Bernadette Scully found not guilty of the manslaughter of her daughter

fro9etb8j5qsl2

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/bernadette-scully-found-not-guilty-of-daughter-s-manslaughter-1.2908509

Co Offaly GP Dr Bernadette Scully has been found not guilty of manslaughter of her profoundly disabled daughter by giving her too much sedative.
The unanimous verdict was delivered after four hours of deliberation by the jury.

Jury came back with a not guilty verdict. I'd say it must've been a tough one to decide but I think they were right. Poor woman and her poor daughter

Liam McPoyle

Very sad case but absolutely the right verdict.

That woman will have to live with what happened for the rest of her life, that's worse than any custodial sentence.

Oh thank God.

Possibly the most tragic case I've ever read about. It was hard to read of her giving her testimony, the failed attempts at IVF, how Emily was the daughter she always dreamed of, how she cradled her lifeless body that morning, rearranging her Padre Pio medals...and not be completely overwhelmed.

Winterlong

Delighted for her. None of us will know what that woman went through before and after her daughters death.

GalwayGirl26

Somethings are almost just too tragic for the letter of the law; this is where the jury's conscience was really tested- I cannot imagine the thought process they went through, but well done to them.

retro:electro

This was actually so sad. The poor woman had no supports. It's so tragic. There are no winners in this story.

seamus

Very tough case for a jury to hear. I haven't heard the full evidence, so I reserve my personal opinion on the outcome, but I accept the jury's decision given that they've heard the case in full.

From the parts I have heard though I have absolutely no doubt that Dr. Scully's actions were in no way malicious. Heartbreaking.

I think it's time to open up the discussion on legalising euthanasia. We allow suffering animals to be humanely sent on their way, but we force humans to eek out every microsecond of our existence, no matter how wretched it may be.

0byme75341jo28

Disgraceful decision.

midnight city

Nathaniel Warm Doorbell wrote: »

Disgraceful decision.

How so?

ck_fluffy_32

Disgraceful verdict.

I agree with euthanasia but this was clearly to make the mother's life easier as she said so herself in the "suicide note".

LynnGrace

Heartbreaking case.

midnight city

seamus wrote: »

I think it's time to open up the discussion on legalising euthanasia. We allow suffering animals to be humanely sent on their way, but we force humans to eek out every microsecond of our existence, no matter how wretched it may be.

Absolutely, it would be a great comfort for people suffering terminal illness to know that they could end it at any time if the suffering became to onerous.

CaptainR

First time I ever had a deep think about euthanasia was after I seen Million Dollar Baby, that film really made me think. I think it should be legal in cases where it would curb suffering.

Right decision from the jury I think.

ck_fluffy_32

ck_fluffy_32 wrote: »

I agree with euthanasia but this was clearly to make the mother's life easier as she said so herself in the "suicide note".

Where did she say she wanted the easy life, as you suggest? Could you point to the phrase? Thanks.

Juries decide these cases based on emotion

MarkR

Very sad, but I don't understand how it's not manslaughter? I know the daughter was profoundly disabled, but are they saying it was an accident?

seamus

MarkR wrote: »

Very sad, but I don't understand how it's not manslaughter? I know the daughter was profoundly disabled, but are they saying it was an accident?

I'm sure this weekends papers will be filled with analysis that delve deep into the case.

Most likely the "not guilty" verdict came down to legal minutae that the judge briefed the jury on and which they decided applied in this case.

whoopsadoodles

I don't think this is the correct place for discussion of euthanasia. It suggests the woman wanted her child to die.

hairyprincess

Absolutely the right decision. Such a heartbreaking case.

judeboy101

We have a legal system not a justice system.

ck_fluffy_32

Deleted User wrote: »

Where did she say she wanted the easy life, as you suggest? Could you point to the phrase? Thanks.

