The Canadope Café 2016: The North Awakens

[Muffin]

@Spoons

Muffin, I am unfamiliar with Thunder Bay. Are you referring to a street intersection?

Yes. It is the prime hangout spot in town for people you really don’t want to hangout with. What goes on there is identical to that in your post.

My first job in TBay was in an office at that intersection, and I lived a couple of blocks from there. The day I moved in, an aboriginal youth was stabbed to death in my back lane. The day I moved out, a fellow across my back lane was eviscerated. The woman who owned the store beneath my office moved the store to the other end of town because she didn’t like having to mop up blood on her sidewalk most weekends. A friend with a store a few doors down built a fence this summer between his store and a neighbouring church to stop people from shitting there despite there being public washrooms adjacent to the intersection.

[Mona_Lisa_Simpson]

Is it sad that although I have not lived there for 4 years, I know not only the intersection but most of the establishments to which Muffin refers. Thunder Bay will always be home, but not ever where I live again. Many many reasons, but I can’t pretend that getting away from the pervasive racism and poverty and the us and them mentality is somewhere I wanted to raise my child.

I live in Vancouver. I volunteer in the DTES and see all kinds of bad stuff. Thunder Bay is worse.

[Spoons]

@Spoons

Not sure how many of you have seen this, but it is in the National Post, so I guess it is national news:

Breaking News, Headlines and Stories | National Post

<snip>

This, to refresh your memory, is the Alberta toddler who died as a result of meningitis that his parents tried to treat with naturopathic methods.

Just heard on the news that the verdict came down this afternoon: both parents guilty of failing to provide the necessaries of life. A sentencing date will be set on June 13th.

Cite to a local radio station’s news report (the first I could find), but the verdict will no doubt hit national media shortly, if it hasn’t already.

[Leaffan]

It’s sad on all fronts. What were these parents actually thinking?

It’s on the CBC website.

They treated him for 2½ weeks with remedies that included hot peppers, garlic, onions and horseradish and a product from a naturopathic doctor aimed at boosting his immune system.

:smack:

[Northern_Piper]

Faith in natural remedies ‘like a religion,’ say experts watching Lethbridge trial

Experts say it’s faith in all things natural combined with a distrust of science and possibly authority that leads some to bypass the medical system — even to the point where they put themselves or their children at risk.

“It’s like a religion to them,” says Tim Caulfield, research director of the University of Alberta’s Health Law and Science Policy Group. He has written the books The Cure for Everything! Untangling the Twisted Messages about Health, Fitness and Happiness and Is Gwyneth Paltrow Wrong About Everything?

Spoons, I heard on one news story that the parents had quite a large group of supporters there on a regular basis, who would say quite hostile things to the Crown and to the media outside of court.

Have you heard anything about that?

[Muffin]

@Leaffan

What were these parents actually thinking?

Not thinking, believing.

[Spoons]

@Northern_Piper

Faith in natural remedies ‘like a religion,’ say experts watching Lethbridge trial

Spoons, I heard on one news story that the parents had quite a large group of supporters there on a regular basis, who would say quite hostile things to the Crown and to the media outside of court.

Have you heard anything about that?

I have. Let me get to that in a moment.

I happened to be at the Lethbridge courthouse today, representing a client. It was immediately apparent from the moment I walked in at 9:00 a.m. that something unusual had been happening. CBC, CTV, and Global were all parked outside. And, in addition to the regular sheriffs, clerks, media, and colleagues, that one gets to know simply by being there on a regular basis; there seemed to be extra sheriffs, and a lot of people I didn’t know. Not entirely out of the ordinary–let’s face it, I don’t know many, if any, of the accuseds on the daily criminal docket–but these people weren’t there for the daily docket or chambers applications.

Best estimates from courthouse colleagues and acquaintances figured that the jury would be out for seven days, at least, but these strangers seemed prepared to wait, just in case things happened faster.

We had some time, so my client and I wandered down near the courtroom where the trial had taken place. There was a portable metal detector outside (this in addition to the regular ones at the main public entrance to the courthouse), and a few orders taped to the door, mostly dealing with media.

That may start to answer your question, Northern Piper. I’ve never felt afraid at the courthouse; it’s a pretty secure place, and there can be some pretty sketchy people with matters before the Court on any given day. But the fact that they laid on extra sheriffs and a metal detector outside the courtroom–that told me something. To complete my answer to your question, I have heard, secondhand, that the parents had supporters who were hostile to media and prosecutors, so the extra security made sense. But I also know one or two members of the local media who were there, so when I get a chance, I’ll ask them for a firsthand account. I also know one of the Crowns on the matter, and if I get the chance, I’ll ask him too.

