I was reading this article in the newswire section of Salon.com yesterday, had have been mulling it over in my mind ever since. Here's the short version:
A woman, who is a Jehova's Witness, has an adult son who is mentally ill (in what respect the article doesn't say), who has medication to control his illness. The son went off of his medication, and on Dec. 31st stabbed his mother in the chest and arm. She was taken to a hospital, where she (not surprisingly) refused to accept a blood transfusion. On Jan. 1st, she died of blood loss. Currently, the son is being charged with assault; authorities are trying to determine whether or not to charge him with murder as well.
What do you think? It seems to me that there are two issues here. First, is the son guilty of murder, since his mother died as a result of his attack, or only of assault, since she could have taken reasonable steps that would have saved her life, but consciously chose not to do so? Second, if a person has a mental problem that causes them to become "uncontrollable", in the words of the man's father, has medication that controls that problem, and voluntarily chooses to go off of that medication, are they responsible for what they do in their uncontrollable state, or are they innocent by reason of insanity?
Does the fact that, despite being uncontrollable, the man had no history of violence when off the drug excuse his decision to stop taking it (leaving aside, for the moment, the question of what uncontrollable but non-violent really means)? Should a person prone to uncontrollable behavior when not medicated be legally required to take the drug that pacifies them?
[Edited because, somehow, I failed to capitalize the first word in a sentence]
posted
wow! This raises ALL KINDS of ethical dilemmas, doesn't it?
1) Would the woman have died anyway, even with tranfusions? (they don't always work) I know JW's usually have several accepted "back-up" allowances, like infusion with lots of fluid volume, etc., other than blood during operations... Will the court be able to prove she WOULDN"T have died from the wounds if she hadn't refused blood?
2) was it the son's or the mother's idea that the son quit taking his medication due to religious beliefs?
They will have a tough time proving responsiblity either way. I figure they will charge him, find him not guilty by reason of insanity, and lock him away until he agrees to take meds. Probably.
Farmgirl
[EDITTED: can't believe I spelled raises that way!]
posted
How did you spell "raises"? I'm curious now!
I know what you mean--I was surprised by just how many ethical quandries they'd manage to fit into this one case.
Did the son stop taking his medication for religious reasons? I missed that in the article. I'll have to go back and reread it.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm fairly firm in the opinion that his crime was assault, and death would have been avoidable if she had sought treatment. By the same token, I don't think the ending of medication constitutes culpability for the assault by whoever did it.
Clearly, I don't think this guy needs prison. But is it ethical to force someone to take medication in a state institution if they are religiously opposed to it? I say yes, unless the Jehovah's Witnesses want to institute an alternative securement for folks like this.
Edit: I guess it doesn't go into why he would have been off his meds.
The other night we were watching Groundhog Day, when they are talking about the blood sausage, and we were saying we would never eat blood sausage, because it says not to in the Bible (we're LDS, but it just seems gross). My daughter says "What about blood muffins?
posted
Does that mean then, pooka, that location should be taken into account when determining the severity of a crime? If this stabbing had taken place on a camping trip, and the woman had died of blood loss before she could be gotten to a hospital, it would be fairly clear cut that the son had murdered her, right (questions of his mental competence aside for the moment)? Does the fact that he stabbed her in the city, where medical help was more immediately available, lessen the crime?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
To the best of my knowledge JWs are not opposed to any medical treatment except blood transfusions. So I doubt the reason the son went off his medication was religion.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, dkw, I guess we got mixed up with Christian Scientists.
Noemon, she was at the hospital and was able to refuse a transfusion. That's like saying someone should be tried for murder if the person was saved but the wound would have caused death if they hadn't been treated.
P.S. Do Jehovah's Witnesses wear something like a Med Alert so that they don't get a transfusion if they happen to be unconscious?
posted
Okay, well we still think it's gross. I guess I'll talk to him about that. Brigham Young (a church president) once opined that people shouldn't eat pig, but it was just his opinion.
Edit: I think this thread title could be more descriptive.
posted
My husband's former supervisor (at his first non-temp job, fresh from college, had once been jailed for "malicious wounding". This was in Virginia, and is relatively equivalent to assault with intent to committ murder or attempted murder, though the terms and punishments vary from state to state. The charge would have become murder automatically had the guy he hurt died, according to Virginia law at the time.
So, I think what happens in this sort of situation varies from state to state.
What do I think SHOULD happen? He should probably be prosecuted under whatever that state calls 'diminished capacity.'
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry that I misinterpreted that the guy went off his meds due to religious reasons. Don't know where I got that idea -- must have been reading something between the lines that wasn't there.
