Sunday, April 17, 2011

The state overrules the parent in modern day America.

Mass. mom who withheld son's meds gets 8-10 years

A woman who withheld potentially life-saving medications from her autistic, cancer-stricken son was sentenced Friday to eight to 10 years in prison by a judge who said her actions "really do chill one's soul."

Kristen LaBrie was convicted of attempted murder Tuesday for withholding at least five months of at-home chemotherapy treatments for her son, Jeremy Fraser. The boy died at age 9 in 2009.

LaBrie, 38, wept and apologized before Judge Richard Welch handed down her punishment in Lawrence Superior Court.


His oncologist testified that she told LaBrie that her son's cancer had a cure rate of about 85 percent to 90 percent under an intensive, two-year treatment plan that included doses of chemotherapy to be given during hospital stays and clinic visits as well as at-home medications LaBrie was supposed to administer at home.

LaBrie testified that she largely followed doctor's orders during the first four phases of his treatment. 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.

The boy's doctor said she discovered in February 2008 that LaBrie had not filled five months of prescriptions and that Jeremy's cancer had returned as leukemia.

LaBrie testified in her own defense, saying she did not give her son at least five months of chemotherapy medications because the side effects made him so sick she was afraid the treatments would kill him. LaBrie called her son "very, very fragile" and said she didn't think he could withstand any more chemotherapy.

You know what's even more chilling to me? That the state can send someone away to prison for deciding how to care for their child! Who is the real criminal here? How dare they. Put that judge in ONE DAY of her shoes and I guarantee you he'd be singing a different tune. Attempted murder? Honestly, does the judge and jury legitimately believe this mother was purposefully trying to murder her son? She has already suffered enough with her child's death, and these robots decide to send her to prison for ten years.

Assistant District Attorney Kate MacDougall acknowledged that LaBrie had a difficult time caring for Jeremy alone and watching him suffer horrible side effects from chemotherapy. But she said the jury found that whatever her difficult circumstances were, she "made a decision to harm Jeremy. ... She intended to kill him."
"At the end of the day this was just child abuse ... she withheld from this child intentionally his chance for a cure," MacDougall said.

Who are they to speculate such things? Because they know ALL about what she was going through!

LaBrie's older son, Matthew, 18, wrote a letter to the judge asking for leniency.
"My mother was nothing but unbelievably kind, caring and completely devoted to Jeremy in every aspect of her life," he wrote.

He described his mother sitting by Jeremy's bedside while he was treated for cancer at Massachusetts General Hospital.

"Something like that takes a toll on a person and after all that, could anybody so easily sit by and watch while a cure is making a child feel worse?"
Here's what I think. I think that judge and every single person on the jury who voted 'guilty' should be sent away to prison for LIFE. Yes, that is real justice here. This is appalling to me. She made a mistake. This is a mother making a decision that SHE believes is in the best interest of her child, NOT the state! Who are they to judge? These fools in their ivory tower of self thought moral superiority are the criminals in this case. We live in a cruel, cruel society to allow this to happen.

I hope the judge and jury sleep well at night knowing they sent an already grieving mother to prison for ten years of her life.


Gorges Smythe said...

The Lord will square things all up in the end.

JoeBama "Truth 101" Kelly said...

So you're for euthenasia Hack?

This is not to start an argument here. I feel bad for everyone involved and pray my family and everyone elses never have to go through this.

The woman has suffered enough.

Les Carpenter said...

Hack - This is a tough one, but I must come down on the side of reason. You presented just such an argument.

Well said, and may the statist in the end get their just dues.

Hack said...

Truth: So allowing a parent to make decisions regarding care for their child= euthanasia?

Don't purposefully be hostile with me just because you are left and I am right.

I truly hope you can muster the courage to side with reason on this one.

Anonymous said...

It's a tough one. I have to side with the mother, often, cancer treatment is what kills people.

JoeBama "Truth 101" Kelly said...

So you support scientologists refusing to treat sick children with up to date medical care. Or religious zealots refusing medical because they believe God will heal their children of cancer or other terrible diseases.

Not arguing this particular case with you Hack. I'm looking at the big picture.

Hack said...

I'm looking at the bigger picture too. I support one thing, and that is a parent's right to decide what's best for their children, not the state. Ideology or religion are irrelevant. The government forcing medication upon EVERY child (and soon to be diet) is far more dangerous than the questionable actions of a few parents here and there.

JoeBama "Truth 101" Kelly said...

Your answer is why I have problems with the right. You try to apply a one size fits all, simplistic solution to issues.

I could wear you and your readers out with literally thousands of examples why some decisions parents should not be allowed to make for their children. Goofballs like Warren Jeffs and his followers marrying 12 year old girls is a good place to start.

Hack said...

List all the questionable parental decisions you want. You could list a million for all I care. You're missing the point and I guess I need to reiterate it. The actions of the parent are a red herring. The government (state, local, federal) in ANY country has absolutely no right to infringe upon the right of the parent to make decisions for their child, whether they be good or bad. Contrary to what you'd like to believe, this doesn't mean I somehow support said questionable decisions, such as those you listed. It means I stand for pure freedom. Even a free world is not a utopia.

You can accuse me, and the right of simplicity and I could counter by saying yourself and the left tend to overthink and over analyze. I assure you, there is a simple solution to everything.