• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mom who withheld son's cancer meds gets 8-10 years

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,164
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
She should have gotten a tougher sentence.
 
I feel sorry for her. That's 2.5 years of being locked up. I don't see her as a threat to society that we need to keep in a cage.
 
I empathize with the immense pressure she was under as a single parent caring for a severely disabled child, and I can understand how adding the horrific burden of cancer into the mix could push one over the top. However, she clearly knew what she was doing was wrong... and she clearly knew her actions could, and probably would, lead to her child's death.

The sentence is appropriate, and I hope she serves every day of it.
 
If the doctor's testimony is true, this woman knew that her actions would likely lead to her son's death. If she were struggling mentally and emotionally she should have sought the multitude of resources available to parents of autistic or parents of children with cancer and found support. Withholding medication was cruel. That child couldn't even voice his pain or discomfort.
 
So what if she deprived her son of medicines he'd need to live? Don't conservatives support
total parental control over medical decisions when it comes to their children? Even when it goes against the opinion of educated medical professionals? You people act like this is out of the norm in the US.
 
So what if she deprived her son of medicines he'd need to live? Don't conservatives support
total parental control over medical decisions when it comes to their children?
And don't liberals support the state raising children the "right way"? So what are you bitching about?
 
And don't liberals support the state raising children the "right way"? So what are you bitching about?

Since when are 'medical professionals' the state? Failure. Now piss off troll.
 
I feel sorry for her. That's 2.5 years of being locked up. I don't see her as a threat to society that we need to keep in a cage.

she might not be a threat to society in general, but she murdered her son and deserves to be punished.
 
I often wonder what the point is in posting these stories...I mean is there any real controversy here? If not, I can certainly make some....

i often wonder why people respond to posts they believe have no point.
 
i often wonder why people respond to posts they believe have no point.

images
 
agree completely. she murdered him.

She let her son die when he had a good chance of beating the cancer.
I wouldn't go so far as to call it murder.
 
She let her son die when he had a good chance of beating the cancer.
I wouldn't go so far as to call it murder.

The article mentions financial troubles, also...it's amazing how many things come back to personal finance, but we're more concerned with condoms and unions then economics in school.
 
She let her son die when he had a good chance of beating the cancer.
I wouldn't go so far as to call it murder.

In my eyes, inaction is not morally different from action when both produce the same outcome and posses the same motivation.

A great case for this is the case of the son: A man marries a woman with a young son. She then dies, but leaves all her money to her son. The man decides that he must murder the child in order to get the money, so while the son is taking a bath, he goes upstairs and drowns the boy.

Now, another scenario: Same premise, only this time, the man walks upstairs, intent on murdering the child, but finds him drowning in the bath already. The man stands and watches as the boy dies, doing nothing.

In this case, she knew what the outcome of inaction would be and what the outcome of action would be. She was very clearly told what options she had and the implications of those options.

As far as I'm concerned, no matter the motive, this was premeditated murder.
 
Since when are 'medical professionals' the state? Failure. Now piss off troll.
But the state is the one that prosecuted her, Dimwit.
 
I find the sentence appropriate. Her actions were wrong, but she isn't nearly the threat to society that most other murders are.
 
I don't see the outrage. I mean, she obviously had a lot of other stresses, not the least of which being money....I don't understand why everyone wants her punished with a baby with cancer and autism.
 
I don't think we can really understand the woman's experience or her decision. It is horrible if this had to do with her finances. If she was really trying to hide what she was doing she would have bought the prescriptions wouldn't she? It's a horrible situation and I hope the boy is spared a lot more suffering. He will suffer the loss of his mother, that's for sure.
 
I don't think we can really understand the woman's experience or her decision. It is horrible if this had to do with her finances. If she was really trying to hide what she was doing she would have bought the prescriptions wouldn't she? It's a horrible situation and I hope the boy is spared a lot more suffering. He will suffer the loss of his mother, that's for sure.

It speaks well of you that you are trying to be understanding of this woman's situation, but did you read the article referenced? The boy is already dead - his mother's inaction killed him, so (a) he is certainly spared any further suffering, and (b) he will not miss his mother.

I consider what she did was wrong in every respect, but I find myself unable to condemn her totally. We cannot know the stress she endured in that situation, and I am sure she loved her son, but was motivated by a combination of altruistic and selfish concerns. The court's decision was the only one possible - it was a form of premeditated murder, irrespective of the motivations. She had to be imprisoned, if only as a deterrent to anyone else who might consider that course of action, and the life of a child, who had a good chance of surviving his cancer, was forfeited.
 
So what if she deprived her son of medicines he'd need to live? Don't conservatives support
total parental control over medical decisions when it comes to their children? Even when it goes against the opinion of educated medical professionals? You people act like this is out of the norm in the US.

It is out of the norm. She withheld the medication for completely different reasons, nothing political or religious ...

But she acknowledged that she stopped giving him the at-home medications during the final phase of treatment because she could not bear to see how much pain and suffering the side effects of the medication caused him.

Nice job taking this and making it political for absolutly no reason. :roll:
 
Get it out of your head that he is your son and you can do whatever you want with him.

It takes a village. We are ALL responsible for your son. How dare you take such a decision into your own hands. You don't get to let your kid die without a fight.
 
Back
Top Bottom