Noemon -- I spelled it "razes" (same sound, wrong meaning)
I wonder -- are they giving him meds while he awaits in prison? To keep him from harming others?
posted
I don't think that there should be a murder. Assault, attempted murder, something along those lines perhaps. Granted that's a gut reaction. How do you prove that her life would have been saved had she received the transfusion? And there's a danger in saying “you can't call it murder because not every effort was taken to save her life.” I just have visions of people saying the paramedics were clearly driving too slowly or just didn't arrive in time, or the doctor on call was incapable, etc. As for some sort of insanity plea, give me a break. He stopped taking meds that he knew and understood were necessary to control his instability and stabbed someone. If I get drunk and stab someone I can't claim drunkenness (Ok, it has happened before, but it wouldn't fly now). If we can assume he's rational when he's on his meds we can assume he understood the consequences of going off of them. He's still responsible for his actions.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This sounds like a similar dilema to the one in Arkansas(i think). The guy went off his meds and killed someone. There is a twist to it though, he has been sentenced to death. However, execution of mentally impaired persons is prohibited. So the solution is to give the guy his meds, making him mentally sound, then execute him. I think they just did the deed this past weekend.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, is the current version of the title offensive? I was just trying to be funny when I changed it a minute ago, but now it's rubbing me the wrong way. If it seems offensive let me know and I'll happily change it.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So can someone be tried for going of their meds with the intent to assault? I think that with burden of proof in his favor, the question of whether he could distinguish right from wrong is important.
But I don't know. Maybe executing this guy will influence all those people who say "Maybe I'll be okay this time if I go of my meds" to not do it. After all, deterring potential murderers is the main reason to have the death penalty. I'm being sarcastic.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing that we don't know, and that we'd really need to know if we were actually the ones deciding this guy's fate, would be what is actually wrong with him mentally. We'd also need to know the circumstances under which he went off the medication.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:celia: [he] called my bluff saxon75: who? celia: noemon celia: heh, but you're a mod, even if it isn't there, so i'm going to consider him reported
. . .
saxon75: I don't think it counts if the person you report to is not a mod of the board in question celia: hey, i never said where i'd report it saxon75: OK, then, I'll see what I can do.
Consider yourself on notice, Noemon.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did see the alternate thread title, during "We are sending you back to:..." and then it was changed.
The mod (Hatrack's mod, that is) has to agree something is offensive or out of bounds in order for it to matter that it has been reported.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Forgetting the insanity defense for now, the crime is murder. It’s a question of causation: did his actions cause the death? Yes, in both the “but for” sense (but for his stabbing of her, she would be alive) and in the proximate cause sense (the death was a foreseeable and closely-related result of his act, especially given that he knew she would refuse blood transfusions). In addition, there is no compelling evidence that a transfusion would save her life. Intervening malpractice or medical error has been found to not shield an assailant from a homicide conviction.
The insanity issue is much less clear. An epileptic not taking medicine that controls seizures and causing a car crash with fatalities can be charged with reckless homicide (whatever version of it exists in the state in question). If the expected results of going off medicine was violence he may still be culpable. However, if the expected results were non-violent behavior, then he probably can use the insanity defense, provided (depending on the state) the illness created an uncontrollable impulse.
There are a million shading characteristics for each issue, and I’ve ignored many of them. This would be dependent on the specific causation and insanity tests used in the jurisdiction. But this is probably a safe bet as to how it will turn out.
posted
Wow Dagonee, you managed to sum up my thoughts on this case, more or less exactly, much more succinctly that I probably would have.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And reading his post makes we want to remind everyone that, contrary to what my name might indicate, I'm not a lawyer. Which is probably more painfully obvious now than it has ever been before. Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jon Boy, here's the story. When I first posted this thread, it had a subject that was something to the effect of "In the Spirit of FarmGirl's Suggestion", which was a reference (not surprisingly) to a suggestion by FarmGirl that we generate a bunch of new threads to drive a trollish thread off of the first page. Pooka commented that the title had nothing to do with the subject of the thread. I changed it, appending something to the effect of "or Murder Most Foul (How's That Pooka)" to the end of the title. Then, in another thread, pooka stated that she found the title inappropriate, remarking that if she were a Jehovah's Witness, she'd consider this thread to be essential reading, and complaining that there would be no way a passing Jehovah's Witness would be aware of this fact, given the title. At that point, I changed the thread's title to "Jehova: Witness to Murder Most Foul?". I thought it was funny. Then I started to reconsider, and posted here asking if people thought that I should change the thread's name. Celia threatened to report me if I did so, which I can only assume is because she was so impressed by the humor demonstrated in the title that she was desperate to take any necessary measure to preserve it. I changed the title to "Go Ahead Celia, I Dare You", she cursed in cartoon fashion, and I changed the title back.
There, aren't you glad you spent the last five minutes reading that explanation? Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I missed the first two title changes, so I couldn't quite understand celia's outburst. I felt like I had missed some sort of meta-discussion, and I hate to miss out on good meta-discussion.
[ January 13, 2004, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:P.S. Do Jehovah's Witnesses wear something like a Med Alert so that they don't get a transfusion if they happen to be unconscious?
