look that sick either....till the crisis ...
I feel for the parents.....the illness is much like the flu with a super fever...

originally posted by: bandersnatch
Nearly lost my first son this same way almost....
he had a worrisome fever so we took him to a doctor but he told us to give him asprin and come back if things got worse....
By a few hours later his fever unabated we took him to the university hospital...emergency....
They soon diagnosed him and we applied the appropriate treatments...(Anti biotics and an ice water bath....as I recall)
The kid just didn't look that sick either....till the crisis ...
I feel for the parents.....the illness is much like the flu with a super fever...

Good for you.

There's a huge difference to what you did and what they did and that's why you still have your son.

a reply to: ketsuko
Thanks for the explanation.

This is a prime example of how dangerous those alternative cute threads can be.

a reply to: RainbowPhoenix

I have a lot of herbs. A lot. I make tinctures, poultices, salves, and potions. These are for blessings, healing, and my craft work.

Not once have I ever considered treating my daughter for major issues on my own. Whatever Luddite philosophy that drives these people to hate any new advancements in medicine needs to be dragged into the light. Nearly every single pharmaceutical out there is derived from herbal remedies so it's not like modern medicine is ignoring ancient healing wisdom. This is so frustrating to hear.

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

originally posted by: the owlbear

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: BIGPoJo

Does not matter whether they actually knew what was wrong with the poor wee soul. Any responsible parent would know that there child was in need of medical assistance. Which they obviously did not seek or provide within an appropriate time, they are responsible for the child's death and should be prosecuted.

Yeah lets kick them while they are down. They lost their child, that is punishment enough, they will have to live with this error for ever.

BTW, the law prosecutes based on intent not outcome. Their intent was to treat the illness themselves not let the kid die.

Example. Scenario one; man drives down the street and runs over a kid playing in the street, he is sober and thus ruled an accident. Scenario two; a man drives down the street and runs over a kid playing in the street, his is drunk and thus gets prosecuted. Even if both scenarios are exactly the same and if they were both accidents, the one where alcohol was involved will always be prosecuted because he intended to drive drunk. Law 101.

The drunk also never intended anyone to die...
He was negligent and it led to death.
The parents were negligent and it led to death.

He intended to drive drunk.

2nd.

Debatable, not everyone intends to drive drunk. Or they don't think they are to drunk to drive. Intent is often looked for, but it is not the end all be all factor for breaking the law. It all depends on the charge and the language needed to meet it.

originally posted by: Edumakated

Intent is irrelevant in the eyes of the law.

...

That is your opinion, but its false.

Intent Criminal Law

Example, I hit a person in the face because he said somthing I don't like. Simple battery. I hit someone in the face because he is black and I am white. Hate crime.

See the difference between outcome and intent? The state always considers intent.

Example. I murder someone that I caught "in the heat of passion" banging my wife. This gets a lesser charge than waiting to kill the guy a few days later after I plan it. Look up premeditated murder.