To put a finale to the story of my day at court today, I took care of the matter for my client, we waited for his paperwork, and we were out of there by 11:00 a.m. Had I known that the verdict would come down a few hours later, I would have hung around, and sat in the gallery for it. There was no way to tell, of course, but all I can do is … :smack:

[Ike_Witt]

A friend of mines father was in a car accident. They hit a moose then a hydro pole. I saw a picture of the car…that they survived is a miracle. His father may be paralyzed and the fathers girlfriend is in critical condition… Fuck moose.

[RickJay]

@Muffin

Not thinking, believing.

They were doing what their “Doctor” told them to do, at least in part. The Province of Alberta lets these quacks call themselves “Doctor.”

I despise quackery, but what is to be expected when the government allows a system whereby real doctors and fake doctors can both call themselves Doctor? Suppose my physician is not a naturopath, but just happens to be incredibly incompetent, the living embodiment of the doctor in “Like A Surgeon.” Should I be liable for following his inept advice? He’s a doctor, right? How the hell am I supposed to know if he’s a terrible doctor?

This tragedy is as much on the agency that allows charlatans and imbeciles to advertise themselves as real doctors as it does anyone else.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

@Northern_Piper

Here’s the preamble to the Statute of Elizabeth, which is the foundation in the common law countries for what counts as a “charity”:

…Shags ain’t there.

@Uzi

Mariages of poore Maides?

@Northern_Piper

Thinking about the “mariages of poore Maides” a bit more, I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s a way to refer to young girls “in trouble” as the euphemism used to be.

“I do a lot of charitable work with unwed mothers. You know, just helping them get their start.” - Steve Martin

@Ike_Witt

A friend of mines father was in a car accident. They hit a moose then a hydro pole. I saw a picture of the car…that they survived is a miracle. His father may be paralyzed and the fathers girlfriend is in critical condition… Fuck moose.

Very sorry to hear that, Ike. Hope they both pull through OK.

[Muffin]

@RickJay

They were doing what their “Doctor” told them to do, at least in part. The Province of Alberta lets these quacks call themselves “Doctor.”

I despise quackery, but what is to be expected when the government allows a system whereby real doctors and fake doctors can both call themselves Doctor? Suppose my physician is not a naturopath, but just happens to be incredibly incompetent, the living embodiment of the doctor in “Like A Surgeon.” Should I be liable for following his inept advice? He’s a doctor, right? How the hell am I supposed to know if he’s a terrible doctor?

This tragedy is as much on the agency that allows charlatans and imbeciles to advertise themselves as real doctors as it does anyone else.

Yeh, belief in woo isn’t the sort of thing that I want medical treatment to be based on, so regulating woo under the Health Professions Act as if it were legitimate seems dumb to me.

CBC

The Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors says naturopathic medicine aims to stimulate the body’s own healing power to fight underlying causes of disease. Its members are required to identify when health issues are beyond their “scope of practice” and to refer patients to physicians or other health-care professionals.

If what has been reported is accurate, the naturopathic doctor failed to meet her profession’s standards.
Query: does the regulatory duty imposed on the naturopathic doctor by her governing body under the Health Professions Act constitute a duty under law? If it does, I hope she is convicted for criminal negligence causing death.

[Spoons]

Looks like David Stephan has written an open letter to the jurors, which he posted on Facebook. Following is an excerpt, as reported by CTV:

“I only wish that you could’ve seen how you were being played by the Crown’s deception, drama and trickery that not only led to our key witnesses being muzzled, but has also now led to a dangerous precedent being set in Canada,” Stephan wrote Wednesday.

“The floodgates have now been opened and if we do not fall in line with parenting as seen fit by the government, we all stand in risk of criminal prosecution.”

I doubt very much that defense witnesses were “muzzled”; my own guess (and that’s all it is) is that these witnesses were irrelevant to the issue. And like I said earlier, I know one of the Crowns professionally, and he is ethical and fair; not prone to “deception, drama and trickery.”

[RickJay]

The fact that David Stephan is an idiot doesn’t convince me of his guilt. Being an idiot is not a crime. I think they’re terrible parents, but they brought their child to someone they believed to be a doctor, capable of providing medical care. Part of the reason they believed the person to be a doctor is that the Province of Alberta said she was a doctor.

