The Stephan trial and evidence-based healthcare

[Svartsengi]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

It is a sad day in many respects, but I don't think it is anything close to the precedent you suggest. If the diagnosis is viral meningitis that could not be treated, it does follow that what these ass-clowns did or didn't do, wouldn't have made a difference.

Viral Meningitis can be treated if you go the hospital instead of waiting around like this couple. My wife would be dead if you couldn't treat it.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Ruling makes me sick.

What is happening to our courts? Maybe MBates can provide some insight.

I would just say that you always have to remember, you only get a fraction of the evidence in media reports (even good ones).

I had a case once with the following exchange (not using a transcript here but pretty accurate) between me and a lead detective on a homicide case:

Q: So you were upset when the judge told you to just answer the question and you ended up testifying to the opposite of the truth?
A: Yes.

Every single day of the trial was covered fully...that gem never made it to print. By the time I was done, the trial judge found there was absolutely no weight he could place on any testimony the officer gave. It was really easy for me to know why that finding was made...nobody reading the papers would have known.

In this case, the dissent at the ABCA (that was accepted by the SCC and led to the new trial) contained this paragraph:

On the facts of this case, it cannot be argued that the Stephans were not devoted and loving parents. They did not neglect their 18-month old son’s symptoms when he exhibited them. They did not fail to provide him with what they thought were the necessaries of life. They monitored him closely when he became ill, doing what they believed was best for him. There is no doubt the decisions they made with respect to the well-being of their son turned out to be terribly wrong, but it is not clear that their acts or omissions were criminal in the sense of deserving of punishment for moral blameworthiness.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/do...17abca380.html

The fact there was disagreement between pathologists over the cause of death was itself remarkable. There was also evidence that the child got sick but then got better and then back to sick and back to seeming better.

Many people would have taken their child to hospital sooner no doubt. But that is not the legal test (and for failing to provide the necessaries it is a pretty complicated analysis).

The reality is that if the presumption of innocence is to mean anything, and we actually require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, then acquittals (which are indeed not declarations of innocence but a finding the presumption was not displaced) in extremely difficult and disturbing cases actually may be strong indicators that our system is working exactly how it is supposed to.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by Kerplunk

So the official cause of death is bacterial meningitis, but the former chief medical officer "does not believe" it was (based on, I assume, just written records, and against the account of the examining officer saying it was bacterial and there was no evidence that lack of oxygen played a part), and this half-assed testimony was enough to swing a judge?

Oh it's this guy....that explains it....
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...case-1.4537428

No...it doesn't.

Judges are human and make mistakes. That is why our system has appeals.

And if you think the totality of the evidence of the former Chief Medical Examiner was a superficial 'I don't believe it was' then that probably explains your post.

Look, maybe the Crown will appeal and the result will be overturned again. I have not read Justice Clackson's reasons yet...but then neither have you. I would say at least do that before you suggest he is incompetent or worse (whichever you were intending to imply).

[powderjunkie]

I feel awful for the original 12 jurors who had to endure the original trial and render judgment on two fellow humans. Also the paramedics, nurses, and doctors who were given the futile task of trying to save him and had to experience his death. Obviously, feeling for Ezekial should go without saying (though realistically, what are the rates for kids escaping the cults they are raised in? How sad that this incredibly cold and sterilized perspective is the only way to come anywhere near reconciling this situation).

I understand the law is imperfect (though much like democracy, it is simply superior to every other alternative), but it is really, really hard to feel like it has not failed here. I can understand how it's not legally 'murder', but it's difficult to see how it isn't 'failing to provide the necessities of life'.

Why does the viral vs. bacterial meningitis distinction even matter? The only way I could see that it might be relevant is if the Stephans arrived at a diagnosis of 'untreatable' themselves, and then acted accordingly (obviously not at all what happened here). If I shoot someone in the head and kill them, would it be okay if the coroner discovered they already had stage 4 cancer and probably only had a few weeks to live anyways?

[WhiteTiger]

It kinda seems to me like they are utter idiots who believe a bunch of balderdash, but they actually really do believe it, so they believed they were providing the best care for their son. Which is why they are getting away with what most reasonable people would see as neglect.

Perhaps sadly, intelligence tests aren't required before becoming a parent.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by MBates

Many people would have taken their child to hospital sooner no doubt. But that is not the legal test (and for failing to provide the necessaries it is a pretty complicated analysis).

Seems like a failure of the law here. Just because what you think and feel is right shouldn’t trump what actually is right when it comes to life and death issues such as this.

