Parents jailed for trying to treat child's fatal illness with homeopathy in Australia

tallaght01

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26135817-421,00.html

A HOMEOPATH has been sentenced to at least six years in jail and his wife will serve at least four years for the manslaughter of their eczema-stricken daughter.

Thomas Sam, 42, and his wife Manju, 37, were convicted in June of the manslaughter of their nine-month-old baby Gloria by failing to seek proper medical treatment.

The tertiary-educated couple were accused of "gross criminal negligence" by failing to get the treatment, instead mainly relying on homeopathic remedies.

The baby was malnourished despite being properly fed, because all nutrition had gone into coping with her severe eczema.

She died in Sydney in May 2002 from an infection her body could not fight.

In handing down his sentence in the NSW Supreme Court, Justice Peter Johnson said Thomas Sam's "arrogant approach" to his preference for homeopathy above conventional medicine, and Manju Sam's deference to her husband, had led to Gloria's death.



A "very wide chasm" lay between how they had acted and how any other reasonable parent would have acted, Justice Johnson said.

"The omission of the parents to seek proper assistance for her can be characterised accurately as cruelty," he said.

"Gloria was totally dependent on her parents complying with their clear duty of care for her and each offender fell profoundly short of their parental obligations to their daughter."

Despite recommendations as early as October 2001, the Sams had refused to take her to see a specialist.

Instead they took her to India for more homeopathic treatment, despite being told by doctors that to do so would be "cruel" to Gloria.

And following their return to Australia - on board a plane where fellow passengers described the child as "screaming constantly" and "inconsolable" - for nine "critical" days, the pair did nothing.

On the ninth day, concerned about a lingering eye infection, the Sams took their daughter to the Sydney Children's Hospital at Randwick.

Doctors described Gloria as "incredibly sick" with a "massive eroded rash" and "grossly malnourished".

They gave her morphine for the pain and began treating her eye infection - her corneas were melting.

But it was too late - Gloria died three days later.

Doctors said she had been malnourished for months and in severe pain for weeks.

"Gloria's body was worn down and ultimately worn out," the judge said.

"This is not a case of a hidden condition going untreated and ultimately causing death.

"Rather this case involves an accumulation of obvious health problems which, whilst not properly treated, saw the child descending towards death."

Thomas Sam faces a maximum jail term of eight years, while his wife faces a maximum sentence of five years and four months.

That was one sick kiddy. I don't think I've ever seen a child who was malnourished because the metabolic requirements of their eczema were so high.

But should conventional medicine be given a privileged position in law? Where do we stop? There's parents out there who treat their kids asthma with homeopathy. Maybe their growth is stunted because of that.

I've seen all kinds of stuff diagnosed by quacks, but they've never got as far as the legal system.

I agree with the decision imposed by the court. I think most people would.

But I wonder about the legal precedent. Can I now report the parents of the kids who treat their bronchiolitis with hers or water before coming to see me. In fact, am I now obliged to report them, as we have an obligation to report cruelty.

Anyone got any thoughts on this?

Myself, well I'm really thinking out loud. I'll carry on as before. I reckon. I'll report if the kid comes to any harm. I guess that's the crux of this issue. BUt negligence can occur before harm occurs, so that's where it's a bit cloudy for me.

metrovelvet

Is refusing treatment on religious grounds protected in Australia?

What you posted is fascinating and also kind of disturbing even though I can see why the judge imposed the sentence he did.

Do you have to report not getting vaccinations and refusing anti biotics and any refusal of treatment?

kiffer

that poor baby...
I don't think my mind can cope with the idea... a childrens story about a busker losing his cat nearly had me in tears earlier... but this just leaves me numb... Whether or not real medicine should be given a privileged position in law above made up quackery... the parents duty of care to their child certainly should be... Criminal neglect causing their child to slowly and painfully die... I'm not sure why they both didn't get the full Manslaughter sentence.

It's not like she got this bad over night... After it became apparent that magic wasn't working they should have gone to a doctor long before it got so bad... This was months of chronic neglect.

Saintly

tallaght01 wrote: »

But should conventional medicine be given a privileged position in law? Where do we stop? There's parents out there who treat their kids asthma with homeopathy. Maybe their growth is stunted because of that.

From a social work perspective, I strongly feel that conventional medicine has a central role to play in child protection issues. Competent adults are entitled to make poor healthcare decisions for themselves, not their children.

tallaght01 wrote:

But I wonder about the legal precedent. Can I now report the parents of the kids who treat their bronchiolitis with hers or water before coming to see me. In fact, am I now obliged to report them, as we have an obligation to report cruelty.

You can report anything that concerns you as a medical professional, about a child's risk of neglect and other isuses. Bear in mind there are spectrums of neglect, physical, sexual and emotional abuse - and grey areas in between. The child protection teams will assess the referral and decide if it is worth investigating. It's always worth checking with local teams if the child is known to the service, history of previous concerns etc. Ultimately, my advice as a social worker to our medics is if you are concerned, pass it on to the child protection teams - who have the resources, experience and authority to act on it, if deemed appropriate. I'd much rather an unnecessary notification was made than a child protection issue be overlooked. In the example you gave above, if there was no previous history and you were satisfied that the parents were compliant with treatment plan, there wouldn't be any follow up from child protection.

tallaght01 wrote:

Myself, well I'm really thinking out loud. I'll carry on as before. I reckon. I'll report if the kid comes to any harm. I guess that's the crux of this issue. BUt negligence can occur before harm occurs, so that's where it's a bit cloudy for me.

