Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Couple are prosecuted for failing to treat son with meningitis

Options
  • 28-04-2016 10:50am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭


    Couple in Alberta have been found guilty of failing to provide adequate care and provision to their son who did of meningitis, a very preventable and treatable disease. This result is totally right IMHO. The other thing of interest is the fact they didn't vaccinate their child because of the message anti-vaxxers. They also believe part of their prosecution is for failure to vaccinate. I believe they should be prosecuted for it. They endangered and ended their son's life because of this belief and they also could have put other kids and adults at risk.

    Now if you ever talk to an anti vaxxer or creationist or anyone else driven by belief you'll know that they won't change their mind easily. If they do it's not a common phenomenon. In other words their going to put their kid and other kids in danger no matter how much science or information you throw at them. It also creates an unvaccinated reservoir of people that allows for the development of untreatable strains of these diseases. I think it's time to prosecute this more as it's only going to get worse. Liberty is great but it's not good enough when it effects other people's health. Health science is not about the individual.




    LETHBRIDGE, Alta. -- A divisive trial that drew strong opinions from both
    sides of the naturopathic medicine debate came to a tearful conclusion Tuesday
    as an eight-woman, four-man jury found an Alberta couple guilty of failing to
    provide the necessaries of life for their toddler son.


    David and Collet Stephan, whose family helped start a nutritional supplements
    company, were convicted in the death of 19-month-old Ezekiel from meningitis in
    March 2012.


    The trial had been told the couple thought the boy had croup or the flu, so
    treated him for 2 1/2 weeks with remedies that included hot peppers, garlic,
    onions and horseradish, even though a family friend who was a nurse told them
    she thought Ezekiel had meningitis.


    The jury was also told Collett Stephan drove the little boy from their rural
    home to a naturopathic clinic in Lethbridge, Alta., to pick up an echinacea
    mixture, although he was too stiff to sit in his car seat and had to lie on a
    mattress on the way.


    When the jury delivered its verdict in the second day of deliberations, gasps
    could be heard in the courtroom.


    Collet Stephan, 35, began to weep uncontrollably. Several observers in the
    gallery also cried, as did two members of the jury.


    A Facebook page called "Prayers for Ezekiel" exploded in vitriol and anger
    from both sides of the issue, with some calling for the death penalty for the
    Stephans and others calling the proceedings "a travesty of justice."


    One commenter named Erica Anne derided the Stephans as "quack parents using
    quack medicine" while supporter Linda Pereboeff found it "a scandalous failure
    of the justice system." Many wrote that their hearts went out to the family and
    pleaded to know where they could register their opposition to the verdict.


    Crown prosecutor Lisa Weich said the conviction ensures people who cannot
    care for themselves will receive the minimal standard of care expected by
    society.


    "They definitely, definitely loved their son but as stated in our closing
    arguments, unfortunately sometimes love just isn't enough," Weich said outside
    court. "Parents still have to follow a standard of care as set by criminal
    law."


    The couple walked slowly out of the court after the verdict accompanied by
    their lawyer, family and supporters. They did not reply to requests for
    comment.


    David Stephan's brother-in-law said he was both saddened and angry.


    "I was in tears like everybody else," said Eric Sveinson. "I was angry,
    frustrated. We're very disheartened and very disappointed and hope that the
    world can see that a beautiful family was unjustly charged today.


    "Parents now need to be afraid when their kid has a cough, when their kid has
    a cold because you better bring him in the second he sniffles or the second he
    coughs because if you don't, the Crown is going to be after you."


    The defence argued the couple were loving, responsible parents who simply
    didn't realize how sick the little boy was.


    David Stephan, 32, told The Canadian Press in a pre-trial interview he
    believed he and his wife were charged because they didn't vaccinate their
    children and, in part, because of his family's business.


    His father, Anthony Stephan, co-founded Truehope Nutritional Support in
    Raymond, Alta., in 1996 after his wife committed suicide. The company's website
    says the woman and some of the couple's 10 children had been diagnosed with
    bipolar disorder, so Anthony Stephan formed the company with a friend to find a
    natural treatment.


    The company says one of their products, EMPowerplus, helps treat bipolar
    disorder, depression and even autism. Truehope fought to be able to sell
    EMPowerplus for more than a decade before an Alberta judge ruled that it could
    be sold here as a drug.


    David Stephan, a Truehope vice-president, said he heard so many stories from
    parents about vaccinations causing autism in their children that he and his wife
    decided they wouldn't vaccinate their own kids, adding that still held true for
    their three remaining boys.


    The maximum penalty for failing to provide the necessaries of life is five
    years in prison.


    Justice Rodney Jerke did not set a sentencing date nor did he order the
    Stephans be taken into custody. They will be back in court on June 13, at which
    time a sentencing date will be addressed.


