Originally posted by cass:
yes, i saw this on the listserv today. been following this story.

apparently, there are those who sympathize with the mom for suffocating her "severely" dis daughter. to the point she is outta jail on 100k bond tho she is considered by some to be a "flight risk" due to her relatives overseas.

where is our popular media??

Originally posted by ParaDude:
Are we not supposed to wait for all the evidence before aquitting or convicting people?

Originally posted by ParaDude:
Give the justice system a chance to work before complaining that it doesn't.

Originally posted by Xuxan:
PD - what you may not know is the following....

Katie's mom was upset Katie would not take a nap, and decided to take her in the car and smother her to death. She did this knowing her family wouldn't think anything of it as driving was a way to calm her down to sleep. She brought her home dead/ said she was asleep and put her to bed.

She told no one what she did. 911 was contacted in the morning when Katie was discovered dead. After several hours she admited that she had done it.

So this is a premeditated murder that she had no plans to own up to.

Why is this woman not in custody?

Originally posted by Xuxan:
PD - what you may not know is the following....

Katie's mom was upset Katie would not take a nap, and decided to take her in the car and smother her to death. She did this knowing her family wouldn't think anything of it as driving was a way to calm her down to sleep. She brought her home dead/ said she was asleep and put her to bed.

She told no one what she did. 911 was contacted in the morning when Katie was discovered dead. After several hours she admited that she had done it.

So this is a premeditated murder that she had no plans to own up to.

Why is this woman not in custody?

Originally posted by cass:
She also has another child.

PD, you are so bent on posting against certain ppl you aren't even listening to your own heart methinks. Were you not outraged when that mother drowned her 5 kids in the bathtub? Did you think she deserved a bail that could actually be posted?

Originally posted by MrSoul:
Want to place bets on the sentence, PD? I say: no jail time, only probation.

I'll be pleasantly surprised (and stunned) if I am wrong.

Originally posted by MrSoul:
You are so busy fulminating at Susan, that you didn't reply to ME, Dan. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally posted by MrSoul:
Want to place bets on the sentence, PD? I say: no jail time, only probation.

I'll be pleasantly surprised (and stunned) if I am wrong.

Care to place bets?

Originally posted by cass:
pd, she admitted doing it. AND she does have another child. i believe she also works as a pathologist...i'd have to check that.

was andrea yates ever out on bail? using your she certainly wouldn't have done it again either.

Actually it is almost only the Peoria Journal Star that has covered it so far and they are completely on the side of the mother. As are btw the Autism Society, the Arc, and many other parent-run disability organizations.

NEWS
Photos of Katie McCarron
Taken by the people who loved her. VIEW PHOTOS. | Read Mothers Who Kill (WIMN's Voices blog)

They do not wish for the photos to be used in any way suggesting Katie's death is associated with a "problem" arising from a lack of services, or a symptom of "desperation" felt by other families. Using Katie's picture in these ways would only be an insult to her memory and cause more pain to an already grieving family.

With the exception of the print edition of the Chicago Tribune (online story with no photos here) , no pictures of Katie McCarron have appeared in the coverage of her alleged murder by her mother.

Originally posted by cass:
ummmm PD....the father and grandfather sent them the photos. excuse me, the grandfather sent them to NDY for them to be posted online. i just double checked the email.

Originally posted by Xuxan:
When I suggested community service for the parents who locked their adult son into the house, it was not known yet that they deliberately set the house on fire.

With that known, I don't think community service is warranted. Initially it was just thought that they used foolish methods to keep their son safe when they went out. That his death was a horrid accident, not a premeditated murder.

Originally posted by cass:
you know PD, given your stance on "cure", you really ought to read what parents of autistic children are saying in this case. they are saying EXACTLY what you say all the time: there is no cure, we accept our children for what they are.

i really think you are so opposed to NDY and a poster here that you are unwilling to look at this realistically. a child was murdered. her murderer (a doctor, no less) is claiming stress. well, andrea yates was stressed. did her argument fly? no. yet this mom's does. why?

try reading some of the stuff on this sad incident and then get back to me. you accused NDY of exploiting the child when, in reality, her grandfather trusted them to get her photo and story out to ppl to counteract the media reports she was "in pain," "a burden," etc. etc.

NDY has done exactly what he asked. no more. what did you expect them to do? say, "no, sorry, we will be accused of this or that?" good grief.

and i disagree with you. the public is outraged in child abuse deaths. they are just surprisingly more "understanding" if the child is disabled. however, if the parent is "mentally disabled" and the children AB (as i believe was the case in andrea yates, for example), there is little sympathy.

a quote from one of the blogs created after katie's grandfather put her picture out there is below. you could have written this, pd. in fact, you have over and over. please get past your prejudice against an org/poster and look at the real issue here.

"I think that if Katie’s beautiful smile can get more parents of autistic kids—and more of the society at large—to step back from the rush to cure and to fix and to normalize, and to see our kids as the whole, precious human beings that they are, she will have done an immense good in her brief time on Earth."

BTW, what outrage here, pd? that is exactly the point. this story has caused little outrage, much less than many other child murder cases. she has been dead a month and did you see it on cbs?

Yates is being held in the psychiatric ward of Rusk Penitentiary in Rusk, Texas, about 200 miles north of Houston, Odom said. Yates' attorneys said they did not seek her release after the ruling because she is receiving medical treatment for severe postpartum depression.

Yates was convicted of capital murder in March 2002 and sentenced to life in prison.

She had a well-documented history of postpartum depression and her attorneys argued that she suffered from postpartum psychosis.

web page

Originally posted by ParaDude:
When we as a community (a disabled community) get so vocal over these kinds of things society has a whole begins to think of us as "special", in need of extra protection. This kind of pandering makes us look weak and needy and imho it is no wonder we find it hard some times to get the AB world to look at us as equals, rather than gimps.

What is suffering and when does it mean it is OK to engage in "compassionate homicide"? Is suffering when you as a parent can't imagine that your child will have a life worth living?

Originally posted by ParaDude:

Are you both saying that there is NEVER a case to be made for a "mercy killing"? That we as a society should NEVER consider it as a option when people are suffering?

Originally posted by ParaDude:
The topic has swung in many different directions Mr.Soul. It wasn't me who brought up the mercy killing in Canada, I am merely going with the flow here.

Originally posted by cass:
i want "society" to quit thinking either dis are better off dead or all want to be cured.

what do you want? i know the answer. but society is not going down that path, are they?

your analogy was ludicrous. is what i meant. in other words, drawing an analogy to oj and this mom makes no sense.

You remember news accounts of Robert Latimer saying what he did was compassionate toward his daughter and a judge who sentenced in agreement.

Originally posted by ParaDude:
Yeah what a horrible world it would be if disabilities were eliminated from this planet.

Like I said before, women get abortions for all sorts of reasons, claiming it is their right to do so, so having an abortion because the child is going to be disabled seems to be her right as well.

As for killing children who are already born? Well obviously I don't agree with that.

I must infer PD that you are in complete agreement with the acquital of Lorena Bobbit for cutting off her husband's penis, because it is pretty obvious she would never do that again!

Originally posted by StarlightAngel:
the problem i see with NDY is that they highlight cases from one end of the spectrum - terri schiavo, infanticide etc. - as rationale for their opposition to ALL forms of assisted suicide/euthanasia including (and here is where i have the biggest problem w/ their thinking) the right for MENTALLY COMPETENT adults to make their own end-of-life decisions.

two completely different issues, really.

Here's an example of a similar kind------ It is illegal to use heroin. It is illegal for competent adults to use it. It is illegal for children to use it. It is illegal for people who have been found incompetent. Competence isn't the issue. Heroin is simply illegal.

Euthanasia is simply illegal and in the opinion of NDY - it should be.

Originally posted by Xuxan:
No, NDY doesn't consider competence - one way or the other. They simply consider that at this point in time permitting euthanasia on account of disability is wrong. It is unilaterally considered wrong - whether you are competent or not.

Here's an example of a similar kind------ It is illegal to use heroin. It is illegal for competent adults to use it. It is illegal for children to use it. It is illegal for people who have been found incompetent. Competence isn't the issue. Heroin is simply illegal.

Euthanasia is simply illegal and in the opinion of NDY - it should be.

Originally posted by Xuxan:
NDY would say - the edit against euthansia is universal - no exceptions. There is no way to ethically and decidedly determine who would be those candidates who came to their decision without being pushed into that decision by others (society included.)

Originally posted by Xuxan:
Everyone, individually or organizationally has to make decisions based on the information they have at hand. NDY has made its decision by balancing the indpendence to make any choice you want versus a choice you feel is the only choice you have.

And yes, as much as it grieves me to say it, it does mean exactly as you say, "sorry honey, you are screwed."

Originally posted by Xuxan:
No, you don't understand.

If a person is extreme pain - give them pain killers. If the level of pain killers required to kill pain results in death - as long as a person knowledgeably made that choice - it is their choice to make.

Originally posted by cass:
pd, you paint NDY as a collective with a single purpose. it isn't. except for the belief euthanasia should remain illegal as long as there is a bias in society against dis ppl; i.e. "understanding" why dis ppl would want to die. i think you fail to acknowledge this.

yes, we have curbcuts, dis parking, etc. but you fail to see many of the ppl you are attacking advocated for that as well. more importantly, you seemingly are not aware of the bioethics trend which is growing.

NDY is not against choice. it is against choice in THIS environment. i see many emails back and forth. NDY is comprised of many individual viewpoints. TRUE end of life choices are not opposed, but not possible given the perceived "suffering" of pwd. at least, under the law. the law is the key. it is not illegal to commit suicide (in the u.s.). it is illegal to commit murder. inbetween is a gray area.

that said, helping a friend to die and killing a child share no common ground.

Originally posted by cass:
that said, helping a friend to die and killing a child share no common ground.

Originally posted by MrSoul:
Why does every discussion of parents killing gimp children come back to assisted suicide? :rolleyes:

THE CHILDREN DID NOT CHOOSE SUICIDE. THIS IS NOT THE SUBJECT AND STOP TURNING IT INTO THAT.

the problem i see with NDY is that they highlight cases from one end of the spectrum - terri schiavo, infanticide etc. - as rationale for their opposition to ALL forms of assisted suicide/euthanasia including (and here is where i have the biggest problem w/ their thinking) the right for MENTALLY COMPETENT adults to make their own end-of-life decisions.

Originally posted by Sylvana:
Euthanasia is NOT LEGAL in Oregon. Assisted Suicide is. There is a huge difference.

Originally posted by ParaDude:

Quote:

Originally posted by Sylvana:
Euthanasia is NOT LEGAL in Oregon. Assisted Suicide is. There is a huge difference.

What is the difference? Both are by acts of another helping someone to leave this world in some sort of peace.

Mr.Soul - I don't know how threads evolve...evolution is real tho, get used to it.

Originally posted by cass:
what is the difference? webster's:

Main Entry: eu·tha·na·sia
Pronunciation: "yü-th&-'nA-zh(E-)&
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek, easy death, from euthanatos, from eu- + thanatos death -- more at THANATOS
: the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy

Oregon's law "permits" assisted suicide.

Originally posted by Sylvana:
Assisted Suicide is a process by which a competant adult can secure sufficient information and medication from a physician to end their own lives.

Q: Are euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide the same thing?

A: No. They are two legally distinct procedures for hastening death. In euthanasia, a doctor injects a patient with a lethal dosage of medication. In physician-assisted suicide, a physician prescribes a lethal dose of medication to a patient, but the patient - not the doctor - administers the medication. Euthanasia is illegal in every state in the union, including Oregon. Physician-assisted suicide has been legal in Oregon since November 1997. Oregon is the only state in the Union that has legalized physician-assisted suicide.

In physician-assisted suicide, a physician prescribes a lethal dose of medication to a patient, but the patient - not the doctor - administers the medication.

But it is the patient who must administer the drug.

Originally posted by Xuxan:
PD, Can't you read? I just posted Oregon's definition of assisted suicide. They are not the same.

You cannot euthanize yourself.

A doctor/nurse/whoever cannot committ suicide for you. Only you yourself can commit suicide. A doctor can give you the tools, but not do it.

Originally posted by Xuxan:
Did Katie McCarron choose to die? No.
So it was not suicide.
Was Kate McCarron under a doctors care because she was dying? No.
So it was not palliative care.
Did she ask a doctor for help to die? No.
So it was not Physician Assisted Suicide.

Are some people calling this a mercy killing because she had autism? Yes.

Semantics are the difference between a legal action and an illegal one.

Originally posted by cass:
...take x a day until pain is gone?

Originally posted by cass:
perhaps the second debate should be another thread.

Originally posted by Xuxan:
Everyone does not agree it was murder, some say it was and I quote "a mercy killing".

Originally posted by Xuxan:
Everyone does not agree it was murder, some say it was and I quote "a mercy killing".

Originally posted by MerryA:
Katie McCarron was murdered. And the legal system is addressing this as we type. The mother has been charged and will be tried by a jury of her peers.

Ya'll can argue about Oregan law vs reality etc all you want - doesn't have anything to do with this case.

The child having autism obviously did not make a difference to the prosecutor in bringing charges - I doubt it will make a difference to the jury in their deliberations either - people are not nearly as stupid as they appear sometimes. :p

B]but I don't think she should automatically be condemned[/B]

Originally posted by candra:
Be clear, I'm not defending this woman, but I don't think she should automatically be condemned because she killed an "autistic" kid.

Originally posted by Xuxan:
she pled not guilty .

Originally posted by MrSoul:
See, Karen, this is precisely what Susan and I worry about--people seem to connect the two. They are TOTALLY UNRELATED.

Originally posted by MrSoul:
Decide what? She admitted it. You don't think she should be condemned? Exactly what the hell do people have to do to earn your condemnation, if killing an innocent child doesn't qualify??

And why did you put autistic in quotes?

If everyone supports Karen's right to PAD, how about supporting Katie's right to LIVE?

Originally posted by walkin and rollin:
Most killed children only make their local news unless the crime is especially heinous and newsworthy. I don't hear the names of children killed in Portland, which is 100 miles north in the same state, unless I buy the Portland paper.
Which way do you think public concern is headed for the woman who killed her estranged boyfriend, her handicapped child, and her AB child, before killing herself?
walkin

Originally posted by cass:
again. NDY was approached by the child's grandfather. they have not, to my knowledge, done anything than what he asked, which was to post her picture and desseminate it to other internet sources they deemed appropriate.

exactly what do you think NDY should have done when he asked them to post her picture?

Originally posted by cass:
they did.

All Children are beautiful, encourage people to realize what special gifts they are.

Originally posted by StarlightAngel:

Quote:

Originally posted by MrSoul:
Decide what? She admitted it. You don't think she should be condemned? Exactly what the hell do people have to do to earn your condemnation, if killing an innocent child doesn't qualify??

And why did you put autistic in quotes?

If everyone supports Karen's right to PAD, how about supporting Katie's right to LIVE?

and how qualitatively different would it be from dumping the kid in an institution and never coming back ?

Originally posted by cass:
they usually don't. and, if not for NDY, katie wouldn't have.

Originally posted by Xuxan:
And so does that mean we should be silent about the ones we do hear about because there are others we don't know about?

But Katie wasn't "all kids". Katie's murder is being considered something understandable.

First, this is an adults with disabilities focused message board and doesn't include many parents of kids with disabilities so the majority of people who are finding her actions excusable are not represented here.

And second, Candra did defend her, even though she ended her litany of reasons her actions were understandable with saying she was not defending her.