Bernadette Scully found not guilty of the manslaughter of her daughter

Ayuntamiento

Amalgam wrote: »

Careful, don't let your monocle fall into the caviar old chap.. bad form what?!

:D Don't let that chip on your shoulder weigh you down.

jameorahiely

picturehangup wrote: »

As the mother of a son who suffers from autism, high-functioning sort, my son is offered respite every month, despite the fact that there are others, such as poor Emily, who needed it more. For me, this case highlights that respite services are NOT delivered to those who are in desperate need of them. My son receives his respite in the same locality as Dr Scully. I would happily relinquish my son's respite to someone like Dr. Scully, who was so badly in need, and more deserving, it had to come to this sorry stage. Shame on HSE. Doctor or not, Dr. Scully is a mother with a limited supply of energy, she was an EXHAUSTED, burnt-out mum, with NO support. As Knine above said. No -one can judge unless they are in the same position, and have walked those shoes. I hope Dr Scully can now grieve her child in peace, take her space, and resume her position as a medic. I would be happy to attend her, because she, more than any young know-it-all spark out of college, UNDERSTANDS. She deserves to be allowed move on with her life, and by all accounts, she is/was a tremendous Doctor.

It said on the news this evening that she was offered monday to friday residential care but turned it down. Services were offered and she refused them.

gctest50

jameorahiely wrote: »

It said on the news this evening that she was offered monday to friday residential care but turned it down. Services were offered and she refused them.

maybe this sorta thing put her off that idea :

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/aras-attracta-abuse-1.2033059


Inspections would not have turned up the abuses recorded on camera. But their casual, almost routine, nature suggested an established culture involving the oppression and ill-treatment of residents.

and this

http://www.thejournal.ie/aras-attracta-resident-dies-2759749-May2016/

Investigation underway after resident dies at Áras Attracta centre

smelly sock

Correct verdict and hopefully this poor woman can piece her life back together and find happiness.

jameorahiely

gctest50 wrote: »

maybe this sorta thing put her off that idea :




and this

Abuse that was reported happening in mayo 2 years after she killed her daughter affected her decision to refuse help?

Was it mayo she was offered residential care in? If she knew about the abuse happening in aras attracta more than 2 years before it was reported, where's the complaint she lodged of treatment of residents? If a care home did what she did it would be a murder trial.

neonsofa

I think it is the correct verdict based on the evidence presented (that which has been made available to the public at least). It couldn't be established that it was definitely the medication that killed her and so there is doubt there about the mother's role in her death.
The fact the mother was tired, worn out, on her own/arguments for euthanasia shouldn't come into whether the verdict was right or not. And I think that is why people are so quick to say it was the wrong decision. When people say don't judge her and it is cold hearted to do so without having walked in her shoes, that's absolutely correct but at the same time that's secondary to the legal facts of the case and the reasons for their decision. If the jury's reasoning for their decision was "we can't judge her because of x y and z, and she was obviously unable to cope and she will live with this forever anyway" that would be wrong. But that is not the basis of their decision and rightfully so.

gctest50

jameorahiely wrote: »

Abuse that was reported happening in mayo 2 years after she killed her daughter affected her decision to refuse help?

Was it mayo she was offered residential care in? If she knew about the abuse happening in aras attracta more than 2 years before it was reported, where's the complaint she lodged of treatment of residents? If a care home did what she did it would be a murder trial.

Ah the ould deflection


Anyway

http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/health/elderly-patients-abused-in-nursing-home-scandal-26555875.html

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/probe-into-deaths-of-95-at-nursing-home-25963707.html

c montgomery

In my opinion she couldn't cope anymore so gave her daughter a lethal dose which killed her.
She might have needed more support but that's not an excuse.

IMO she should have been found guilty.

Wrong verdict. Should have been found guilty, as she was, but given a suspended sentence.

Killergreene

Killergreene wrote: »

The state pathologist stated cause of death was toxic levels of the drug. Seizures were not the cause of death as per pathologist also. The jury chose to ignore the facts in this case. Their emotions biased them.
The facts were very clear and outright. Circumstantial evidence also lended itself to the prosecutions case

Not so at all. The defence argued that the prosecution never explored the possibility that death could have occurred as a result of a seizure, and presented the possibility that this was a potential cause of death. Get your facts right before you spout your views.

jameorahiely

gctest50 wrote: »

Ah the ould deflection


Anyway

http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/health/elderly-patients-abused-in-nursing-home-scandal-26555875.html

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/probe-into-deaths-of-95-at-nursing-home-25963707.html

Elder abuse in nursing homes, talk about deflection. What has this got to do with residential care for disabled children? You'll have to dig deeper in to your bag there, nursing homes for the elderly still operate the length and breadth of the country. Are you saying if anyone puts an elderly relative in to a nursing home, the are irresponsible and wrong?

