This may be the first time I have tackled the same topic in two columns in the same week.
The case of David and Collet Stephan, who are currently on trial in Alberta on charges of failing to provide the necessaries of life in the death of their 19-month-old child Ezekial from bacterial meningitis, presents a couple of very different
I deal with the medical and ethical aspects in my Thinking Critically space (Page A9). Here I want to look at the legal implications.
First of all, the nuts and bolts. It is a Criminal Code offence under Section 215 and carries a maximum penalty of five years if the Crown proceeds by way of indictment and 18 months if summarily.
This is the low end of offences that result in a death. Others include criminal negligence causing death, dangerous driving causing death and others.
Failing to provide the necessaries of life differs in the respect that it is a lack of action as opposed to an action.
I imagine it can be pretty tricky to prosecute. It is not like neglect or abuse, where something a person did is a direct cause for the injury.
In fact, in the case at hand, all indications are they the couple cared deeply for their child. Their naivete in believing that what they were doing is sad, but making a case for criminality requires proving they knew or ought to have known, what they were doing (or not doing as the case may be) was directly endangering the child’s life.
They did attempt to do something. They took him to a naturopath, which may have been naive, even stupid, but whether it is criminal is questionable.
Naturopathy is a government sanctioned profession. Is it the parents’ fault that society fails to recognize magic and faith are not acceptable means of treating medical problems?
Should charges be forthcoming for other people? The naturopath.
And what about the nurse friend, who urged them to do something correctly thinking it was meningitis? As a medical professional, did she not have the legal responsibility to report the child’s condition to authorities?
It will be interesting to see what comes out of this trial in legal terms not only of the verdict, but also its implications for the battle between science-based medicine and alternative therapies.
