Jury convicts mom who withheld cancer meds

[spanone]

LAWRENCE, Mass. — A Massachusetts woman who withheld at-home chemotherapy medications from her autistic, cancer-stricken son was convicted of attempted murder Tuesday by jurors who dismissed her claim that she thought the side effects of the treatment could kill him.

Kristen LaBrie also was found guilty of child endangerment and assault and battery for failing to give her son, Jeremy Fraser, at least five months of cancer medications after the boy was diagnosed with non-Hodgkins lymphoma in 2006. He died in 2009 at age 9.

LaBrie, 38, told the jury she stopped giving him the medications because she couldn't bear to see how sick the side effects made him.

Prosecutors portrayed her as a single mother seething with resentment because she had to care for Jeremy alone.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42553209/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/

[patrice]

1. "... by herself ..." YAY!!! Pro-Life!!!

just in case ... :sarcasm:

...................................

I want just one Pro-Lifer on this board to tell me that it IS better that this child was born than it would have been if he weren't.

[jwirr]

2. Are you so sure that this disease could have been detected in the

uterus? Most of our disabled children are not. I was the single mother caring for a severely disabled daughter for 45 years as well as my two other daughters. I have no regrets. You wanted to be told - I just did. How many years experience in being a single mother of a disabled child do you have?

[patrice]

6. Not all abortions are for disease, some are about women recognizing that

they are NOT mothers, healthy fetus or not. Whether I agree with these decisions or not, that is what it is about for many pregnant women and I do at least agree that only women who authentically WANT to be real mothers should be.

[Hannah Bell]

17. the op has nothing to do with abortion.

[patrice]

18. another absolutist. So you KNOW the mother NEVER considered abortion. Source please.

:hi:

[Biker13]

26. 45 Years!

Bless you jwirr. Women like you are saints.

What else can I say, except ever once in a while, this place restores my hope for humanity.

Biker's Old Lady

[jwirr]

28. Thank you but I an far from a saint - I just come from a family that has

always taken care of their sick members at home. As to the original post - I assumed you were referring to the illness. The article made it the central part of the story.

[Biker13]

29. You Obviously Come...

from a great family. But every once in a while, people like you should be told what a wonderful thing they're doing, and how it inspires others.

Biker's Old Lady

[WildEyedLiberal]

3. What a despicable comment

It's ghastly of you to use this poor child's death as a platform for your own political statement about an unrelated issue. Last time I checked, abortion was legal in Massachusetts. If this POS "mother" didn't want the burden of raising a child, she could've had one. But she didn't - instead, she let him die because she didn't want to mess with caring for a sick kid. Absolutely despicable.

[patrice]

4. Interesting how you ignore my point that, according to the supposed Pro-Life ethic, there should

have been someone there for her and the boy.

It would also be interesting if we could take your holier-than-thou high-mindedness and ask the boy, given these circumstances, suffering for ALL of those months, what would he prefer. Your disregard for that question is equal to what you claim about me. So, how dare you use all of those months of suffering to score political coup off of me!

[WildEyedLiberal]

23. Yes, my "holier than thou high-mindedness" - give me a fucking break

I'm not the one using a child's death to make a political point about abortion. That's all you, sweetheart. And the one claiming that he'd have been better off never having lived at all? Also all you.

[patrice]

7. IOW, you are doing exactly the same thing I am doing, but for a different agenda. nt

[patrice]

15. AND you are assuming your agenda is somekind of absolute value, which it is not, that is unless, you

are God . . . ?

[WatsonT]

9. "it IS better that this child was born than it would have been if he weren't"

Well, if she wanted to bear the child then it *is* better.

[patrice]

10. Leaves open the question of the relevant definition of "wanted" in this case + better for whom?

the child? I think not.

[WatsonT]

11. What do you suppose "choice" means?

If the mom didn't want to abort then that's that. Discussion over.

[patrice]

14. I think we may be able to agree about what choosing is, but that begs the question of

choosing what? - or perhaps more precisely - also the question of what she THOUGHT she was choosing, relative to what she was actually choosing and, hence, her "free" (HA!) capacities for making those determinations.

[WatsonT]

20. Can any parent know exactly how their child will turn out?

Obviously not.

So it's never possible to make a choice about such matter as far as your argument is concerned.

Meaning abortions should either be mandatory or forbidden.

I prefer our method.

[WildEyedLiberal]

24. What she "thought" she was choosing?

Which is what, exactly? A healthy child? So children who are born sick and the parents don't want to deal with it - it's too bad the parents can't retroactively go back and decide to have that abortion and spare themselves the effort of caring for a less than "perfect" child, isn't it?

Sick.

[AngryAmish]

21. You are certain this boy had no joy.

He never smiled? He didn't like things? He didn't have a favorite song?

From the story he was severely autistic and nonverbal. But you are somehow sure that this child's life was agony. How? Because he was different than you? Because only people who are like you can be admitted into the "human" club where they are afforded rights and dignities associated with people?

Finally, how should his mother have known that he was autistic?

[WildEyedLiberal]

22. +1000

The other poster's idea that someone who suffers would have been better off never even existing repulses me.

[Horse with no Name]

5. What a sad case

When I worked transplant...I honestly had to ask myself after seeing the HORRIBLE side effects of the anti-rejection meds...what would I do if my child needed a transplant?

I really don't think I was ever able to even answer myself...but especially when I saw a horrible case, my resolve would fade. Luckily, I was never posed with such a heart-wrenching dilemma.

I can't imagine watching a child get sick with the chemo drugs day in and day out, especially if there wasn't a guaranteed outcome. Quality of life trumps quantity of life every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

I think I would like for this jury to be fortunate to never have to walk in this woman's shoes.

I also think that it will be overturned on appeal. Obviously, the DA was able to tug the heartstrings of the jury. However, this is NOT a case of murder. She did NOT give him cancer.

She simply was tired of watching her baby suffer. I've watched other people's children suffer and the strength that it takes as a healthcare provider it unbelievable. I can't imagine watching it with it being your own child.

Will certainly keep this woman in my thoughts.

[northernlights]

25. +1

It's one thing to inflict suffering temporarily, when you know it will be temporary and followed by goodness.

It's a totally different thing to inflict suffering temporarily when you haven't assurance of a good outcome. Are you prolonging life or extending death? Tough, tough question to face.

On the other hand, this particular cancer does have a very, very high cure rate. So although there wasn't 100% assurance of a positive outcome, I seem to remember it being about 95% complete cure rate. The odds were very, very high in her son's favor.

[girl gone mad]

27. Isn't the outcome of non-Hodgkins lymphoma guaranteed?

It can't be cured, afaik.

That would definitely make it a tough choice. Extend the child's life by a few months to years, but destroy their quality of life.

[Duer 157099]

8. ..but when an insurance company does it... n/t

[patrice]

12. 1+++ . . . b, b, butttt . . . "How dare you 'use' the death of this child" to illustrate a larger

point!!!

:sarcasm:

[rbnyc]

13. + 1 (nt)

[n2doc]

16. ...or a state government...n/t

[patrice]

19. Don't y' know? One thing has absolutely nothing to do with another, unless "we" say it does!

:sarcasm:

....................................

That's too many sarcasm emoticons for me today; I'm outta here!

:hi: