GUILTY MA - Kristen LaBrie accused of denying son chemo, Salem, 2009

New Posts

Donjeta said:
Yes but why would she think her child was going to die anyway if she also thought that his cancer was gone and the symptoms of his recurring cancer were not of any concern.

I am not necessarily saying that she attempted to murder her child, just that her statements cannot all be true at the same time.

In any case, IMO this sort of a potentially deadly decision should be made following a discussion with the other parent, and preferably an agreement.

If she thought that her child was going to die anyway while given 85 to 90 % odds of survival and it was not worthwhile trying it out then this remark is a bit inconsistent as well. Quoted from an earlier post



85 to 90 % survival rate is also higher than zero.
Click to expand...

UBM

I missed your point when I read your post earlier - about her making the decision in conjunction with the Dad. I hear you - though it does sound like the Dad was pretty uninvolved for a long time and like they did not necessarily have a good child-rearing relationship together. I'm sure to some extent she thought - "I'm the one that's been doing it all, seeing what he's going through - so I'm the one whose decision matters." I don't know that, of course, but I could understand if she felt like that.

What are your feelings about this? - what if she had told the doctor "I'm not going to give him the chemo meds anymore" - what do you think the doctor would have done? I think the doctor would have gone to the courts to take the child from her and force the child to take chemo.
 
This will not be a popular thought, and I apologize in advance.

Attempted murder? Really? Not to my mind. I see a mother, dealing with one of the most stressful and painful times of her life, as well as her child's life. and really, to my mind, it does not matter if the decision to stop the treatment was to end his suffering or if she really believed that the cancer was gone.
Personally, I don't care.
That is her child, and she should have the right to stop treatment for no other reason than because she wants to, even if she believes that allowing nature to take it's course is kinder than prolonging his "life" (which had no quality). If she were the one with cancer and the one that chose to have no further treatment, her reasons would not matter, as she is in charge of her own medical decisions. She is also in charge of medical decisions for her child, and too bad if the establishment or us here don't like it, but that is her choice, and if it isn't, at least it should be.

If my child were dying, and the doctors told me to continue giving him medication that may or may not work, but would definitely deplete the remaining quality of his last few weeks or months, if I decided to stop that medication, screw the personal consequences to me. My job as a mother is to protect my child from further harm, and if this is how I do that, then the rest of the world will just have to deal with it.

Purely MO.
 
not_my_kids said:
This will not be a popular thought, and I apologize in advance.

Attempted murder? Really? Not to my mind. I see a mother, dealing with one of the most stressful and painful times of her life, as well as her child's life. and really, to my mind, it does not matter if the decision to stop the treatment was to end his suffering or if she really believed that the cancer was gone.
Personally, I don't care.
That is her child, and she should have the right to stop treatment for no other reason than because she wants to, even if she believes that allowing nature to take it's course is kinder than prolonging his "life" (which had no quality). If she were the one with cancer and the one that chose to have no further treatment, her reasons would not matter, as she is in charge of her own medical decisions. She is also in charge of medical decisions for her child, and too bad if the establishment or us here don't like it, but that is her choice, and if it isn't, at least it should be.

If my child were dying, and the doctors told me to continue giving him medication that may or may not work, but would definitely deplete the remaining quality of his last few weeks or months, if I decided to stop that medication, screw the personal consequences to me. My job as a mother is to protect my child from further harm, and if this is how I do that, then the rest of the world will just have to deal with it.

Purely MO.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you wrote, nmk!
 
But the thing is, IMO, that she wasn't told that her child was dying. She was told that her child had a rather good chance to live, if he got treatment. She chose not to give her child the treatment that would have given him 85-90 % survival rate. Most of us would take those odds any day, even if it means side effects.

It might be that her child would have been one of the 10-15 % who would have died anyway, even with the treatment, and we have no way of knowing if her decision to withhold medication lead to the leukemia or if he would have had it anyway but at the time she made her choice she had no way of knowing that her decision would not lead to her child dying. Yet she chose to make the decision and not give her child the better chance to live. Then later on, as his condition gets worse she criticizes his father for not giving her child the chance to live.

I see some problems with that and I think she should be charged with medical neglect or child abuse or something.

I don't know... I just don't see it as my right as a mother's to make any possible decisions in my child's welfare. It is my duty to make the best possible decisions that give them the best odds of a) living healthy and happy, b) living and c) dying relatively comfortably, if it comes to that. But IMO, I can't go to c) before I've done everything I can to do a) or b), and before it's sure that the child will be dying, and to me, doing everything I can doesn't mean ignoring a treatment that gives 85 to 90 percent odds of survival against professional medical advice.

If she had made a conscious and well thought of decision to stop the treatment for the best of her child she should have no difficulties choosing one of the explanations why it was the best decision for him. Either he was dying and the medication was needless torture or she thought he was cured and the medication was needless torture. She's trying to do both now and can't pick one of the options which makes me think that neither of them is the whole truth .
 
Friedmann testified she can’t say whether withholding the chemotherapy medications caused Fraser’s cancer to return in a more aggressive form.

“I believe his not receiving the medications increased the risk of his cancer coming back,” she said.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1328628
It had to leave to return. Therefore, her statement that she believed his cancer was cured, has to be true, because even the doctor is saying that it left.

“Her mental strength waned,” he said. “Her objectivity waned, and she really thought that the medication, the cure was beyond what Jeremy could tolerate.”
From same article.
These are not the mothers words, they are her attorneys. When the mother speaks, then we will know what she herself has to say, until then, we have only the words of her rep, and therefore, do not know if she has changed her story, only that her representative has changed the story they are telling on her behalf.

MOO.
 
Yes, they say he had responded well to the treatment but I don't think it means they really consider you cured from cancer until you've been cancer free in the follow ups for a number of years. The treatments last for a certain length of time because there is the risk of latent cancer cells staying in the body unnoticed and going wild again after the treatment has been stopped.

The boy had responded well to the prescribed treatment, which included chemotherapy, hospital stays and prescription medication. The doctor added he experienced “average side effects.”
Click to expand...

Anyway, if he had responded well to the treatment and the side effects were no more than average it doesn't sound like a situation in which any mother should definitely consider letting their child die in peace.

I thought that we could consider the attorney's words as representing your position if you had hired an attorney to represent you in court.

Talking about mental strength waning like that he sounds like he's admitting it was the wrong decision to do.
 
Donjeta said:
Yes, they say he had responded well to the treatment but I don't think it means they really consider you cured from cancer until you've been cancer free in the follow ups for a number of years. The treatments last for a certain length of time because there is the risk of latent cancer cells staying in the body unnoticed and going wild again after the treatment has been stopped.



Anyway, if he had responded well to the treatment and the side effects were no more than average it doesn't sound like a situation in which any mother should definitely consider letting their child die in peace.

I thought that we could consider the attorney's words as representing your position if you had hired an attorney to represent you in court.

Talking about mental strength waning like that he sounds like he's admitting it was the wrong decision to do.
Click to expand...

She was the single mother (face it, Dad wasn't around until there was something in it for him) of a badly disabled autistic, cancer riddled child. I highly doubt that she HIRED him, but rather he was APPOINTED for her. She can still fire him, but there's a difference. And once, it still is not her words, so it isn't fair to say that she is waffling, when she isn't speaking.
 
Well, she should definitely fire her attorney if he's not sure at this point in the case whether she stopped the medicines because she thought he was dying anyway or because he was cured.
 
Don't ya just love it when mum's refer to their kin as "that child" It always gives me the jeebies.

Just sayin....

Mel
 
mgardner said:
Don't ya just love it when mum's refer to their kin as "that child" It always gives me the jeebies.

Just sayin....

Mel
Click to expand...

LOL, Mel - I'm going to have to admit that in times of great pique and irritation, I have been known to refer to my progeny as "that child," usually when I am regaling my husband with some tale of badness involving "that child."

Just saying.....;)
 
I'm with Donjeta that it's hard to figure out what exactly happened and what the Mom was thinking - for me anyway, based on the articles I have read. Perhaps the attorney is just trying to be nimble, keep his options open......and you know how lawyers are - they don't necessarily communicate like real human beings!

I worked with attorneys for years and the truth is that although they are speaking on behalf of clients, they definitely will say things that never came out of their client's mouth. Not lying, per se, but attorneys are always strategizing.
 
he mother of an autistic boy with cancer was found guilty on Tuesday of attempted murder for withholding chemotherapy drugs that potentially could have saved his life.

A jury found Kristen LaBrie, 38, of Salem, Massachusetts guilty on all counts -- attempted murder, permitting serious bodily injury to a disabled person, permitting substantial injury to a child and reckless endangerment of a child, said Steve O'Connell, spokesman for the Essex District Attorney's Office.

Judge Richard Welch will sentence LaBrie on Friday in Lawrence Superior Court. She faces the possibility of up to 20 years in prison for attempted murder, the stiffest charge.

The maximum sentence is 10 years in prison for permitting serious bodily injury to a disabled person, and the other two charges carry a maximum prison term of five years each.

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-kristen-labrie-murder,0,5152459.story
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 146 more.
Total: 3,336 (members: 147, guests: 3,189)

Online statistics

Members online
147
Guests online
3,189
Total visitors
3,336
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,612
Messages
17,971,794
Members
228,844
Latest member
SoCal Greg
Back
Top