Yes, it's called a "Medical Directive". On it: big, bold letters that say "NO BLOOD"; a list of allergies, medications, and medical problems; two emergency contacts; and a signed legal document with two witnesses' signatures which explains that we will not accept blood transfusions, in whole or in part, but we will accept nonblood volume expanders (such as dextran, saline or Ringer's solution, or hetastarch). It also says "I release physicians, anesthesiologists, and hospitals and their personnel from liability for any damages that might be caused by my refusal of blood, despite their otherwise competent care." We also have a durable power of attorney which goes into more specific things.
Anyway, I agree with Noemon, that we'd have to know what kind of mental illness the son suffers from. I got the impression he was still living with his mother at 41, though, so I doubt it's something like Bipolar or Schizophrenia.
JW's have no restriction from taking medication of any kind. My sister spent her entire life on epilepsy medicine, and my mother takes medicine daily for a condition she has.
The only restriction is on taking blood in any form, food or transfusion. They will accept any non-blood therapies, and are in fact responsible for the development of some of the best non blood surgical techniques currently in practice.
The restriction on blood has nothing to do with idols. In the old testament, God ordered his people not to use or eat blood, saying it was 'sacred' to him. This command was repeated in the new testament by the governing body in Jerusalem as one of only two commandments they are recorded as having given to the congregations.
That is the basis on which they refuse blood foods and blood treatments.
About the case:
I agree with Dagonee. The womans refusal to take blood has nothing to do with whether she was murdered or not. For example, if I shoot you and leave you to die, and for some reason you refuse to call 911 for an ambulance that *might* save you, I still murdered you. The shooting still caused the death. Everything else is *what if*.
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah Jon Boy, missing stuff like that drives me up a wall too. Glad to have been able to provide an explanation.
You know, a fairly large percentage of my relatives are Jehovah's Witnesses. I'll have to see what their take on this story is.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok here's what I think from what I've learned in my law classes. First off, the guy would be charged with assault of course. He can plead insanity if, at the time, he couldn't distinguish between right and wrong. However that would only affect the punishment he'd recieve, not the actual fact that he was guilty or not.
Since the temporary insanity was caused because HE didn't take the medications only he can be blamed for his acts by not taking the medication. If, however, someone deprived him of his medication then they would be at fault. Most likely though, if he pleaded insanity he would probably go to some facility for rehabilitation.
Now the mother. Everything that happened to her after the stabbing as a result of the stabbing is her sons's fault. Regardless of whether she could live or not with a transfusion doesn't matter. All that matters is whether she stays alive or not. A person in good health shouldn't require blood transfusions to live. Since the son took away her good health he was responsible for everything that happened to her while she stayed in her bad health. It is up to her if she wanted a tranfusion or not.
However she didn't take it. And she died. Imagine if the son went further and there would be no time for the tranfusion. Would the son still be able to say that she could have survived with a transfusion even though there wasn't any time to give her one? No, it wouldn't work that way. And it's the same fact that the woman by refusing to take the transfusion isn't really responsible for what happens by not taking it.
So assuming that the woman lived, you could argue, and win, a case by saying that anything that happened to the woman in her bad health would be the responsibility (as in damages) of the son assuming that a person in good health wouldn't suffer the same fate or whatever. Example, let's say she falls down some stairs or whatever because of difficulty going up and down them due to injuries. The son would be responsible for this assuming that the woman would have been able to go up and down the stairs easily in good health.
At least that's how it is in California. Or Kali-phorn-ya as our govenor calls it.
Posts: 49 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Police had been called to the Ferenz's house many times. Stephen Ferenz suffers from manic depression, Bernardi said."
The legal definition of insanity and the layman's definition of "wacko" are not the same. In Connecticut, they use the "can't tell right from wrong" definition and the "irresistible impulse" definition of insanity. It will be hard to get the jury to find him not guilty by reason of insanity, but if they manage it, there will still be severe repercussions. In Connecticut, if an insanity defense is successful, the judge on the case will determine what the sentence would have been had he been found guilty, (like, 20 years, for instance) and then will specify that the state's review board has control over this guy till that period elapses, meaning he could be released, but they state can still make sure he's taking his meds and re-incarcerate him if they find it necessary. Other states allow for the defendant to be released after a hearing finds them no longer dangerous or mentally ill.
Also, studies have shown that those found not guilty by reason of insanity spend at least as long incarcerated as those who were actually found guilty. In some cases, they actually spend more time in incarceration then "guilty but sane" criminals and in 1983, the SC found that those found not guilty by reason on insanity "could be confined to a mental hospital for a period longer than he could have been incarcerated had he been convicted."
[ January 13, 2004, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: jack ]
Posts: 171 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I'm being sarcastic.
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
I did see the alternate thread title, during "We are sending you back to:..." and then it was changed.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
