This week a single mother was convicted of murdering her nine year old, low-functioning autistic son by withholding his chemotherapy medication. In October 2006 he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkins lymphoma; by February 2008 the crime had been discovered and the boy was placed in his father's custody; a year later, he died.In her defense the woman claimed she was overwhelmed by her own struggle with depression and her role as a depressed mother with few resources who is solely responsible for a severely sick, disabled child. In other words, she threw herself at the mercy of the court. Of course the prosecution claimed she decided to let the child die; incidentally, this could also have been her defense: That she chose death over life--life being where the state exercised its will, and death, where she exercised hers. It could have been a civil rights issue. Regardless, a few members of the jury have since made statements about their attempts to sympathize with her situation.
I come away with two primary impressions:
(1) She never really owned her child; though he lived with her a time, the state apparently had the prevailing interest in his life (for his sake, of course), making him its ward, subject to its rule;
(2) If the state has part ownership of the child, it also has a responsibility to raise the child; if it will not, then it must provide adequate resources to those who will.
The second point holds even if the facts of this specific case require us to punish the mother.
One report: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/04/15/massachusetts.mother.murder/
Another: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ghGhsTkTI_Jwn4Y7OOcEDU_gOt1Q?docId=d0923b05603b4faa8d8287fe9ebafaf7
