Couple are prosecuted for failing to treat son with meningitis

steddyeddy

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.

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.

SEPT 23 1989

Forced vaccinations is a step too far

steddyeddy

Why Sept? Would it not save lives?

JustShon

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

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.

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

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.

sKeith

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

ohnonotgmail

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

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.

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.

steddyeddy

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

overshoot

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

darkpagandeath

steddyeddy wrote: »

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

Ok, So how much jail time should you get for say not finishing an antibiotics course ?

cdeb

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I mean there are a few Religious beliefs to do with blood and treatment for example.

Those are the parents' religious beliefs though, not the child's.

The law should look out for the child in this case. And sod the parents' religious beliefs.

osarusan

JustShon wrote: »

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?

That's not really a good comparison.

Vaccinations are recorded.The state/HSE/HSE equivalent knows who has and hasn't been vaccinated.

Have it as part post-natal care and part of school visits.


Identify non-vaccinated children from vaccination records and schedule a vaccination appointment. Visit their home to vaccinate if necessary. Explain the consequences of failure to vaccinate (both health and legal).

It might probably end up in temporary removal of custody (to actually do the vaccinations).

The actual level of difficulty would not be high - it would be the notion of 'state intrusion on the family' that would be the biggest fight.

overshoot

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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.

I just see both parts as equal issues really. It was their distrust of actual medicine as a whole that led to the child's easily preventable death. Action before or after contraction would have saved the child's life, why does it have to be staring you in the face to take action? Its unfortunate there is no cure for stupid.

JustShon

osarusan wrote: »

That's not really a good comparison.

Vaccinations are recorded.The state/HSE/HSE equivalent knows who has and hasn't been vaccinated.

Have it as part post-natal care and part of school visits.


Identify non-vaccinated children from vaccination records and schedule a vaccination appointment. Visit their home to vaccinate if necessary. Explain the consequences of failure to vaccinate (both health and legal).

It might probably end up in temporary removal of custody (to actually do the vaccinations).

The actual level of difficulty would not be high - it would be the notion of 'state intrusion on the family' that would be the biggest fight.

Ok, fair points but I still think it would be difficult to enforce.

Perhaps, and I apologise profusely for bringing it up, Irish Water would be a better comparison. They have all the records of who has and hasn't paid, and they had government support to boot but people still, relatively easily, evaded payment.

osarusan

JustShon wrote: »

Perhaps, and I apologise profusely for bringing it up, Irish Water would be a better comparison. They have all the records of who has and hasn't paid, and they had government support to boot but people still, relatively easily, evaded payment.

I think that it's a good example of something the could easily prosecute but chooses not to prosecute.

It's the same issue of the 'state sticking its oar in' but I don't think there would be mass protests in support of parents who refused to vaccinate their children without reason.

I would like to think that there isn't too high a percentage of non-vaccinated kids out there to begin with anyway.

Sapphire

cdeb wrote: »

Those are the parents' religious beliefs though, not the child's.

The law should look out for the child in this case. And sod the parents' religious beliefs.

Don't a lot of hospitals intervene anyway when the beliefs of a parent means withholding vital medical care of a child like JW and blood transfusions.

captbarnacles

Terrifyingly, Meynders is a registered nurse.

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

screamer

I think the vaccination part is more trivial to the fact that these "parents" let their child die......................

darkpagandeath

"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."

Hyperbole much? According to the article in the OP the child did not just have a cough or a sniffle. He had symptoms that were even initially so bad that the mother called them "heart wrenching" - and only got worse from there. And this went on for nearly 2 weeks.

Even the most basic over the counter medicines - for the most basic conditions - that you buy generally have written on them "If symptoms persist beyond 48 hours - seek advice". Let alone symptoms like those described in the OP.

Describing this ruling as "You better bring in a child the second they sniffle or the man will be after you" is just outrageous hyperbole.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

It's a tough one, How far can the state go against beliefs.

It is a grey area in some respects yes. But less of a gray area when you distinguish between adults making religious based medical refusal for themselves - or doing so vicariously on behalf of a minor in their care.

