Criminal Negligence Case Study
At what point is a parent legally bound to take her sick child to a physician instead of treating him with home remedies gleaned off the Internet?
That's the question confronting an Alberta judge who must soon decide if a mother's withholding of professional medical care from her 7-year-old son, who eventually died from an acute bacterial infection, was criminal negligence or simply a well-intentioned but misguided decision.
It's the second time this year Alberta parents have landed in court because their children died after they refused to take them to a doctor or hospital and instead treated them with remedies concocted at home.
In April, Collett and David Stephan were convicted in a Lethbridge court of failing to provide the necessaries of …show more content…
A friend testified that she came to the Lovett household to drop off some groceries and was so shocked by Ryan's condition that she offered to take him to a doctor but Tamara refused.
Less than 48-hours later Ryan's mother frantically called for an ambulance when he started slurring his words and went into convulsions.
But it was too late; the boy died in her arms.
Lovett's defence lawyer, Alain Hepner, told the court she was attentive to her sick child, did the best she could under the circumstances, and was "morally innocent."
Lovett herself testified that if she had known then what she knows now about the cause of Ryan's illness she would have taken him for medical treatment sooner.
But Crown prosecutor Jonathan Hak said Ryan deserved more than to be treated as an "Internet diagnosis experiment."
"When she (Lovett) chose to use home remedies and they didn't work, she had a duty to obtain medical help ... the criminal code doesn't allow for people to set up their own standards of care."
Justice Kristine Eidsvik will render her decision on Jan.
That's the question confronting an Alberta judge who must soon decide if a mother's withholding of professional medical care from her 7-year-old son, who eventually died from an acute bacterial infection, was criminal negligence or simply a well-intentioned but misguided decision.
It's the second time this year Alberta parents have landed in court because their children died after they refused to take them to a doctor or hospital and instead treated them with remedies concocted at home.
In April, Collett and David Stephan were convicted in a Lethbridge court of failing to provide the necessaries of …show more content…
A friend testified that she came to the Lovett household to drop off some groceries and was so shocked by Ryan's condition that she offered to take him to a doctor but Tamara refused.
Less than 48-hours later Ryan's mother frantically called for an ambulance when he started slurring his words and went into convulsions.
But it was too late; the boy died in her arms.
Lovett's defence lawyer, Alain Hepner, told the court she was attentive to her sick child, did the best she could under the circumstances, and was "morally innocent."
Lovett herself testified that if she had known then what she knows now about the cause of Ryan's illness she would have taken him for medical treatment sooner.
But Crown prosecutor Jonathan Hak said Ryan deserved more than to be treated as an "Internet diagnosis experiment."
"When she (Lovett) chose to use home remedies and they didn't work, she had a duty to obtain medical help ... the criminal code doesn't allow for people to set up their own standards of care."
Justice Kristine Eidsvik will render her decision on Jan.