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/dr-bernadette-scully-denies-court-9419634

The pain is too big, the struggle each day is too hard, the loneliness and isolation too much.”

jameorahiely

MarkR wrote: »

Very sad, but I don't understand how it's not manslaughter? I know the daughter was profoundly disabled, but are they saying it was an accident?

Maybe they'll bring charges for murder. Stocking up on chloral hydrate shows prediation.

ck_fluffy_32

whoopsadoodles wrote: »

I don't think this is the correct place for discussion of euthanasia. It suggests the woman wanted her child to die.

She's a doctor, she knows full well what happens when giving an overdose of chloral hydrate.

The Backwards Man

kunst nugget wrote: »

Is this really what you're taking away from the case?

Yep. And I say that as someone with first hand experience of the stress and suffering a lone carer can endure, if the lady hadn't been a GP then it's doubtful this would ever have went to court.

seamus

whoopsadoodles wrote: »

I don't think this is the correct place for discussion of euthanasia. It suggests the woman wanted her child to die.

I do think that's a separate topic of discussion to be fair, even though I brought it up.

Nobody "wants" their loved ones to die. Euthanasia is about taking the only course of action you feel is right, even though it's not the one you want.

MarkR

I read a bit more detail now, and it seems that the child may well have been able to take those doses, having built up a tolerance, before it unknowingly reached a critical level in her body, and it couldn't cope any more.

Seems to be nothing but bad news these days. God damn you 2016

kunst nugget

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Yep. And I say that as someone with first hand experience of the stress and suffering a lone carer can endure, if the lady hadn't been a GP then it's doubtful this would ever have went to court.

Why, what do you think would have happened?

ck_fluffy_32

ck_fluffy_32 wrote: »

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/dr-bernadette-scully-denies-court-9419634

The pain is too big, the struggle each day is too hard, the loneliness and isolation too much.”

You refer to the easy life.

The note refers to pain, isolation, suffering, struggle.

She didn't actually refer to the easy life at all, did she? You just made that up, didn't you?

That's fairly pathetic tbh.

byronbay2

Very sad case, no doubt, but how she could be found not guilty of manslaughter is unbelievable. The evidence that what she did was deliberate seemed overwhelming to me.

Murder and manslaughter are not enough options for the killing of people.
We need to have more options.

Murder 1 - premeditated killing
Murder 2 - killing without premeditation, but during an illegal act, where death is a possibility. ( Such as assaults etc )
Murder 3 - manslaughter
Accidental manslaughter - involving some negligence on the 'offenders' part.

ck_fluffy_32

Deleted User wrote: »

You refer to the easy life.

The note refers to pain, isolation, suffering, struggle.

She didn't actually refer to the easy life at all, did she? You just made that up, didn't you?

That's fairly pathetic tbh.

I didn't make anything up.

She didn't like HER situation and wanted to change it for the better.

Her daughter died so HER life was easier.

The note refers to pain, isolation, suffering, struggle.

Yes, and removing the daughter from her life means they are over, ergo better, easier.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Again, folks, there's been a verdict.

It's decided, it's over. We can't keep muttering "she did it". There are many explanations - to me suggesting she positively wanted her child to die, like it was on her wish list, is a grotesque way of twisting it. But even if I held that view, I couldn't maintain it now.

You can hold whatever view you like, just because 12 other people decided she not guilty, doesn't mean that you can't hold different opinions. That's all it is a different opinion. By law she's not guilty, that is that.

The Backwards Man

kunst nugget wrote: »

Why, what do you think would have happened?

I think it would have been recorded as a tragic accident

05eaftqbrs9jlh

As somebody who has lived with a young family member having up to 100 grand and petit mal seizures per day (which were regulated by the Ketogenic Diet for years but he's now on drugs to stop the severe night ones returning, although they're not working at all)... I can safely say that this woman did not make a decision to END HER OWN CHILD'S LIFE easily. Can you picture somebody you love convulsing and writhing and foaming at the mouth..? Can you imagine not being able to speak with them or do anything for them all day because they're perpetually zonked between seizures and absences or actually having them, sometimes for hours at a time?