There was an incident in a creche once, nobody should sent their children to any creche ever.

c montgomery

c montgomery wrote: »

In my opinion she couldn't cope anymore so gave her daughter a lethal dose which killed her.
She might have needed more support but that's not an excuse.

IMO she should have been found guilty.

Judge directed the jury not to focus on her mental health at the time- so this was very much a case based on legal arguement around medical procedure and cause of death- not on emotion or periferal issues related to carers, stress or breakdown. how the jury decided is not known to us.

Amalgam

Amalgam wrote: »

A person, not trained as a doctor and from a more disadvantaged background would be getting prepped for jail about now..

A person not trained as a doctor, wouldn't have found themselves in this position because as an ordinary carer, they wouldn't have had access to the drug doses in the first place and would have been reliant on medical supervision.

Now, what's your point?

Commotion Ocean

So it wasn't her intention to kill? If she didn't know how much a lethal dose was then she isn't doctor material and should be stricken from the register.

I think it's cock and bull.

It's like Hitler saying he didn't know he was delivering a lethal dose of gas to his victims. Very fishy.

Hitler also 'eased the suffering' of 'inferior' people.

Allinall

dfeo wrote: »

So it wasn't her intention to kill? If she didn't know how much a lethal dose was then she isn't doctor material and should be stricken from the register.

I think it's cock and bull.

It's like Hitler saying he didn't know he was delivering a lethal dose of gas to his victims. Very fishy.

Hitler also 'eased the suffering' of 'inferior' people.

It's nothing like that.

dfeo

dfeo wrote: »

So it wasn't her intention to kill? If she didn't know how much a lethal dose was then she isn't doctor material and should be stricken from the register.

I think it's cock and bull.

It's like Hitler saying he didn't know he was delivering a lethal dose of gas to his victims. Very fishy.

Hitler also 'eased the suffering' of 'inferior' people.

Hitler? Really?

Sorry, but your post makes me puke!

dfeo

dfeo wrote: »

It's like Hitler saying he didn't know he was delivering a lethal dose of gas to his victims. Very fishy.

Hitler also 'eased the suffering' of 'inferior' people.

I've read some bad analogies on this site, but you've managed to put them all in the shade.

It is nothing like invading countries and trying to exterminate an entire people. Nothing. It's a complete non sequitor.

Knine

[Deleted User] wrote: »

A person not trained as a doctor, wouldn't have found themselves in this position because as an ordinary carer, they wouldn't have had access to the drug doses in the first place and would have been reliant on medical supervision.

Now, what's your point?

No actually us Carers have plenty of access to medication. I have a kitchen press full of it for my daughter. I was called into genetics - given a diagnosis & sent on my way. I only got this diagnosis by deciding to take my daughter to the UK myself. No back up. No support. Nothing.

Wanderer78

tragic case but right decision.

a really good podcast from the irish times about the issues of carers and their families. i think this case is showing major failings in our health service.

https://soundcloud.com/irishtimes-politics/inside-story-carers-in-crisis

SeaFields

Going by what was being presented in the press I really thought she was going to be found guilty while at the same time sympathizing with her situation, and especially for her partner who found them that day. Obviously that was an interpretation of snippets of information though and the jury were afforded much more. I hope they can move on now and cherish the happy memories of their daughter.

infoud the coverage around this case really strange. the whole focused on nothing more than the stress and difficulty of dr scully's position

i dont think anyone doubts that. but the state didnt bring a case to trial on this. the trial was to find out whether she deliberately administered a lethal dose of medication to her profoundly disabled daughter.

i didnt see anything over multiple days of coverage to suggest that this was ever really the focus of the trial or the coverage. everything was a showtrial type account of how awful thencircumstances were.

im not heartless, and very few people are. throwing around accusations in this thread just because we might hold different opinions is pointless. the case is tragic. the mothers position was terrible and is no doubt horrible now regardless of any verdict.

but- and i realise the response of `lol ur not a juror' is the accepted reactioj against this so maybe save the typing time or whatever- it would seem very clear in this case that very high doses of a potentially lethal substance were administered here and nobody really wnats to focus on that, hence a fudge verdict.

i agree with euthanasia. but we dont have it and it shouldnt be a factor here.

i agree that this is a terrible situation. but i also think that media and prosecution approach on this seems to have been influenced by the profile of the mother.

in all honesty i cant say ive any faith that a working class mum, or a parent choosing another method to do the deed, would have seen a similar verdict. and thats problematic, and if you react angrily to that because you have sympathy for the circumstances thats great but it makes you a poor candidate for jury duty imo.

suicide_circus

The state can't be blamed for prosecuting the case and Dr scullys statement that the case has left her traumatised while no doubt true, what did she expect?

