Tuesday, January 06, 2009

Haleigh Poutre Abuser Jailed




















Haleigh Poutre, the little girl almost dehydrated to death by the State of Massachusetts because she had a severe brain injury, has lived to see her step-father/abuser, Jason Strickland, jailed for twelve-fifteen years. From the story:

A judge sentenced the stepfather of Haleigh Poutre yesterday to 12 to 15 years in state prison for participating in a horrific pattern of child abuse, saying he had deprived Poutre of the "most precious gift" of a normal childhood...

The sentencing of Jason Strickland was handed down three years after the case drew national attention when the state prematurely sought to remove Poutre's life support after she fell into a coma from a near-fatal head injury in September 2005. A few months later, just when the state won court approval to end her life, saying her condition was "hopeless," the 11-year-old girl became alert, breathing on her own and responding to commands.

And therein lies a terrible irony: Had MA finished Haleigh off--which is what the state would, in effect, have been doing by removing her feeding tube--Strickland might have been punished for murder while the state's action, taken to cause her death, would have been merely described as a sad but necessary example of medical ethics. Such are the times in which we live.

Labels:

6 Comments:

At January 06, 2009 , Blogger Salt Racer said...

I'm glad that he has been punished. However, I suspect that if he had managed to acquire a good enough lawyer a case could have been made that he did not kill her, and thus the murder charge would be reduced.

At least, if not him, a "father" (and I use that term very loosely) in a similar situation now will certainly be able to make that claim.

 
At January 06, 2009 , Blogger Unknown said...

How did doctors, hospitals, anyone, ever get into the position of being able to remove life support in the first place?

 
At January 07, 2009 , Blogger T E Fine said...

Lanthe -

Distribution of resources. You don't make money off of dying and comatose patients, you lose money on 'em. Insurance only pays so far, and then the family has to somehow scrape together the rest, but at the same time, the family has to juggle work with caring for the ill person, meaning that work usually comes later on the list of "must do's." It's cheaper to kill a kid like Haleigh and give the resources to a person with a better chance of survival, and thus more likely to either eventually pay off the tab or have family that will, than to keep her alive and drain the resources. All praise the Almighty Dollar. Or whatever.

 
At January 07, 2009 , Blogger Unknown said...

T.E. -- Right. But how did they get to be legally able to do it?

 
At January 07, 2009 , Blogger T E Fine said...

Lanthe -

*My* guess would be that about the time we invented health insurance, things started going down hill. Healthy people have to pay for sick people, is what it comes down to. Persons A, C, and E are healthy and pay to get insurance if it's ever needed. Person B is sick, so the money A, C, and E put into the kitty goes to pay for B's health issues. But that's money that A, C, and E don't see themselves, and if B, D, F, and G are all sick, then A, C, and E pay more to cover them. So we all start getting greedy, because we all want to be covered, and the insurance company still wants to make a profit.

But for the exact moment when it became legal for one person to decide if another person's life is worth taking care of, I haven't the foggiest. I'd have figured all that went out the window when we kicked Hitler off his high horse. You don't look at pictures of the death camps and not hate how one group can menace another for no bloody good reason. That's exactly what this feels like to me.

Sorry I'm not more coherent. Everybody in the house came down with a stomach virus after my nephew visited. Three adults in my house, both my nephews and their father in *their* house, and maybe one of my best friends who stopped in to visit (though she's not showing signs yet) and I've been grouchy lately because of it. Please take my responses in stride.

 
At January 09, 2009 , Blogger Unknown said...

T.E. -- I think you hit the nail on the head re the insurance phenomenon. It's also a fear-based industry, and we have nothing to fear but fear itself...

I don't think we won the war once we won WWII and Hitler was out of the picture; we just won a battle and called it the war, and the war has continued, and tyranny hasn't stopped and is about to stare us in the face openly.

I hope you feel better soon. And don't mind me, I had to take Benadryl today for an allergic reaction, which is incapacitating but not as bad as being in hospital for same would be, what with what goes on in those places these days.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home