Bernadette Scully found not guilty of the manslaughter of her daughter

professore · 16-12-2016 02:09PM

From what I read on the case, she was guilty of at least manslaughter. She deliberately gave her child a lethal dose of chloral hydrate and then attempted to kill herself.

Saying this does not mean I am devoid of empathy, far far from it - and if I had been on the jury, I am not sure what way I would have voted. I would not want her to get a custodial sentence in any event, and I think the law is wrong to keep a human alive who is constantly suffering and has no awareness of their surroundings, or alternatively is aware and wants to end their life with dignity. That's a whole other story, but I don't make the law, more's the pity.

The danger with reacting with too much emotion to this is that if it was say a refugee, or the father of the child, or even the woman herself (look at the McCanns - how people call them cold blooded murderers - or watch the Amanda Knox documentary on Netflix) and the exact same thing happened, and the media reported it in a particular way, people would be calling for their head.

Rightwing · 16-12-2016 02:11PM

Sometimes I love when the State loses, and this is 1 of them.

Go after the real criminals with the same vigour you fcuking idiots and stop wasting tax payers cash.

Oodoov · 16-12-2016 02:18PM

Finally the justice system gets something right.

Gmol · 16-12-2016 02:32PM

Glad of this decision, I don't think she could have been convicted based on the levels of drugs given, her poor daughter may have had a higher than normal tolerance based on the frequency/build up in her system so it may have been difficult to give correct dosage.

Unfortunately no one wins in this case, I hope the poor woman can find peace and take comfort in the fact that she was a good mother and did her best for her child.

16-12-2016 02:47PM

Rightwing wrote: »

Sometimes I love when the State loses, and this is 1 of them.

Go after the real criminals with the same vigour you fcuking idiots and stop wasting tax payers cash.

So you think people who are responsible for other people's deaths are not criminals?

Calahonda52 · 16-12-2016 02:53PM

bubblypop wrote: »

So you think people who are responsible for other people's deaths are not criminals?

Of course they are not: why else are companies allowed peddle drink and fags which are clearly responsible for other people's death, aided and abetted by our politicians.

16-12-2016 02:53PM

bubblypop wrote: »

So you think people who are responsible for other people's deaths are not criminals?

But the law doesn't says people who are responsible for others deaths per se are criminals. It's not simply cause and effect, there has to be a mens rea too.

knucklehead6 · 16-12-2016 02:55PM

bubblypop wrote: »

So you think people who are responsible for other people's deaths are not criminals?

If i'm driving along within the speedlimit and a 40 tonne truck has a catastrophic failure beside me and crashes into my car and kills me, and the failure was caused by a store being left on the road by a road sweeper you think he's a criminal?

16-12-2016 02:57PM

I posted this earlier in the thread

bubblypop wrote: »

Murder and manslaughter are not enough options for the killing of people.
We need to have more options.

Murder 1 - premeditated killing
Murder 2 - killing without premeditation, but during an illegal act, where death is a possibility. ( Such as assaults etc )
Murder 3 - manslaughter
Accidental manslaughter - involving some negligence on the 'offenders' part.

Summer wind · 16-12-2016 03:01PM

Such a sad and awful case. I don't agree with the verdict if I'm being honest. I do believe Dr Scully should have been found guilty of manslaughter because she had to know she was overdosing her little girl. I don't think Dr Scully should have been her little girls GP but obviously there must be no law against this. It doesn't say in the report if Dr Scully had called an ambulance would the hospital have been able to do anything to help her little girl or were the drugs Dr Scully administered all that she could have. Dr Scully seems to have been under huge pressure and it's such a terrible pity she didn't get the help she needed. She will have to live with the horrific enormity of what she's done for the rest of her life. This case is really awful and heartbreaking.

16-12-2016 03:01PM

knucklehead6 wrote: »

If i'm driving along within the speedlimit and a 40 tonne truck has a catastrophic failure beside me and crashes into my car and kills me, and the failure was caused by a store being left on the road by a road sweeper you think he's a criminal?

I don't know how a stone, I presume?, Could cause a catastrophic failure to a 40 foot truck!
But, if it did happen, and let's say it was left there through negligence on a road sweepers part, then yes it could be argued that that very negligence caused the accident.
Now, I don't actually suggest that everyone guilty of causing someone's death should receive a custodial sentence, not at all.
Which is why I suggest there should be more than murder or manslaughter charges available.