The medical marijuana isn't f'ing available anywhere and families are suffering because of it. This woman was incredibly brave to do what she did and I hope she can go on living life now and mourn the loss of her poor daughter to this crippling illness.

alchemist33

A very sad case, but I'm extremely surprised by the verdict. If she had been found guilty I doubt she would have got a custodial sentence, but still, with the high dose of medication given, the suicide attempt, the note, I wonder what the jury thought actually did happen.

bucketybuck

byronbay2 wrote: »

Very sad case, no doubt, but how she could be found not guilty of manslaughter is unbelievable. The evidence that what she did was deliberate seemed overwhelming to me.

It really is, its seems very obvious that this case was decided on emotion.

ck_fluffy_32

Oh and clearly she should be struck off, at the bare minimum.

listermint

There is some actual top quality people in here today.


I mean literal top quality people who can handle life in its full regardless of what it throws at them.


Actually no scratch that,

There are absolute morons in here of the curtain twitcher kind who have an opinion on everything. Despite what a jury of their peers have come to here and hearing the full evidence you still think its wrong.

Thank god your not my neighbours you bitter bitter people.

bucketybuck

Stefan Nutty Weirdo wrote: »

I can safely say that this woman did not make a decision to END HER OWN CHILD'S LIFE easily.

Its not supposed to be about how easy or not it was, its supposed to be about whether she made that decision at all.

Merdit

listermint wrote: »

There is some actual top quality people in here today.


There are absolute morons in here of the curtain twitcher kind who have an opinion on everything. Despite what a jury of their peers have come to here and hearing the full evidence you still think its wrong.

The internet is full of them and the lack of empathy is enough to drive anyone to despair.  No wonder people feel so alone, so judged and so overwhelmed.

ohnonotgmail

Have the people who posted actually read the linked article in full? It seems that not all have.

meeeeh

I am glad she was found not guilty. I wonder if a jury of legal professionals would decide the same but I think there should be space for humanity and compassion in law.

That being said this has nothing to do with euthanasia and I actually wonder how could anyone make that connection. Daughter in this case was not in a position to make a decision for herself and while I am in favor of it, I certainly wouldn't want others deciding for someone severely disabled.

Merdit

Merdit wrote: »

The internet is full of them and the lack of empathy is enough to drive anyone to despair.  No wonder people feel so alone, so judged and so overwhelmed.

So just because some people are surprised by the verdict you think they have no empathy?
As someone who has had quite a bit of dealings with juries over the years, I can assure you that juries use their hearts in decisions.
They may try to do things to the letter of the law, but their hearts take over.
That doesn't mean that I don't feel sympathy for Bernadette Scully, far from it.

ck_fluffy_32

If it had been a man, and not medically trained, the verdict may or may not have been the same but the bleeding hearts on here would be conspicuous by their absence.

alchemist33

alchemist33 wrote: »

A very sad case, but I'm extremely surprised by the verdict. If she had been found guilty I doubt she would have got a custodial sentence, but still, with the high dose of medication given, the suicide attempt, the note, I wonder what the jury thought actually did happen.

A guilty verdict should only be delivered if the jury are convinced 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Personally I think there is cause for reasonable doubt that her actions were intentional, and keep in mind the jury hear more evidence and testimony than is reported in the media.

Stefan Nutty Weirdo

Stefan Nutty Weirdo wrote: »

As somebody who has lived with a young family member having up to 100 grand and petit mal seizures per day (which were regulated by the Ketogenic Diet for years but he's now on drugs to stop the severe night ones returning, although they're not working at all)... I can safely say that this woman did not make a decision to END HER OWN CHILD'S LIFE easily.

Do you think she made the decision to end her child's life?

