Vegans in dock over baby's death

"Hey you know the old saying, if slaughterhouses have glass walls we would all be vegans,"

I'm pretty sure that's not an old saying. Even if it is, it's inaccurate. There are plenty of people (such as myself) who have seen the process of slaughtering and still eat meat, and if it was really that bad, no one would have started slaughtering animals in the first place.

It's a hyperbole.

Nope, seen worse than slaughterhouses and I still love a good burger.

Mmm, Carls Jr...

Hey, something HAS to act as a catalyst. And if it's seeing a documentary, it's seeing a documentary.

Mmm, Carls Jr..

I thought you said good burger?

Yeah, really. Go for a Jack in the box Ultimate Bacon cheeseburger, or go home.

I don't think it's true. I grew up on a farm, have witnessed my father slaughter a sheep from about two metres away, and am not a vegan.

I'm a vegetarian. I don't think I could survive without cheese.

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not but you rise a good point about up-bringing and one's choices about eating meat or not.

Not that the baby has to worry about it.

edited 2nd Apr '11 3:11:14 AM by joeyjojo

I'm not sure if this was your meaning, Joeyjo, but could we please stop the tasteless "lol, at least the baby didn't grow up to be a vegan" jokes?

edited 2nd Apr '11 4:08:14 AM by LoniJay

yeah... we should stop with the jokes, besides it's getting old now UNLIKE THAT COUPLE'S BABY! LOL :D

Forget getting old, it was in extreme bad taste the first time it was used and hasn't got any better.

This is a bit nit-picky, but a part of me is really irritated in cases like this with the "they don't trust modern medicine" defense. If they didn't trust modern medicine, why in God's name did they go see a doctor anyways? I know its not that simple, but it still makes me want to smack the detractors at times.

^^

Bad taste can still be pretty hilarious.

I still think it was neglect: they went to a doctor who told them exactly what they needed to do to protect the kid, and then they didn't do that.

Here is the US definition of neglect, by the way. (I know this happened in France, but I can't find anything about French law specifically.)

By the federal definition

edited 2nd Apr '11 11:04:18 AM by BlackHumor

Note that I didn't say it WASN'T neglect. I was saying that they are not the only ones to blame here.

Oh, wasn't talking to you.

I doubt the people making the book are liable though; even if they did advise exactly what the parents did, and not something similar they misinterpreted, they've likely put a legal disclaimer in the thing for just this sort of situation.

Book aside, my argument is that the factors leading to distrust in the medical community share part of the blame too.

edited 2nd Apr '11 4:08:20 PM by neoYTPism

The second half refers to child abuse, specifically. Not neglect.

Ah, indeed I did. True, some of the blame lies with whatever possessed them to distrust the medical community, and if, say, there was one source that outright said something like "The treatment for bronchitis the doctor will give you will (bad things)" then they should be charged with... something, as well, but, much like the saying goes that "Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it*

Now, back to this Neglect/not neglect thing. If you mean the the second half of that sentence, the first one would still make this neglect "Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker, which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, or exploitation[...]" Either they failed to act by way of not letting the doctor treat the kid, or they acted (or failed to act, even) by instead choosing an alternative treatment that resulted in death/ allowed the child to die.

If you mean that part as a whole, it's still neglect by the first definition given, "the failure of a parent or other person with responsibility for the child to provide needed food, clothing, shelter, medical care, or supervision such that the child's health, safety, and well-being are threatened with harm." The lack of medical care would be not letting the doctor treat the child. Alternatively, the lack of needed food which led to the malnutrition and bronchitis in the first place.

edited 3rd Apr '11 1:44:31 AM by Wulf

Not true. They did provide medical care as far as they understood it- it was simply inadvisable and ineffective medical care.

The food was also provided. It was simply not nutritious, however, due to the mother's neglect of her own body, not due to the mother's neglect of the child.

Simply put- in this case, we have no way of telling if the woman understood the risks for her child.

Does it really matter what crime they are technically guilty of, whether it be child abuse, neglect or whatever? Fact is, their actions directly resulted in the death of their child. Now they have to bear the consequences.

"Does it really matter what crime they are technically guilty of, whether it be child abuse, neglect or whatever?"

Yes, it does. A drunk driver does not get the same sentence for killing someone as would a serial killer.

Medical care was provided, for a given definition of those words. As far as something that is likely to be recognized as medical care, it was not. Most certainly not the medical care this child would need. I'd call what they did one of those old-fashioned home remedies, not actual medical care. It'd be akin to saying "Yeah, he had pneumonia, but I just fed him chicken soup instead of picking up antibiotics because I don't trust the doctor and I heard that was just as good." Food was provided. Needed food, food a child could survive on, was not.

@Talby- it matters because it determines how much jail time these people could face as punishment, for those people who believe that the loss of their child isn't punishment enough. The charges would likely be "Manslaughter by gross negligence" according to a quick wikipedia search, versus (or in addition to) "Neglect of a child".

edited 3rd Apr '11 2:18:50 AM by Wulf

^^ Well, yeah. It seems to have devolved into a semantics debate now, though.