05eaftqbrs9jlh · 16-12-2016 03:06PM

picturehangup wrote:

As the mother of a son who suffers from autism, high-functioning sort, my son is offered respite every month, despite the fact that there are others, such as poor Emily, who needed it more. For me, this case highlights that respite services are NOT delivered to those who are in desperate need of them. My son receives his respite in the same locality as Dr Scully.

You're very noble to say this. I care for my teenage brother who has an acquired brain injury for my parents. During this time, rather than relax, everything they do is for the good of his well-being. They were put into this situation by an inadequate health system and were financially 'compensated' but each and every day is a new and exciting sh!tstorm as they navigate the hurdles put in place for them to rail against.

Disabled people so often only have the voice of their carers, who are tragically sequestered by society and its preference to wilfully ignore and judge them. People here are so fast to give an opinion on something they have literally no frame of reference on and this mirrors society completely. The mildest inconvenience upsets some people and it leaves me fascinated because of all the considerations I have to make daily to ensure myself and my brother are out of sight, out of mind for them.

You're certainly coming from a place of empathy and selflessness but what we should really be calling for is more hours of respite in general. Extra help at home can go such a long way towards helping the disabled people concerned live fuller lives and ensure they're being looked after by psychologically well carers who are being fully supported.

picturehangup · 16-12-2016 03:24PM

That's it in a nutshell.. who cares for the carers?
To give up one's life, lay down one's life for another, is the highest form of love that exists. These brave people, the unsung heroes deserve so more support than they currently receive. I consider myself lucky, in that we can manage okay.
There are so many groups of support for carers of people suffering from so many types of disability, that perhaps a more coherent subgroup dealing with those cases where carers needing more/some respite should be set up to prioritise cases. There are no two cases the very same. The carers need time to restore, regenerate and enjoy some quality of life away from their disabled relative. Only in this way can they cope, and maintain mental health. You and your family have it just right.
Your brother is lucky to be very much loved, and to have you all, but I'm sure he knows that already, in his own way.
Pity it took this tragic and sad case to highlight these deficits.

cruais · 16-12-2016 04:32PM

Nathaniel Warm Doorbell wrote: »

Disgraceful decision.

Have to disagree there. The saying goes, ''never judge a man till you've walked in his shoes''.

This was one of the saddest cases I have read. It wasn't as simple as a mother killing her child.

The torment that woman must have been going through, watching her much wanted and loved child suffer. It is something I never wish on myself nor on any other person.

Yes, she might have been found not guilty of manslaughter today, but I can tell you now, that woman is serving her own life sentence.

tayto lover · 16-12-2016 04:40PM

I hope this lady can now be allowed to get on with her life.

Also it is right that she was brought to trial and right that she was found not guilty.
These things have to be investigated.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 16-12-2016 05:50PM

I am thrilled for her, and wish her the best going forward with her life

Yourself isit · 16-12-2016 06:05PM

bubblypop wrote: »

I posted this earlier in the thread

Negligent manslaughter could see the entire medical profession in jail. Nobody's perfect.

16-12-2016 07:32PM

Yourself isit wrote: »

Negligent manslaughter could see the entire medical profession in jail. Nobody's perfect.

Who suggested they should all get custodial sentences? Not me.
Obviously the lesser, for want of a better word, the killing, then sentence should be proportionate.
Some people, whilst guilty of an offence May never have to spend a minute in prison.

Killergreene · 16-12-2016 07:35PM

Really disgusted by this result. She absolutely murdered her daughter. Four hours deliberation is disgraceful. She was lucky they only trialled her for manslaughter imo they had enough for a murder conviction. State pathologist stated cause of death was toxic dose of the drug.her suicide letters basically confirm she did it intentionally.

Ayuntamiento · 16-12-2016 07:49PM

Killergreene wrote: »

Really disgusted by this result. She absolutely murdered her daughter. Four hours deliberation is disgraceful. She was lucky they only trialled her for manslaughter imo they had enough for a murder conviction. State pathologist stated cause of death was toxic dose of the drug.her suicide letters basically confirm she did it intentionally.

You're a troll.