BorneTobyWilde

I would not want to live like that, people put down dogs out of respect for them, but they are happy to let a kid suffer a lifetime of pain.

Wanderer78

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

I would not want to live like that, people put down dogs out of respect for them, but they are happy to let a kid suffer a lifetime of pain.

its a very complex problem, it crosses all sorts of ethical boundaries, but i think the time is coming for us to truly talk about it. i think euthanasia should be allowed in certain cases. i have unfortunately witnessed loved ones struggle with terminal illnesses. it really isnt good

suicide_circus

Someone wanting to end their life on their own terms is one thing. This case is entirely different.

Wanderer78

suicide_circus wrote: »

Someone wanting to end their life on their own terms is one thing. This case is entirely different.

tragic though

suicide_circus

Wanderer78 wrote: »

tragic though

Undoubtedly. From the statement Dr Scully gave after the verdict, she seems fairly put out that it went to court at all. If you give your child a lethal dose of sedative you should expect questions to be asked.

BorneTobyWilde

If people believe in god then why not send their loved one there and end their misery on earth.
I think Ireland is kinda place where if you were to interview people leaving a church on Sunday and asked them what did they pray to God for today, they would look at you like you are insane and wonder what the hell are you on about. They then head down the pub to drink alcohol and see what lady they can bed this weekend.
Now ask a Mormon leaving a church on Sunday same question, she will talk for a long time about what she prayed to God for. She will then go home and bake cookies for her neighbours, and spend rest of day reading . And if she has a date that night she just might let him hold her hand.
I'm sure God looks down on Ireland and thinks WTF /

learn_more

I think the media coverage of this case, especially from RTE News was bordering hysterical. Probably the dullest high profile court case I've ever seen.

BorneTobyWilde

suicide_circus wrote: »

Someone wanting to end their life on their own terms is one thing. This case is entirely different.

She could not move or speak.
Are you not happy she is in a better place now /?

Wanderer78

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

If people believe in god then why not send their loved one there and end their misery on earth.
I think Ireland is kinda place where if you were to interview people leaving a church on Sunday and asked them what did they pray to God for today, they would look at you like you are insane and wonder what the hell are you on about. They then head down the pub to drink alcohol and see what lady they can bed this weekend.
Now ask a Mormon leaving a church on Sunday same question, she will talk for a long time about what she prayed to God for. She will then go home and bake cookies for her neighbours, and spend rest of day reading . And if she has a date that night she just might let him hold her hand.
I'm sure God looks down on Ireland and thinks WTF /

atheist here but some very good points there, funny to

suicide_circus

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

She could not move or speak.
Are you not happy she is in a better place now /?

Ehh...what? She's in the ground. We don't know if that's what she wanted.

BorneTobyWilde

suicide_circus wrote: »

Ehh...what? She's in the ground. We don't know if that's what she wanted.

She's moved on to the next stage of life, one where the effects that altered her existence here on earth don't exist. She can now talk and run and laugh and be the kid she could not be here.

suicide_circus

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

She's moved on to the next stage of life, one where the effects that altered her existence here on earth don't exist. She can now talk and run and laugh and be the kid she could not be here.

Okey dokey

BorneTobyWilde

She was very guilty of an act few could carry out. Was it right or wrong, two sides to that argument. We know why she did it, and why her defence had her defend herself by denying it.

Killergreene

The facts are very clear the child had a lethal dose of medication in her. I've no doubt the kid had a terrible existence and the mother was at her wits end. In my opinion she murdered her; in my opinion the state pathologist was very clear about the cause of death.

BorneTobyWilde

My question is, DID THIS SET A PRECEDENT?

Annasopra

An interesting point was made to me today. If she was a working class woman would she have been fould guilty and would the general public support her as much?

suicide_circus

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

An interesting point was made to me today. If she was a working class woman would she have been fould guilty and would the general public support her as much?