I see no evidence at all that the parents were not making a good faith effort to get their child well. Their methods were the most egregiously stupid examples of modern New Age woo, but if they honestly believe those things would work, then convicting them places us in a rather grey area of what the Crown considers “necessaries of life.” How far does a person’s own understanding of medicine have to go, and what if the government itself is designating people as doctors and that fools the parent into making the wrong decision?

[elbows]

Their personal friend, a nurse, days before this child died, flat out told them, this may be meningitis! They ignored her.

Then they a drove a child too stiff to use a car seat, to a homeopath to buy echinacea !

I think his open letter was a big mistake. It all but announces they feel no culpability in these events. Have learned nothing from these events, etc. He’d have been better off to keep his opinion to himself, I think.

(They have three more sons too! )

[Malthus]

I can’t determine what role the naturopath played in this tragedy. I’ve read reports in various news articles, that don’t make much sense when read together:

1. That the naturopath did not physically examine the kid;

2. That the naturopath did not talk to Collet about meningitis with Collet;

The doctors raise concerns that Tannis said she did not communicate with Collet, “yet two other people have given statements that Dr. Tannis did, in fact, discuss viral meningitis with Collet, and gave her echinacea anyway.”

3. . That the naturopath did warn Collet, and advised her to take the kid to a hospital;

4. That, despite all of the above, the naturopath prescribed a herbal remedy.

Depending on what was found to be true at trial, this I think ought to sway the determination of the parent’s guilt. If in fact the naturopath advised them to take the kid to a hospital (and they failed to do so), that makes them look much more guilty.

On the other hand, if the parents went to this individual, who is a “doctor” according to regulations, and the “doctor” prescribed a herbal remedy - that’s a more debatable position: then, the “doctor” looks more like the guilty party. Why should a parent, by law, be held to a higher standard of medical knowledge than a regulated and licensed healthcare professional, given that the province of Alberta (in its infinite wisdom) has seen fit to so designate naturopaths as such?

I agree that this designation is a big mistake and must bear part of the blame. If this woo isn’t real medicine, it shouldn’t be dressed up like real medicine, or idiots like these parents will be more likely to mistake it for real medicine - leading to tragedies like this.

[Northern_Piper]

I’ve also seen conflicting reports of what the naturopath’s involvement was in all this. I hope the pending investigation under the Alberta health professions regulatory process will clarify it.

[Northern_Piper]

@RickJay

The fact that David Stephan is an idiot doesn’t convince me of his guilt. Being an idiot is not a crime. I think they’re terrible parents, but they brought their child to someone they believed to be a doctor, capable of providing medical care. Part of the reason they believed the person to be a doctor is that the Province of Alberta said she was a doctor.

I see no evidence at all that the parents were not making a good faith effort to get their child well. Their methods were the most egregiously stupid examples of modern New Age woo, but if they honestly believe those things would work, then convicting them places us in a rather grey area of what the Crown considers “necessaries of life.” How far does a person’s own understanding of medicine have to go, and what if the government itself is designating people as doctors and that fools the parent into making the wrong decision?

This is one of the issues in criminal law matters. If we impose a purely objective standarad (ie “they should have known”) we run the risk of convicting people unfairly. However, if we impose a purely subjective standard (ie “I personally believe crushed horseradish is an effective treatment for meningitis”) then the criminal law provision is completely dependent on the beliefs of individuals.

When it comes to something as serious as not providing necessities of life, the criminal standard tends towards the objective approach, because the purpose of the provision is ultimately to protect the life and health of vulnerable people, often young children, and society tends to favour an objective standard in that case.

I appreciate the issue of the licensing of naturopaths by the province. That said, I think the fact that he was sick for over two weeks without them seeking any medical care of any sort, and they didn’t take him immediately to an ER or medical doctor when their nurse friend warned them that it might be meningitis, are both important factors for consideration.

[Uzi]

@Northern_Piper

I appreciate the issue of the licensing of naturopaths by the province.

Licensing quacks allow ducks to say they are ‘doctors’. Licensed or unlicensed they are still selling snake oil.

[Northern_Piper]

Arch! Hate doing taxes at the last minute! Just been one of those months …

[Northern_Piper]

Oh well - Nora Jones soft songs are keeping me calm.