I'm happy but not surprised that justice was served. Even if it had been deliberate (which it wasn't), any educated and sensible person could understand the case for euthanasia in a situation like this.
Her daughter had no quality of life. She couldn't talk or move purposefully. She had dangerous seizures every day. Her life was sustained by a feeding tube. I've worked with similar patients and it's almost cruel to see the measures that are used to keep them alive when they are not physically or mentally capable of enjoying life like you or I do.

Ireland has a severe issue with the preservation of life AT ANY COST. We need to address our abortion and euthanasia laws immediately.

Another issue I see here is the fact that she was almost made to adhere to a higher standard of behavior/judgement in her personal life because of the fact that she's a doctor. I feel that the only reason it went to trial is because she's a doctor. No wonder so many doctors are pushed to breaking point. Work is work and personal life is personal life.

Killergreene · 16-12-2016 08:00PM

Ayuntamiento wrote: »

You're a troll.

I'm happy but not surprised that justice was served. Even if it had been deliberate (which it wasn't), any educated and sensible person could understand the case for euthanasia in a situation like this.
Her daughter had no quality of life. She couldn't talk or move purposefully. She had dangerous seizures every day. Her life was sustained by a feeding tube. I've worked with similar patients and it's almost cruel to see the measures that are used to keep them alive when they are not physically or mentally capable of enjoying life like you or I do.

Ireland has a severe issue with the preservation of life AT ANY COST. We need to address our abortion and euthanasia laws immediately.

Another issue I see here is the fact that she was almost made to adhere to a higher standard of behavior/judgement in her personal life because of the fact that she's a doctor. I feel that the only reason it went to trial is because she's a doctor. No wonder so many doctors are pushed to breaking point. Work is work and personal life is personal life.

A troll cause I don't agree with your opinion. Very mature. In my opinion she killed her daughter intentionally
This wasn't a case about rights or wrongs of euthanasia. This case was whether or not she gave her daughter a dose of medication enough to kill her. State pathologist stated this happened.

I don't dispute the child had profound disabilities and mother was under unmeasurable stress. She should still have been found guilty.

16-12-2016 08:01PM

It's not my intention to diminish the sadness of what happened but this thread reminds me a little of the 'are all cheaters bad people' thread. Certain posts have a slight air of smugness. What it comes down to is a complete inabiility to comprehend the nuances of life and the struggles other people encounter.

I have no doubt in my mind that Bernadette Scully loved and cared for her child. Perhaps she had many a dark day where she felt helpless and unable to go on, where she wished things had turned out differently, maybe there were moments of regret, grief for the healthy child she had longed for. Who knows.

The jury found her not guilty of manslaughter and in an age of increasing coldness towards each other I feel this was absolutely the right decision. For those of you who think otherwise have a look inside yourselves, imagine the lonely road Bernadette walked every single day. The woman isn't a monster, she's a mother who now has to live with the loss of her daughter for the rest of her life.

Ayuntamiento · 16-12-2016 08:12PM

Killergreene wrote: »

A troll cause I don't agree with your opinion. Very mature. In my opinion she killed her daughter intentionally
This wasn't a case about rights or wrongs of euthanasia. This case was whether or not she gave her daughter a dose of medication enough to kill her. State pathologist stated this happened.

I don't dispute the child had profound disabilities and mother was under unmeasurable stress. She should still have been found guilty.

The state pathologist also stated that it would be impossible to know if the child had actually died from one of the huge seizures that she'd been having that day.
Just because her blood toxicology showed high levels of anti-seizure medication, that is NOT an indication of the fact that the anti-seizure medication killed her.
There is complex medical detail in this trial that people like you tend not to understand and I don't blame you for that.
However, when I encounter information that is outside my field of expertise/ability to comprehend, I tend to withhold my judgement. It's unfortunate that you don't do the same because the end result of your current method is that you come off as ignorant.

bucketybuck · 16-12-2016 08:12PM

Ayuntamiento wrote: »

Another issue I see here is the fact that she was almost made to adhere to a higher standard of behavior/judgement in her personal life because of the fact that she's a doctor. I feel that the only reason it went to trial is because she's a doctor.

If she wasn't a doctor would she have been able to prescribe herself the drugs that killed her daughter in the first place? If she wasn't a doctor the question of the medical knowledge surrounding how much drugs to administer wouldn't be a factor. If she wasn't a doctor then it seems that this couldn't have happened at all, but she was a doctor and so that fact seems highly pertinent to all the questions that needed to be asked.