Unlikely. If this had been a working class mother with no access to lethal doses of sedation and instead in desperation went for a pillow over the face we would have seen a different outcome.

bucketybuck

If the child had suffered that seizure in hospital and it had been a foreign doctor working there who had administered that same level of medication, I wonder would he have been charged with manslaughter? Would he lose his right to practice?

Killergreene

She won't practice again. No one would go to her anyway and if she did decide to practice I'm not sure she would be given license by medical council. Even if they licensed her she'd get so much complaints made against her it would be impossible to practice

Ursus Horribilis

Killergreene wrote: »

She won't practice again. No one would go to her anyway and if she did decide to practice I'm not sure she would be given license by medical council. Even if they licensed her she'd get so much complaints made against her it would be impossible to practice

I hope she gets to practice again if that's what she wants. She was found not guilty in a court of law. What part of Not Guilty do you not understand?

It's not as if she's going to change from being a good doctor to an incompetent one because of this ffs :mad:

gctest50

Killergreene wrote: »

She won't practice again. No one would go to her anyway and if she did decide to practice I'm not sure she would be given license by medical council. Even if they licensed her she'd get so much complaints made against her it would be impossible to practice

Killergreene wrote: »

No one would go to her anyway ......

I would, if she was near - why not ?

Which part of the "not guilty" do you have difficulty understanding

CJmasgrande

CJmasgrande wrote: »

Few points I wish to make, I've been biting my lip on this all day.

Why was there more women on the jury than men?

Why did her legal people make a big sad sermon about her minding the child every minute of every day? That's not true at all.

I know two different people who minded the child daily. One of these people (my wife) felt she was guilty.

Did your wife - who may not be delighted to see you have narrowed down to one of 2 identifiable people on a public forum - make a statement?

And could you elaborate on how your wife is sure the jury got it wrong? Is your wife saying she deliberately administered the dose knowing it was fatal? Is she saying it was not possible that it was caused by a seizure? What are her qualifications to assess either?

Killergreene

Killergreene wrote: »

The facts are very clear the child had a lethal dose of medication in her. I've no doubt the kid had a terrible existence and the mother was at her wits end. In my opinion she murdered her; in my opinion the state pathologist was very clear about the cause of death.

You are far more certain than the State Pathologist, and you have repeatedly described her evidence inaccurately.

In her direct evidence, she gave as her opinion that there was indeed a fatal level of choral hydrate present. In cross exam she testified that death could have been caused by a seizure. You are saying she is wrong, that it could not, or at least it the chances are so remote that the accused was not entitled to the benefit of any doubt.

spurious

Killergreene wrote:

She won't practice again. No one would go to her anyway and if she did decide to practice I'm not sure she would be given license by medical council. Even if they licensed her she'd get so much complaints made against her it would be impossible to practice

You are very wrong here. She has had huge support from her patients and their families, people who actually know her. Sounds like the jury saw the woman and agreed.

mansize

Killergreene wrote: »

She won't practice again. No one would go to her anyway and if she did decide to practice I'm not sure she would be given license by medical council. Even if they licensed her she'd get so much complaints made against her it would be impossible to practice

This is completely not true.

1. She was found not guilty- what would the medical council base it on?
2. I live in Tullamore. The support for her here is huge. I work with many of her private clients and they are very happy to return to Bernadette when she is ready to come back
3. Vexatious claims happen doctors all the time

The jury deliberated on the facts and returned a NOT Guilty verdict.

mansize

Killergreene wrote: »

The facts are very clear the child had a lethal dose of medication in her. I've no doubt the kid had a terrible existence and the mother was at her wits end. In my opinion she murdered her; in my opinion the state pathologist was very clear about the cause of death.

The expert witnesses advised that you cannot say for definite what the lethal dose for an individual is, and it wasnt conclusive the the medicine alone killed the child. She was having huge fits also.

mansize

suicide_circus wrote: »

The state can't be blamed for prosecuting the case and Dr scullys statement that the case has left her traumatised while no doubt true, what did she expect?

The state had a duty to pursue the case

CJmasgrande

CJmasgrande wrote: »

Not getting drawn into a big argument here. I just wanted to state some wrongs of the court case

Your wife's opinion is not a "wrong of the Court case".

Neither is a female dominated jury. That's just jury selection. In fact, I would have thought that far more beneficial to the prosecution, as one might argue that mothers might think "I feel sorry for her, but there are no circumstances where I would make that mistake with my child".

As for her side portraying her case in a sympathetic manner, that's the adversarial system of law. The prosecution is entitled to challenge it. And that's where your wife would have been relevant. You say she was one of 2 who minded Emily, did she make a statement?