    "This case is not yet over, but a big chapter has come to a close," Jerke
    said.


    A look at the final days of 19-month-old Ezekiel Stephan


    LETHBRIDGE, Alta. -- A jury has found David and Collet Stephan guilty of
    failing to provide the necessaries of life for their 19-month-old son Ezekiel. A
    medical examiner ruled the boy died of bacterial meningitis. Here are some key
    dates court heard about in the last days of the boy's life:


    August 20, 2010: Ezekiel Stephan is born at home with the assistance of
    birthing assistant Terry Meynders, who is also a registered nurse.


    February 27, 2012: Ezekiel takes ill at the family home in Glenwood, Alta.
    His mother describes him as having a cold, stuffy nose and trouble breathing.
    "The sound he was making was heartwrenching. This isn't the kind of sound you
    want to hear from your child," she testifies later at the trial.


    February 28-March 5, 2012: Ezekiel is treated for what his parents believed
    to be croup, an upper airway infection that leads to a barking cough. In
    addition to regular smoothies, they give the boy olive leaf extract, garlic, hot
    peppers and horseradish. They also attempt to help his breathing with cool air
    and a humidifier.


    March 5, 2012: Ezekiel seems to improve. His father says the boy is not 100
    per cent, but he no longer has any difficulty breathing and is able to go to
    preschool. He plays with his toys and manages to eat some solid food.


    March 6, 2012: Ezekiel suffers a setback. He is "unusually lethargic," lays
    in bed the entire day and his only response is to moan unhappily. He doesn't eat
    or drink and is exhibiting unusual neurological symptoms.


    March 7, 2012: Ezekiel seems to improve again. His abnormal movements stop
    and he can watch TV, but still isn't playing normally.


    March 8-10, 2012: Ezekiel's parents note he seems to be gradually improving.
    He regains a bit of his appetite, but is not active or playful.


    March 11, 2012: Ezekiel's symptoms worsen again. He refuses to eat or drink
    and is lethargic. His parents notice his body is very stiff.


    March 12, 2012: Ezekiel's body is so stiff that his back is arched. He is
    getting fluids through an eyedropper because he will not drink on his own.
    Meynders comes to the home and checks his vitals. She suggests he could possibly
    have viral meningitis and says she tells the mother she should take the boy to a
    doctor. "It did not jump out at me that he was that seriously ill," Meynders
    testifies.


    March 13, 2012: The Stephans head to Lethbridge to pick up an echinacea
    mixture from a naturopath. Ezekiel is too stiff to sit in his car seat and has
    to lie on a mattress in the vehicle. Back at home that evening, the boy stops
    breathing on a couple of occasions before his parents leave home to meet an
    ambulance. The breathing equipment in the ambulance it too large to properly
    help a small child. The boy is taken to hospital in Cardston and then to
    Lethbridge for transport to Calgary by air.


    March 14, 2012: Ezekiel arrives at Alberta Children's Hospital in Calgary
    where doctors tell the parents the boy is showing very little brain activity and
    the prognosis is bleak. He is put on life support.


    March 16, 2012: Ezekiel dies.


«13

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,559 ✭✭✭✭AnonoBoy


    A nurse friend of theirs told them he probably had meningitis.

    They didn't seek medical help even just to allay that fear.

    Ergo they caused their son's death.

    I can't imagine what cult-like thinking would allow someone to endanger their child because they didn't "believe" in using medicine or some such bullsh*t.

    Just goes to show the real harm these anti-vaxxers can cause to people.


  • Registered Users Posts: 43,028 ✭✭✭✭SEPT 23 1989


    Forced vaccinations is a step too far


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Why Sept? Would it not save lives?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,404 ✭✭✭JustShon


    Forced vaccinations is a step too far

    I agree in principal, but how else do we solve the problem? Education doesn't work. They have armoured themselves against such things with cries of "Government shills!" and "I've looked it up on Google so I should know!"

    I'm not saying that forced vaccinations is the solution but I can't for the life of me think of what is the solution.


  • Registered Users Posts: 43,028 ✭✭✭✭SEPT 23 1989


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Why Sept? Would it not save lives?

    yes but i am not comfortable with the state having that much power


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭Speedwell


    "Forced", no. "Required", yes. You mustn't allow someone to lay hands on a person and forcibly perform medical treatment on them against their will, unless they represent a clear and immediate danger to others, and perhaps not even then (which is why quarantines for the ill are usually imposed rather than Ebola-like secure facilities). But you can make access to privileges and benefits contingent on following the law... school, welfare benefits, and so forth.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,404 ✭✭✭✭sKeith


    They should be allowed the liberty of slowly removing themselves from the gene pool, even it that is not their intention.


