Bernadette Scully found not guilty of the manslaughter of her daughter

As somebody who has lived with a young family member having up to 100 grand and petit mal seizures per day (which were regulated by the Ketogenic Diet for years but he's now on drugs to stop the severe night ones returning, although they're not working at all)... I can safely say that this woman did not make a decision to END HER OWN CHILD'S LIFE easily. Can you picture somebody you love convulsing and writhing and foaming at the mouth..? Can you imagine not being able to speak with them or do anything for them all day because they're perpetually zonked between seizures and absences or actually having them, sometimes for hours at a time?

The medical marijuana isn't f'ing available anywhere and families are suffering because of it. This woman was incredibly brave to do what she did and I hope she can go on living life now and mourn the loss of her poor daughter to this crippling illness.

listermint wrote: »

There is some actual top quality people in here today.


There are absolute morons in here of the curtain twitcher kind who have an opinion on everything. Despite what a jury of their peers have come to here and hearing the full evidence you still think its wrong.

The internet is full of them and the lack of empathy is enough to drive anyone to despair.  No wonder people feel so alone, so judged and so overwhelmed.

bucketybuck wrote:

Its not supposed to be about how easy or not it was, its supposed to be about whether she made that decision at all.

"Professor Marie Cassidy said she had suffered a seizure six to eight hours before her death and that any of her illnesses could have contributed. She also said that she had been at risk of a potentially fatal seizure at any time.

The State argued that the chloral hydrate was a substantial cause of death. It did not have to prove it to be the only cause.

Tara Burns SC, prosecuting, said it wasn’t in doubt that Bernadette Scully loved her daughter very much and cared for her to the highest level.

“What this case is about is the events of a specific day when chloral hydrate was administered,†she said, noting the levels that she had said she had given.

“Any reasonable person in the situation Ms Scully was in, a doctor, would have realised that administering that level of chloral hydrate carried a high degree of risk of causing a substantial risk of injury to her daughter,†she said, outlining the prosecution case.

Bernadette Scully’s legal team argued that there was a clear indication in the post-mortem results of the possibility of a terminal seizure and Kenneth Fogarty SC said that the traumatic event that had led to the maladministration alleged was indeed a massive seizure after 11 o’clock.

He said it was clear that the only reason a person would administer more chloral hydrate was if the initial dose was not achieving the desired result. He pointed out that other anticonvulsant medications had life-threatening effects on Emily.

He also noted that nobody had a formula to equate the amount of chloral hydrate taken into a body with the amount of its metabolite that would be found in the blood.

The judge

Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy told the jury that it had to be satisfied that the accused had failed to observe the ordinary and necessary care expected of her to the point that she was negligent in a very high degree. That negligence must have brought a very high degree of risk of substantial personal injury to others.

He said it did not matter what the accused woman’s state of mind was.

He said that, in the case of a doctor, she could follow general and approved medical practice, unless obviously defective. She could depart from that practice unless it involved something no similarly qualified expert exercising care would do.

He reminded the jury of the evidence of a retired consultant paediatrician, who was also a member of the Advisory Committee for Human Medicines, the national body that decides if drugs are safe and effective

Dr Kevin Connolly had been asked about the high doses of chloral hydrate Bernadette Scully said she had given her daughter in a short timeframe.

He referred to people, who metabolise drugs at different rates to most people in clinical trials.

“If Emily was one of those outliers, and it had been found she required more frequent or higher doses, then this was appropriate,†he said.

He explained that Emily’s body might have been able to handle an increasing dose up to a certain point but then became overwhelmed.

“That can happen, that the body can only take so much and then it’s too much,†he said."
She died because she was very unwell due to a number of factors. She was given a drug to help with her seizures by her mother. Her mother then determined to give her more of the drug, but her body gave up (and it's not a bit surprising given the severity of her condition and what she physically ensured daily). The jury came to their "not guilty" verdict based on that evidence.

What I'm saying is that from an emotive standpoint, what she did was totally understandable. She watched this disorder basically rape her small child day after day with no solution in sight until she died. She took what could be perceived as drastic action in a dire situation. Hopefully she will draw attention to the people who suffer through their entire lives and those who care for them tirelessly and are totally ignored by the state; both legally and medically.