I think you're right here - it is cloudy. I also think however, that most docs are good at judging whether neglect is intentional or not - and if unintentional whether the parent is now happy to agree with the recommended course of treatment. Parents aren't perfect, they may make errors in judgement - but if you feel that the child is at risk of further harm
(or are concerned about level of neglect to which child has already been exposed), I recommend passing it on to the hospital social worker/child protection team. Err on the side of caution and all that.

Turtwig

Bloody Hell:mad:

No Child deserves a trauma like that, especially when it can be prevented or ,at the very least, made comfortable.
Anyways, my two cents are conventional medecine it's the medecine that has proven itself (it's the reason I'm still alive and living a reasonably comfortable life today:)); it learns from its mistakes and move on, but sadly it is those mistakes that most are made aware of. Homeopathy, on the other hand, sticks to the chosen formula regardless and parades all those incidents that work citing other reasons for those that fail. (Curiously, If I remember correctly, a homeopath's guidebook (I'm definitely going to google this to see if I can find something similar..:)) states that the patient (some term) must have complete belief in the treatment for it to work.

RIP Gloria,hopefully your life before the symptoms overtook you was a quality one and hopefully no other child will have to experience what you did.

opinion guy

Jesus thats horrible.

Interesting thoughts about setting a precedent tallaght01. Hmmm I think time is a factor here. Going by the article these people went to see the medics and were being told in Oct 01 by doctors to go see a specialist. They chose to ignore that. They obviously continued to ignore that advice over the following 7 months despite the childs no doubt visible deterioration. I think perhaps that is the critical factor here. These people sat back and watched their child deteriorate to a point beyond all help - in other words it was blindingly obvious that the homeopathic rubbish wasn't working and they STILL ignored the medical advice. I think that is a hugely different picture than someone who tries a home remedy, realises it doesn't work and then comes into the hospital.

opinion guy

Similar case in US:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8294225.stm

Parents for 6 months each (1 month a year for 6 years) for trying to heal their kid with prayer and not calling in emergency services until after she stopped breathing.

Seems an odd sentence. I guess its because they have surviving children

eth0_

I wonder if they've learned from their 'failure' and won't do such a thing again?
Honestly, if she'd fallen off a wall and given herself a compound fracture would her parents have stood over her praying, thinking God would sort her leg out? It's the same difference really, diabetes symptoms and a broken limb both need MEDICAL, not divine intervention.

JuliusCaesar

I think this is the same sort of dilemma as doctors of sick Jehovah's Witnesses have. How far is a parent allowed to deny their children treatment based on their own beliefs? How much do parents 'own' their children?

nesf

tallaght01 wrote: »

But I wonder about the legal precedent. Can I now report the parents of the kids who treat their bronchiolitis with hers or water before coming to see me. In fact, am I now obliged to report them, as we have an obligation to report cruelty.

I think it's a case of whether what the parents did was reasonable in the particular situation. A parent who genuinely mistook a more serious condition for a flu and treated it as such would be a very different situation to someone who knew their child was near death and neglected to bring them to medical help.

sam34

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

I think this is the same sort of dilemma as doctors of sick Jehovah's Witnesses have. How far is a parent allowed to deny their children treatment based on their own beliefs? How much do parents 'own' their children?

when teh jehovah's cases have gone to court, the court (in this country) has always ruled on the side of giving the child teh blood transfusion. the thinking seems to be that the parent can choose not to receive a transfusion and die themselves if thats what they want, but they cannot make this potentially fatal decision for a child.

im not sure if this is the general pattern in other countries though.

JuliusCaesar

"Supreme Court ruled that it only had a jurisdiction to interfere or provide for minors by virtue of the Child Care Act 1991 in exceptional cases where the parents for “physical or moral” reasons had failed in their duty to their child. " From here

So in Ireland, parents don't have an absolute right of ownership over their children. Thank heavens.
But I imagine in some cultures that parents have absolute ownership of their children, and husbands have ownership of their wives.

drkpower

sam34 wrote: »

when teh jehovah's cases have gone to court, the court (in this country) has always ruled on the side of giving the child teh blood transfusion. the thinking seems to be that the parent can choose not to receive a transfusion and die themselves if thats what they want, but they cannot make this potentially fatal decision for a child.

im not sure if this is the general pattern in other countries though.

This is the general principle in most western countries. It is remarkable the difference in sentence between the Us and Aus cases posted above. I dont know much about the details beyond the media snippets, but what is the justification for the US parents getting a cumulative sentence of 6/12 for such a willfull and reckless disregard of their parental duties.

the_syco

drkpower wrote: »

but what is the justification for the US parents getting a cumulative sentence of 6/12 for such a willfull and reckless disregard of their parental duties.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1007/breaking55.htm

Judge Vincent Howard jailed them for a month each year for the next six years after telling them they were “very good people, raising their family who made a bad decision, a reckless decision.”

Good people? Social services would be looking at the kids over here, I'd say.

From the same source:

“God probably works through other people,” he told the parents, “some of them doctors.”