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,353 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Forced vaccinations is a step too far


    what does this have to do with this case? The parents had a seriously ill child and did not seek proper treatment. they watched their child die.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,404 ✭✭✭JustShon


    sKeith wrote: »
    They should be allowed the liberty of slowly removing themselves from the gene pool, even it that is not their intention.

    The issue is that the unvaccinated act as incubators for diseases to grow in, mutate in and thus become more dangerous.

    If everyone is vaccinated then the disease never gets the chance to change and get around our defences.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    yes but i am not comfortable with the state having that much power

    They already have the power to prosecute people putting people's lives in danger.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Speedwell wrote: »
    "Forced", no. "Required", yes. You mustn't allow someone to lay hands on a person and forcibly perform medical treatment on them against their will, unless they represent a clear and immediate danger to others, and perhaps not even then (which is why quarantines for the ill are usually imposed rather than Ebola-like secure facilities). But you can make access to privileges and benefits contingent on following the law... school, welfare benefits, and so forth.

    Do children have much of a resistance to getting vaccinated? The last time I checked it was the parents who made the choice for their kids.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,285 ✭✭✭Summer wind


    Im glad to hear these people were found guilty. The poor baby suffered so much before he died. These parents are stupid beyond belief.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭Speedwell


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Do children have much of a resistance to getting vaccinated? The last time I checked it was the parents who made the choice for their kids.

    I honestly thought that could go without saying, lol.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,404 ✭✭✭✭sKeith


    JustShon wrote: »
    The issue is that the unvaccinated act as incubators for diseases to grow in, mutate in and thus become more dangerous.

    If everyone is vaccinated then the disease never gets the chance to change and get around our defences.

    Is that really the case? is that not more about unfinished courses of anti-biotics and mutations. super bugs etc. we only have a limited amount of anti-biotics etc.

    Vaccination is about showing our own immune systems a weak strain of the virus, so that it can boost immune system and become immune.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,404 ✭✭✭JustShon


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Do children have much of a resistance to getting vaccinated? The last time I checked it was the parents who made the choice for their kids.

    I can see where speedwell is coming from though to be fair. It's a bit dystopian, and massively impractical, to have government agents carting kids away to force them to vaccinate.

    I do think penalties for not doing it is a decent idea. I certainly agree that unvaccinated kids shouldn't be allowed in school. Employers should be allowed to check vaccination history and deny employment on the basis of not being up to date in order to protect immuno-compromised employees.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,972 ✭✭✭captbarnacles


    March 12, 2012: Ezekiel's body is so stiff that his back is arched. He is
    getting fluids through an eyedropper because he will not drink on his own.
    Meynders comes to the home and checks his vitals. She suggests he could possibly
    have viral meningitis and says she tells the mother she should take the boy to a
    doctor. "It did not jump out at me that he was that seriously ill," Meynders
    testifies.

    Is viral meningitis not seriously ill?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    It's a tough one, How far can the state go against beliefs. I mean there are a few Religious beliefs to do with blood and treatment for example. I'm not for one second agreeing with what the parents did.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,214 ✭✭✭overshoot


    what does this have to do with this case? The parents had a seriously ill child and did not seek proper treatment. they watched their child die.

    part of the larger discussion. They refused to vaccinate their child and he would probably never even have gotten the disease with it.
    If everyone has the vaccine who can, those that cant, babies, immune deficiencies etc are also better protected. The anti-vaxxers dont just put their own children at risk but others too.
    Make vaccinations a condition of child support payments, not forced, but it will give a good incentive


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,404 ✭✭✭JustShon


    sKeith wrote: »
    Is that really the case? is that not more about unfinished courses of anti-biotics and mutations. super bugs etc. we only have a limited amount of anti-biotics etc.

    Vaccination is about showing our own immune systems a weak strain of the virus, so that it can boost immune system and become immune.

    Yes, unfinished courses of antibiotics cause the creation of super bugs.

    Here's the thing, diseases need a host to mutate in. They cannot mutate without a host. Vaccinating denies diseases such a host but if a select few are refusing to vaccinate then the disease has a host, it has the chance to mutate into a form that the rest of us are not immune to.

    Then you have the issue of the immuno-compromised. Those who cannot receive vaccines for one reason or the other.

    For example, I myself am not vaccinated against polio, as a child I was told I could not have this vaccine due to my asthma. I'm reliant on herd immunity to avoid catching this disease. I need others around me to be immune to it because I cannot be immune myself.

    Edit: I could be wrong on which vaccine I don't have, but I distinctly remember being denied one particular vaccine due to potential complications with my asthma


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭Speedwell


    Exemptions can be given to those who, for medical reasons, cannot be vaccinated, such as people who are immunocompromised and have a proper doctor's letter saying so and giving the exact medical grounds (such as, "Michael has rheumatoid arthritis and is being treated with methotrexate").

