posted on April 15, 2004 09:05:49 AM new
Baby's Medical Future In Court
April 15, 2004
The attorney for an Mansfield couple fighting an effort by doctors to remove their comatose baby from life support argued that the parents haven't been charged with anything and should retain control of the infant's medical care.
Summit County Probate Judge Bill Spicer in Akron is hearing testimony on whether a guardian should be appointed to make medical decision for the battered five-month-old who has been hospitalized in since March 15th.
Doctors at Akron Children's Hospital say the 21-year-old parents, Arica Heimlich and Matthew Stein, cannot act in the baby's best interests because Stein has a potential murder charge riding on the boy's fate.
The baby, Aiden Stein, suffered severe skull and brain injuries while in his father's care.
Authorities suspect Stein of abusing his son. Stein denies it.
Spicer continued the hearing until tomorrow morning, when Stein might be called to testify.
posted on April 15, 2004 10:16:11 AM new
I can't make a decision about pulling the plug without a little more info but the state should definitely step in and appoint a third party guardian.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on April 15, 2004 12:10:51 PM new
But if the child dies as a result of the state pulling the plug, should the charge on the father become murder?
posted on April 15, 2004 01:26:33 PM new
I agree with fenix - that we don't have all the info we need....but we usually don't when we share opinions on these stories.
I don't think the plug should be pulled.
First of all because the article states the baby is comatose....not brain dead. To me, there's a big difference. And it's only been one month....and there have been children/people who come out of comas.
Without knowing all the circumstances in the situation I'm not quite so willing to give 'guardianship' to a third party....at least not to make the FINAL call on unplugging life support. Maybe to be another interested third party, for the child's benefit though.
The father hasn't been charged and there was no mention of the mothers involvement. So...until there's proof who did this horrible deed to this child....I wouldn't be so quick to take away the mothers right to make decisions for her own child...by giving that FINAL decision to a guardian.
posted on April 15, 2004 01:30:53 PM new
Actually if the child could not live without life support, the charge could still be murder against the father based on medical facts
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
posted on April 15, 2004 01:40:31 PM new
So 12, if a person shoots someone and the victim dies on the operating table due to negligence of the doctor, it would be murder ? Nope. Attempted murder perhaps.
It could not be murder when you have an intervening cause of death.
The medical "facts" would be that the child died from having medical treatment removed.
I think what the medical experts will have to prove is that the child was "dead" before the life saving equipment was removed.
But this would bolster the argument for passive euthanasia -i.e., allowing a person to expire by not giving any intervening medical actions. A common example is the DNR sign on some beds at the hospital.
The dilemma here goes to the medical question of what being "alive" means.
posted on April 15, 2004 01:53:26 PM new
You know reamond things are not so "gray' as you would have people believe...'
If the person is shot and dies on the table... the person doing the shooting more often than not is charged with murder...
If they had not shot the person, the person would not of needed medical treatment; people cannot hide behind medical treatment as their "savior". if that child needed life support to survive when coming into the hospital, that child was in a sense "killed" by someone.
Good prosecutors get convictions during jury trials because most people see things black and white... not "gray"
posted on April 15, 2004 01:54:15 PM new
Reamond - if the actions of the accused resulted in the death then yes they can be charged with murder if death occurs after removal of life support. The removal of life support was not the causation of the death itself. Life support was merely sustaining an unsustainable life and delaying the inevitable effect of the original action.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on April 16, 2004 10:28:11 AM new
But there are questions of actual causation and intervening acts that result in the death in cases like these.
If someone is "alive" and on life support and someone intentionally removes that life support and the person dies, the actual cause of death is the removal of the life support system, not the acts that placed the person on life support.
What if a nurse intentionally removed the life support without permission and before any decision was made, and the person dies, could both the nurse and the defendant be tried for murder ?
Intentionally placing someone in greater jeopardy for injury or death is not necessarily murder. Selling someone drinks in a bar would qualify as intentionally placing someone in greater jeopardy.
If you shoot someone non-fatally in the arm and the ambulance that takes them to the hospital wrecks and the victim breaks their neck and dies, is it murder on the shooter's part ?
What if the victim shot in the arm and now with a broken neck is on life support and it is removed ?
There is a problem in the causal chain when passive euthanasia is practiced.
Is it murder if you non-fatally shoot a Jehovah's Witness in the arm and they die as a result of refusing a blood transfusion ?
These scenarios may seem far fetched, but they have happened.
I think at trial, a doctor must testify that the child was in fact "clinically" dead to remove reasonable doubt from the cause of death.
But this assumes that we are now willing to accept that death is the permanent ceasation of brain activity and rejecting that breathing and heart action through machines is not being "alive".
Without competent evidence of the child being "clinically" dead before removing the life support system, reasonable doubt is easily reached, and wide open for a plea bargain.
posted on April 16, 2004 11:23:34 AM new
Do you really think that a jury would not hear evidence that this child was abused and not convict? Whether people like it or not many people are convicted on "emotion"
posted on April 16, 2004 11:30:22 AM new
An update.
AKRON, Ohio April 16 — Doctors caring for a comatose 5-month-old boy want a lawyer to be the baby's guardian and make medical decisions, including whether the child should be removed from life support.
The physicians at Akron Children's Hospital say Aiden Stein's 21-year-old parents cannot act in his best interests because criminal charges, including murder, could be filed if the boy dies. The boy's father, Matthew Stein, is suspected of injuring the baby while alone with him at the couple's Mansfield apartment, authorities said.
Stein and the baby's mother, Arica Heimlich, are fighting to keep their parental rights and their son alive. The baby has been hospitalized since the March 15 injury.
Summit County Probate Court Judge Bill Spicer will continue a hearing in the case Friday.
The parents' attorney, Edward Markovich, argued in a hearing Wednesday that his clients have not been charged, have not been declared unfit parents and should retain control over Aiden's medical care.
"Now they are accused by a medical institution as if they were guilty of an injury to their child," he said.
Linda Kerkser, an attorney representing would-be guardian Ellen Kaforey, said the parents have refused to consent to the removal of a ventilator and feeding tubes despite "no prognosis of hope this child will have more than a permanent vegetative state."
Dr. John Pope, a pediatric trauma specialist, testified that the baby is a victim of shaken-baby syndrome and is brain-dead, with the exception of his brain stem, and will remain blind, deaf and unaware of his surroundings.
The baby, Pope said, should be removed from the breathing machine.
Stein testified that he bumped his son's head on the rail of a bassinet upon discovering him not breathing and that the boy's maternal aunt might have held the boy over her head, allowing his head to be struck by a ceiling fan.
Pope testified that the boy's injuries were caused by rapid back-and-forth movement that led to massive bleeding in the brain.
