Absolutely! He has one more kick at the can (legally speaking) this Spring, fingers crossed that the Supreme Court will uphold his previous conviction.
I have no problem with adults making the decision to try whatever remedies they fancy, however wacky they might seem to me or others. But children don't have the luxury of making those choices for themselves and aren't always fortunate enough to have parents who are making good choices for them.
One thing about Canada - the "justice" system tends to be far too lenient in many cases. Even if a person receives a criminal conviction for serious offences, all too often they are given very light sentences in relation to the severity of the crime they committed. They are out of prison in short order while families of victims are still in the midst of appalling grief caused by their criminal actions.
In this case where the child died - to me it's not so much a case of disagreement about treatment choices but more about criminal bad judgement leading to death. If parents want to use "alternative treatment" at the very least they are still responsible to exercise good judgement according to at least a basic standard of reason. If the person on the street would know the child requires urgent standard medical assessment and treatment then even more so should the parents. As the child's condition worsened surely it should have been obvious they weren't going in the right direction.
And how could a father, who has been judged to have been negligent in his child's death, still be touting the "benefits" of his brand of "medicine"? He gives the alternative treatment crowd a bad name. I don't blame other participants for backing out.
I think there is a place for a non-standard approach in some instances. Decidedly not, however, when a person, especially a child, has an infection or a surgical issue that should be an obvious medical problem that requires the standard scientific solutions; i.e. antibiotics, investigations, surgery, etc.
It seems, very sadly, that this guy has not learned anything from his child's death. It's pretty blatant to set himself up as some kind of alternative care expert at a conference. Sheesh.
The father is so steadfast in his beliefs that we are all in the wrong to even think he did wrong. I don't know what ward or stake he's in or if he and his wife still attend church. He has his supporters on the "other" site.
But you must know that it was the ambulance crew that killed the child, because the natural remedies sold by the parents were too much of a threat to (I forgot the adjective the stick and bark crowd like to use to make regular medicine sound threatening) regular medical practice. [edit: found the adjective. Allopathic, a made up word that sounds vaguely ominous because of the root for "pathology" embedded in it]
One of the big advantages of being a conspiracy theorist is that you can discount any and all disconfirming evidence by declaring it to be part of the conspiracy.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2018 02:42PM by Brother Of Jerry.