    When prayer and other purely ideological objections can be shown to be valid medical interventions, then they can also be taken into account.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,135 ✭✭✭screamer


    Proper order. Regardless of religious beliefs. The child doesn't have a choice, regarding their religious beliefs, and until they do everything should be done to protect their life. This is a case of pure and simple neglect even after being told by a nurse she thought the child had meningitis they did not seek proper medical care........

    If these parents have other kids I seriously hope they will be removed from them too.


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,353 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    overshoot wrote: »
    part of the larger discussion. They refused to vaccinate their child and he would probably never even have gotten the disease with it.
    If everyone has the vaccine who can, those that cant, babies, immune deficiencies etc are also better protected. The anti-vaxxers dont just put their own children at risk but others too.
    Make vaccinations a condition of child support payments, not forced, but it will give a good incentive

    you're right, if they had vaccinated their child he probably would not have caught the disease. But it is their actions after he contracted the disease that are the real issue.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    JustShon wrote: »
    I can see where speedwell is coming from though to be fair. It's a bit dystopian, and massively impractical, to have government agents carting kids away to force them to vaccinate.

    I do think penalties for not doing it is a decent idea. I certainly agree that unvaccinated kids shouldn't be allowed in school. Employers should be allowed to check vaccination history and deny employment on the basis of not being up to date in order to protect immuno-compromised employees.

    But the unvaccinated children would still be reservoirs for viruses and bacteria to mutate. In other words not vaccinating children can create strains that result in vaccinations being less effective.

    The other issue is that parents who choose to not vaccinate their kids aren't the ones being put out the most. They're putting their kids lives in danger. I don't think they should have that choice.


  • Registered Users Posts: 855 ✭✭✭mickoneill31


    I worry about the human race.

    At the start of the article it says

    "Parents now need to be afraid when their kid has a cough, when their kid has a cold because you better bring him in the second he sniffles or the second he coughs because if you don't, the Crown is going to be after you."

    Then later on it says

    "Ezekiel's body is so stiff that his back is arched. He is getting fluids through an eyedropper because he will not drink on his own. Meynders comes to the home and checks his vitals. She suggests he could possibly have viral meningitis and says she tells the mother she should take the boy to a doctor. "It did not jump out at me that he was that seriously ill," Meynders testifies."


    Arched stiff back, fluids through an eyedropper, nurse who thinks it might be meningitis is nothing near "kid has a cough".


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,451 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    Good, I am a mild mannered person in general but alternative medicine grinds my gears. Note complementary medicine is fine and has a place but first and foremost evidence based scientific medicine.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    I think vaccination should be made effectively compulsory. I don't think kids should be dragged from their houses and vaccinated, but there should be pressure. Want you kid to go to school? Show me his vaccination record. I think some states in Australia already do this.

    The issue is these maniacs probably don't want to send their kids to school anyway, so that kind of pressure likely won't work. I don't believe a religious belief should be a sufficient excuse not to have one's children vaccinated, given the risk to the child that does not know any better, and the wider societal risk, but I am not sure how to address it.

    I think if all children attending school were vaccinated, unless there was an actual real reason for them not to be, then perhaps the maniacs could be left to themselves. But I keep coming back to the kids... And this is where i have a conflict. When weighing up the rights of the parents to hold ridiculous beliefs and the rights of the child (to not die from a preventable illness), surely the child's rights should come first? Is there any way round this other than forcing vaccinations?

    MrP


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,588 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    If the state will make a case for prosecution/removal of custody in the case of a child being physically mistreated, underfed, denied education and so on, I'd put failure to vaccinate (without reason) in the same bracket.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,722 ✭✭✭silly


    That was pretty hard to read - Having small kids myself and common sense that even if a child has not had a drink in a few hours (and being lethargic for a whole day!!)can lead to dehydration pretty fast and would be an overnight stay in the hospital on a drip.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,404 ✭✭✭JustShon


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    But the unvaccinated children would still be reservoirs for viruses and bacteria to mutate. In other words not vaccinating children can create strains that result in vaccinations being less effective.

    The other issue is that parents who choose to not vaccinate their kids aren't the ones being put out the most. They're putting their kids lives in danger. I don't think they should have that choice.

    How do you enforce it though? We don't have enough police to enforce the "No murdering each other rule" so how in the hells are we meant to enforce mandatory vaccines?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    osarusan wrote: »
    If the state will make a case for prosecution/removal of custody in the case of a child being physically mistreated, underfed, denied education and so on, I'd put failure to vaccinate (without reason) in the same bracket.

    Yes of course. It's child neglect and also it's putting other people in danger.


Advertisement