This sort of thing is exhibited in other criminal situations (self defence).

Is the court not justifying anti-vaxxers and their ilk with s judgement like this?

[OMG!WTF!]

The fact that he didn't die of meningitis is kind of being lost here. He died of a lack of oxygen from a different ailment. The judge's reasoning...

“I accept Dr. Sauvageau’s opinion. Ezekiel stopped breathing from laryngotracheobronchitis complications, From that point forward he was without oxygen or without sufficient oxygen until ultimately the lack of oxygen caused his death. There is no argument the Stephans acted in any way inappropriately once faced with the emergency created when Ezekiel stopped breathing. They did everything they could to get Ezekiel to the hospital and preserve his life.”

Had they not done everything they could to get him to an ambulance on time when he stopped breathing, they would have been negligent. But what killed him, essentially Croup, is not something people rush to the hospital for...

Croup is a common respiratory problem in young children. It tends to occur in the fall and winter. Its main symptom is a harsh, barking cough. Croup causes swelling and narrowing in the voice box, windpipe, and breathing tubes that lead to the lungs. This can make it hard for your child to breathe. An attack of croup can be scary, but it is rarely serious. Children usually get better in several days with rest and care at home.

Had they taken him to the hospital for meningitis, he would have been treated appropriately for croup and likely not died. However had the ambulance had appropriate equipment, he wouldn't have died either. Are they responsible for not diagnosing meningitis? I don't think so since many doctors have misdiagnosed it. It sucks all around but I don't see them being criminally responsible. I do see a great deal of liability with EMS though.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Seems like a failure of the law here. Just because what you think and feel is right shouldn’t trump what actually is right when it comes to life and death issues such as this.

This sort of thing is exhibited in other criminal situations (self defence).

Is the court not justifying anti-vaxxers and their ilk with s judgement like this?

That quote from the dissent was only to show that the evidence is much more complicated than it might seem from media reports.

While it is hard to accurately articulate just what is required to be guilty for failing to provide the necessaries of life, it isn’t enough for an acquittal just to say you did what you personally felt was right. It is an objective standard of reasonableness but that includes a fairly broad range of behaviours.

Negligence is not enough. It has to be something more. But that something more can be elusive. And something about the mix of the evidence makes this a difficult case. Difficult enough to have a new trial because of a very narrow error in the original jury instructions, difficult enough to split medical doctors over what illness the child had - even post mortem, difficult enough to have a conviction followed by an acquittal.

Is it a failure of the law? Maybe. But just as likely there are cases that push the limits of what any legal system can attempt to address and this is one of them.

I know one thing, while I have zero inside info, in my experience I can be very confident in saying the dissenting appeal judge is a very conscientious and diligent judge...and in this case and several others he is upheld by the SCC. I have little difficulty accepting the conviction as it stood was wrong. Which makes it easier to accept that an acquittal might well be right.

It would be completely unjust for a trial judge to decide an individual’s case based on how he or she thinks the decision would encourage or discourage other groups of people not before the court facing criminal accusations. That is not a fair thing to put on a trial judge’s shoulders.

[Ashartus]

If they hadn't doubled down on their views I could accept a verdict based on them being more ignorant and malicious and that losing a child is a pretty terrible punishment in itself. However I expect now they'll be out even more promoting their fake cures and the evils of science-based medicine.

[CaptainCrunch]

My first reaction

https://twitter.com/user/status/1176225153698684928


Jesus fracking christo.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...vote-1.5294186

Tensions flared at Toronto city hall on Monday as a large group of anti-vaccination parents protested against the city's decision to adopt a new vaccination strategy.


The recommendation by Dr. Eileen de Villa, Toronto's medical officer of health, calls for a new public health strategy to address "vaccine hesitancy." It includes a proposal that would prevent students from skipping vaccines for non-medical reasons.


The growing movement against vaccines includes the reluctance or refusal to vaccinate due to concerns about possible side effects, including serious injuries and death.

People attending the meeting shouted "shame" and "genocide" after the vote was taken.


"I do not consent to having myself nor my children force-vaccinated, drugged and medically induced in order to attend public schools in Canada," said Emanuela Caires during her deputation.


"I am not willing to subject this type of harm over benign childhood illnesses," added the mother of three unvaccinated children.

I'm of the point of view that if you don't want to vaccinate your kid, you have to sign a waiver that denies your kid access to public schools and public spaces, and if your child gets sick you have to pay the full healthcare costs because F you.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'm of the point of view that if you don't want to vaccinate your kid, you have to sign a waiver that denies your kid access to public schools and public spaces, and if your child gets sick you have to pay the full healthcare costs because F you.