If someone wants to refuse medical intervention and die - that is one thing - but if they want to withhold it from a child and watch them die - that is quite another.

However I did - purely because I have read so many stories like this before - read the OP just waiting for the line where it was revealed the parents avoided medical intervention on religious grounds.

And it either was not there or I missed it. Seems the parents in this case were just anti pharma pro quack medicine types and it was not (explicitly) a religious thing this time? I am well open for correction however.

overshoot wrote: »

Make vaccinations a condition of child support payments, not forced, but it will give a good incentive

Access to medical insurance might be another incentive where things could be effectively mediated.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Ok, So how much jail time should you get for say not finishing an antibiotics course ?

There was likely enough hyperbole coming from the guy quoted in the OP without you adding to it.

omahaid

screamer wrote: »

I think the vaccination part is more trivial to the fact that these "parents" let their child die......................

I'm baffled at why vaccines are mentioned in this thread considering they watched and allowed their child die.

JustShon

osarusan wrote: »

I would like to think that there isn't too high a percentage of non-vaccinated kids out there to begin with anyway.

I don't know what it's like in Ireland to be honest but it has become a significant problem in the USA to the point where some diseases are making a comeback. Measles for example.

OldNotWIse

screamer wrote: »

I think the vaccination part is more trivial to the fact that these "parents" let their child die......................

Agree. I would vaccinate my kids if I had any, but I am pretty sure there are many parents who wouldn't vaccinate their kids but would, if there child was sick, make sure it got the proper medical attention it needed.

osarusan

screamer wrote: »

I think the vaccination part is more trivial to the fact that these "parents" let their child die......................

I'm sure the parents would dispute that description of their behaviour.

The problem is that the mentality which saw them going off to get naturopathic remedies or whatever it was (which we view as doing nothing other than watching the child die) possibly stems from the same mentality that saw them not vaccinate their child in the first place.

Certainly, one does not inevitably follow the other though.

mariaalice

What is a big issue in general and much wider than this issue: people latching on to some theory or other could be anything but usually they are around issues such as living an authentic life, being 'happy' childcare, childbirth, intimacy, fad about diet and so on, anyway when the theory dose not work at achieving he desired results.. instead of questing the theory they blame society. They do this because they are self absorbed and have little insight in to to themselves.

angeldelight

That poor poor little boy. What a horrific painful and sad way to die

wes

The Doctor that put out the bull **** about vaccines causing Autism, imho has blood on there hands. That lunatics nonsense, has some how managed to spread far and wide, and it helped the lunatic Anti-vaxer movement.

Honestly, I don't even understand the logic. Even if the claim was true, surely a living Autistic child is better than a dead one ffs.

sKeith

The vacciines done on an infant, under two, are for tb or measles mumps rubella, no. It was my understanding the meningitis is advised first at 11 years old.

osarusan

sKeith wrote: »

The vacciines done on an infant, under two, are for tb or measles mumps rubella, no. It was my understanding the meningitis is advised first at 11 years old.

Men C vaccinations when you are 2, 4, 6 months old. Booster in 1st year of secondary school.

Cee-Jay-Cee

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Forced vaccinations is a step too far

I agree, however when your child is showing symptoms such as that child was, you bring him/her to a doctor, not for a vaccination but for proper treatment.

They allowed their child to die because of their own ignorance and pigheadedness. They were informed by a nurse the child may have meningitis and instead of taking him to a hospital or doctor, they took him to one of their quack colleagues, despite the fact that the poor child was so stiff he couldnt bend his back to sit in a chair and had to lie down on the journey and yet they continued to deny the poor child medical care. They are fully responsible and should be punished to send the message out to other parents that might act in a similar manner to them!

I'm not suggesting that parents should be forced to vaccinate their children, that, I believe is a personal choice but parents (especially those with absolutely no medical training) should ensure their children receive the proper care and attention when their kids are displaying very abnormal and serious medical symptoms.