For everybody happy with the verdict, are you comfortable with the precedent? There are thousands of examples of scumbag parents abusing their children, so if the next case is a petty criminal who deliberately pumped drugs into her disabled child leading to death, will she be afforded the same sympathy?

By the way, the hysterical sanctimony displayed by many in this thread is really quite ridiculous.

bucketybuck · 16-12-2016 08:15PM

Ayuntamiento wrote: »

The state pathologist also stated that it would be impossible to know if the child had actually died from one of the huge seizures that she'd been having that day.
Just because her blood toxicology showed high levels of anti-seizure medication, that is NOT an indication of the fact that the anti-seizure medication killed her.
There is complex medical detail in this trial that people like you tend not to understand and I don't blame you for that.
However, when I encounter information that is outside my field of expertise/ability to comprehend, I tend to withhold my judgement. It's unfortunate that you don't do the same because the end result of your current method is that you come off as ignorant.

Its seems you haven't withheld your judgement at all, else why would you misrepresent the state pathologists remarks?

Its impossible to know if the medication was definitely the cause, and as such its also impossible to know that it wasn't.

Ayuntamiento · 16-12-2016 08:20PM

bucketybuck wrote: »

If she wasn't a doctor would she have been able to prescribe herself the drugs that killed her daughter in the first place? If she wasn't a doctor the question of the medical knowledge surrounding how much drugs to administer wouldn't be a factor. If she wasn't a doctor then it seems that this couldn't have happened at all, but she was a doctor and so that fact seems highly pertinent to all the questions that needed to be asked.

For everybody happy with the verdict, are you comfortable with the precedent? There are thousands of examples of scumbag parents abusing their children, so if the next case is a petty criminal who deliberately pumped drugs into her disabled child leading to death, will she be afforded the same sympathy?

By the way, the hysterical sanctimony displayed by many in this thread is really quite ridiculous.

She didn't prescribe the anti-seizure meds that her daughter was on. I believe she prescribed the drugs that she tried to kill herself with but that's a separate issue.
Sadly there are plenty of parents in this country tonight who are NOT doctors who are administering anti-seizure meds to their profoundly disabled children. You don't have to be a medical professional to do it.
You clearly aren't a doctor as you don't understand that dosages go out the window with uncontrolled seizures. Once you can support the airway, etc you just give as much medicine as will control the seizure.
So yes, she was held to a higher standard because she's a doctor. I speak from experience in saying that all your professional best judgement goes out the window when family are involved. Hence why you should never be involved in the medical care of your family. This woman had no choice though.

Ayuntamiento · 16-12-2016 08:24PM

bucketybuck wrote: »

Its seems you haven't withheld your judgement at all, else why would you misrepresent the state pathologists remarks?

Its impossible to know if the medication was definitely the cause, and as such its also impossible to know that it wasn't.

I didn't misrepresent anything. One poster presented medical evidence that supported their theory, I introduced the other medical evidence that went against their theory (which they conveniently forgot to mention).
A jury of our peers made a decision on the balance of both. Build a bridge and get over it.

bucketybuck · 16-12-2016 08:30PM

Ayuntamiento wrote: »

I didn't misrepresent anything. One poster presented medical evidence that supported their theory, I introduced the other medical evidence that went against their theory (which they conveniently forgot to mention).
A jury of our peers made a decision on the balance of both. Build a bridge and get over it.

The bridge should be built by the legions who are just horrified at the thought that normal people would wonder how this decision was reached.

huey1975 · 16-12-2016 08:42PM

professore wrote: »

From what I read on the case, she was guilty of at least manslaughter. She deliberately gave her child a lethal dose of chloral hydrate and then attempted to kill herself.

Read more about the case before you post about it here. There is at least reasonable doubt that a fit caused Emily's death. There is no evidence that she deliberately gave a lethal dose of choral hydrate.

Ayuntamiento · 16-12-2016 08:47PM

bucketybuck wrote: »

The bridge should be built by the legions who are just horrified at the thought that normal people would wonder how this decision was reached.

I'm sure it's hard being in the minority.
BTW have you explained the rationale behind your opinion? I would love to analyze and deconstruct that for you so you might actually learn something.
I having a feeling you're mostly spouting whatever comes into your head with no real knowledge of the complexity around this issue.

Bernadette Scully found not guilty of the manslaughter of her daughter

Comments