Problem with that is that the kid gets screwed even more.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by SebC

Problem with that is that the kid gets screwed even more.

at some point doesn't the health and safety of an entire class or school trump the choice of an anti-vax parent?

[calf]

I'd like to see something like Australia's no-jab, no-pay policy. If you don't get your kids vaccinated, you don't get any of the government financial support you'd otherwise get. I'd expand this to tax credits for having dependents as well. It might not convince the most militant anti-vaxxer, but it can probably ensure those on the fence, or those who don't feel like keeping up with the schedule to keep up with their vaccinations and improve the herd.


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...-unvaccinated/

[dobbles]

While 'punishing' anti-vaxxers with measure like that could help, we still must remember that the true victims (even moreso than the children of the anti-vaxxers) are the people that cannot get vaccines for medical reasons and the loss of herd immunity that these people cause. That is why I think we really need to dig in our heels and say enough is enough. If you want to be part of modern society then there are some baseline rules. And if you don't like it, go somewhere else.

[calf]

After a few days of thinking about this verdict, while feeling outraged at Stephan's indignation and lack of remorse, I can't quite reconcile someone doing what they think is best for their child's health, making a mistake, and being criminally prosecuted as a result. At least within the current legal framework.

That being said, I'd like to see new regulations put in place around "natural" remedies. Find a way to make it illegal to administer them to children as a primary way to "cure" their ailments, or administer at all. Disclose/put on warning labels saying there's no scientific proof about their claims, and are to be used for therapeutic/relief of symptoms only, so they may not work. Things like that so parents are pushed towards modern medicine to treat their child.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by calf

After a few days of thinking about this verdict, while feeling outraged at Stephan's indignation and lack of remorse, I can't quite reconcile someone doing what they think is best for their child's health, making a mistake, and being criminally prosecuted as a result. At least within the current legal framework.

That being said, I'd like to see new regulations put in place around "natural" remedies. Find a way to make it illegal to administer them to children as a primary way to "cure" their ailments, or administer at all. Disclose/put on warning labels saying there's no scientific proof about their claims, and are to be used for therapeutic/relief of symptoms only, so they may not work. Things like that so parents are pushed towards modern medicine to treat their child.

I think that these goofy cure alls should be under the same testing protocols as real drugs. You can't sell them unless you can prove that it works.


I was disgusted looking at the Stephan's online presence where they're selling cures for bipolar disorder and severe anxiety disorders.



This garbage shouldn't be allowed to be sold unless its regulated, and natureopaths who tell people not to go to doctors should be prosecuted if a person dies.

[calf]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think that these goofy cure alls should be under the same testing protocols as real drugs. You can't sell them unless you can prove that it works.


I was disgusted looking at the Stephan's online presence where they're selling cures for bipolar disorder and severe anxiety disorders.



This garbage shouldn't be allowed to be sold unless its regulated, and natureopaths who tell people not to go to doctors should be prosecuted if a person dies.

Honestly, me too, but I doubt we can get there anytime soon. But steps towards better regulation and restrictions can.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by calf

After a few days of thinking about this verdict, while feeling outraged at Stephan's indignation and lack of remorse, I can't quite reconcile someone doing what they think is best for their child's health, making a mistake, and being criminally prosecuted as a result. At least within the current legal framework.

That being said, I'd like to see new regulations put in place around "natural" remedies. Find a way to make it illegal to administer them to children as a primary way to "cure" their ailments, or administer at all. Disclose/put on warning labels saying there's no scientific proof about their claims, and are to be used for therapeutic/relief of symptoms only, so they may not work. Things like that so parents are pushed towards modern medicine to treat their child.

I'd have more sympathy if it was some rube who had been convinced that this was the way to go. My sympathy disappears when it is he who was peddling the garbage, would have been exposed to all sorts of research that he ignored, and that he still believes in it, even after it killed his kid. Now he and his followers are even more emboldened by the verdict, even if it isn't clearing him in the way he thinks it is.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

at some point doesn't the health and safety of an entire class or school trump the choice of an anti-vax parent?

Yes. But the health and safety of the health and safety of the child also trumps the choice of an anti-vax parent, and forcing the kid to live in a bubble isn't the right answer.

[FireGilbert]

Yeah this makes me angry. Just need to try and remember that Not Guilty does not equal Innocent.