Mr. CooL ICE

Mod:

I've deleted some posts because there were some things said that could get boards in trouble...

Remember lads, there is a fine line between making a slanderous accusation and adding your opinion. I don't want to hand out cards/bans early in a thread for such an emotive topic so think before you post, ok?

05eaftqbrs9jlh

bucketybuck wrote:

Its not supposed to be about how easy or not it was, its supposed to be about whether she made that decision at all.

"Professor Marie Cassidy said she had suffered a seizure six to eight hours before her death and that any of her illnesses could have contributed. She also said that she had been at risk of a potentially fatal seizure at any time.

The State argued that the chloral hydrate was a substantial cause of death. It did not have to prove it to be the only cause.

Tara Burns SC, prosecuting, said it wasn’t in doubt that Bernadette Scully loved her daughter very much and cared for her to the highest level.

“What this case is about is the events of a specific day when chloral hydrate was administered,†she said, noting the levels that she had said she had given.

“Any reasonable person in the situation Ms Scully was in, a doctor, would have realised that administering that level of chloral hydrate carried a high degree of risk of causing a substantial risk of injury to her daughter,†she said, outlining the prosecution case.

Bernadette Scully’s legal team argued that there was a clear indication in the post-mortem results of the possibility of a terminal seizure and Kenneth Fogarty SC said that the traumatic event that had led to the maladministration alleged was indeed a massive seizure after 11 o’clock.

He said it was clear that the only reason a person would administer more chloral hydrate was if the initial dose was not achieving the desired result. He pointed out that other anticonvulsant medications had life-threatening effects on Emily.

He also noted that nobody had a formula to equate the amount of chloral hydrate taken into a body with the amount of its metabolite that would be found in the blood.

The judge

Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy told the jury that it had to be satisfied that the accused had failed to observe the ordinary and necessary care expected of her to the point that she was negligent in a very high degree. That negligence must have brought a very high degree of risk of substantial personal injury to others.

He said it did not matter what the accused woman’s state of mind was.

He said that, in the case of a doctor, she could follow general and approved medical practice, unless obviously defective. She could depart from that practice unless it involved something no similarly qualified expert exercising care would do.

He reminded the jury of the evidence of a retired consultant paediatrician, who was also a member of the Advisory Committee for Human Medicines, the national body that decides if drugs are safe and effective

Dr Kevin Connolly had been asked about the high doses of chloral hydrate Bernadette Scully said she had given her daughter in a short timeframe.

He referred to people, who metabolise drugs at different rates to most people in clinical trials.

“If Emily was one of those outliers, and it had been found she required more frequent or higher doses, then this was appropriate,†he said.

He explained that Emily’s body might have been able to handle an increasing dose up to a certain point but then became overwhelmed.

“That can happen, that the body can only take so much and then it’s too much,†he said."
She died because she was very unwell due to a number of factors. She was given a drug to help with her seizures by her mother. Her mother then determined to give her more of the drug, but her body gave up (and it's not a bit surprising given the severity of her condition and what she physically ensured daily). The jury came to their "not guilty" verdict based on that evidence.

What I'm saying is that from an emotive standpoint, what she did was totally understandable. She watched this disorder basically rape her small child day after day with no solution in sight until she died. She took what could be perceived as drastic action in a dire situation. Hopefully she will draw attention to the people who suffer through their entire lives and those who care for them tirelessly and are totally ignored by the state; both legally and medically.

kunst nugget

ck_fluffy_32 wrote: »

If it had been a man, and not medically trained, the verdict may or may not have been the same but the bleeding hearts on here would be conspicuous by their absence.

What an absolute load of horse manure… don't make this a gender issue.

Allinall

ck_fluffy_32 wrote: »

If it had been a man, and not medically trained, the verdict may or may not have been the same but the bleeding hearts on here would be conspicuous by their absence.

As would the obvious trolls.

ck_fluffy_32

When did disagreeing with an opinion make one a troll ?