http//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/4510788.stm
In the news today there is the above article about a father who took his son's life. A terminally ill son. A choice he made to "resolve financial problems and an opportunity to bring up his other, healthy son."
Although I don't agree with what this father did, it did make me think about how we used to deal with children who were born with disabilities, or became disabled later on. These children would not have survived and if they did they would have been locked up in an institution for the rest of their lives. Their families wouldn't be left with the burden of financially having to provide for them.
We appear to be more humane compared to our past but are we? We prolong life for what/whose purpose? If it is no longer acceptable to abandon children who are not 'normal' should the parents be expected to foot the bills that are needed to care for such a child? Or should society pay all expenses because the rules have changed within society? Or do we decide that if you find out you are carrying a disabled child and you are given the option to terminate and you choose not to, you are legally responsible for all of that child's expenses. Or do we decide that no matter what, society has to foot the bill? Can such a sweeping statement be made?
Having never been in the position of having children with huge financial needs I don't know the full extent of what it is like (financially and/or emotionally). I would like to believe that no matter what, my child is my child and I would love him/her no matter what. But I have other children to consider, and so does this father, and many other families.
Is he?
He lives in a world where he is left with full responsability, gone are institutions, no matter how cruel they were, they at least took some burdon from the family.
Now you are stuck with dealing with every aspect, including the finincial destruction of the family, that affects everyone in that family!
I think in this case, it will be hard to justify due to the well paid job, and I've no doubt money played a part in the decision. But society wants to play the US role of taking no responsability for anything or any actions, we will see a great deal more of this sort of thing before "we" as a world, stop thinking self first!
This child died from a drink induced parent so the report says.
This child died from a drink induced parent so the report says.
"The prosecution claims it was a selfish and drink-fuelled act because Mr Wragg, 38, could not cope with Jacob, 10. "
If indeed it was purely because of the drink, then of course there is no question.
I would think one would have to be drunk to be able to do such a thing.
He will obviously lose his job anyway.
It doesnt seem to mention any options that may have been available for help or respite.
I would have thought that earning 80,000 a year that you could pay a nurse at least part time to help care for the child.
Unless you have been in the situation it's hard to say what you would do.
I for one would find it hard to think about killing anyone let alone a child.
Maybe for an ex soldier and a man the moral logic is different.
I read another article on this that put a different perspective on it. The prosecution are just simply pushing the alcohol and financial aspects but the article gives details of some of Wragg's statements where he says his son told him to do it and that he could read his sons thoughts in his eyes. It seems that Wragg was quite mental, maybe through emotional trauma as a Gulf War veteran and therefore the punishment will hopefully be different to one for a calculated murder. Not less time, but one with more support to help him come to terms with what he did.
There is very little information here, certainly not sufficient to warrant any conclusion. I saw no reference to a wife, living dead or divorced. He only earned the £80,000 in Iraq. I imagine the boy must stay in the UK. There is an old puzzle here, the family faced with the decision to disadvantage the whole family and use all assets to help one member.
In the extreme, there was the case of a group of Chinese being smuggled out of China. As they approached the border, a baby woke up and the mother had to keep it quiet or they would all have been discovered and killed. She had to smother it to stop it making a noise. Was that murder? Some would say yes, most would say no, at least I think they would.
Some would say yes, most would say no, at least I think they would.
:???: You reckon?
I'd say yes. It may be understandable but it's still murder.
8) Yea know, its easy for everyone to sit and say its wrong or right, but until each of us are put into situations that we do not want to be in, do we know which way each and everyone of us would react.
8) Yea know, its easy for everyone to sit and say its wrong or right, but until each of us are put into situations that we do not want to be in, do we know which way each and everyone of us would react.
No, but that makes no difference -when that person is put in front of a jury, you can bet your sweet ass the jurors will not have been in that situation. Does that mean people should not be tried if you cannot find 12 people who have done the same thing? Of course not.
It seems a jury in england found a lot of sympathy for the fathers plight and found him not quilty of murder , the wife is not happy with the verdict .
Mercy killing .... its one that which ever way the verdit went some folks would not be happy with the result ....
YAHOO UK & IRELAND
Father cleared of murdering terminally ill son
Monday December 12, 0241 PM
LONDON (Reuters) - A man who admitted smothering his terminally ill 10-year-old son was found not guilty of murder on Monday, prompting an angry response from the boy's mother who condemned the verdict.
Andrew Wragg, 37, had said he was not of sound mind when he killed his son Jacob, who suffered from the rare inherited condition Hunter's Syndrome.
The former special forces soldier was given
a two year suspended sentence after he admitted a lesser charge of manslaughter at Lewes Crown Court.
After killing Jacob in July 2004, Wragg dialled emergency services to say he had carried out a "mercy killing" but prosecutors argued he had simply been overwhelmed by the responsibility of looking after his son.
Wragg's former wife Mary, who was the primary carer for the boy, said she was appalled by the sentence.
"Jacob was a happy, loving child living in a sometimes difficult body. He never lost his sense of fun and those who understood him really loved Jacob for being Jacob," she told reporters outside the court.