I've been following the disturbing case of the Maryland woman who hid the bodies of her deceased infants in her home, including the body of her recently stillborn child.
The facts are bizarre and scant but authorities have charged the mother, Christy Freeman, with first degree murder, second degree murder, and manslaughter---all for the death of the most recent infant. They say they need to determine if the remains of the other infants also belonged to Freeman and what the causes of death were before determining if more charges wlll be brought.
Apparently, the prosecutor has accused Freeman of causing the stillborn birth.
Again, the facts aren't all in, but if it does turn out that she played a role in the death of her infant(s), I'm all for throwing the book at her. The part I can't understand, is how she can be charged at all? The charges are being brought under a 2005 law that makes it illegal to kill a viable fetus. The law makes an exception for abortion and also reads, "Nothing in this section applies to an act or failure to act of a pregnant woman with regard to her own fetus". And further notes, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to confer personhood or any rights on the fetus". It looks like the MD Legislature was very careful to make killing a pre-born child a crime only if the mother did not want the child killed.
According to a Fox News article, the exception regarding the pregnant woman's action was put in to protect a woman's right to abortion, even though another execption more explicitly mentions abortion. If this is the case, and the law was not intended to protect a woman who intentionally, physically, harms her own fetus, then I'm curious about the rationale behind such a law. How is it that an abortion is ok, but doing it yourself is not? Of course I'm glad for any prosecution, even if it is inconsistent.
I don't know how this law and the charges will shake out, but I'm waiting for the uproar from the pro-aborts---she had every right to kill her baby before it was born didn't she? Whatever the reason, I'm glad this woman is being charged, and I hope (naively I'm sure) that it might cause some to recognize that causing the stillborn birth of a viable fetus is no different from performing an abortion in the hospital or in a clinic.
I am pleased to note that VA's fetal homicide bill is more comprehensive since it does not require that the fetus be viable in order for a crime to have ocurred. However, since the law reads, "kills the fetus of another", I wonder if a woman would be charged for killing her own fetus in VA. Anyone know?
Thursday, September 6, 2007
What's in a name?
I just heard about a bill in congress to recognize drug and alcohol abuse as an addiction. S.1011 and H.R.1348 both move to change the names of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) to the National Institute on Disease of Addiction and the National Institute on Alcohol Disorders and Health respectively.
A Slate article by Sally Satel and Scott Lilienfeld brought this bill to my attention, and I agree with their position that viewing addiction as a disease is a bad idea. (Read the article here)
The text of the Senate bill reads in part, "Addiction is a chronic, relapsing brain disease that is characterized by compulsive drug seeking and use, despite harmful consequences."
Renaming the two institutes might be a fairly benign action that goes unoticed by many, but this establishes some bad principles. Calling something a disease removes personal responsibilty allowing someone to play a victim to his/her "disease" of addiction. And though the bill indicates that the term "abuse" is pejorative and can prevent someone from seeking treatment, I would think that calling something a disease might lead someone to think the cure was another's responsiblity and further hinder the chance of getting sober. I'm sure there is legitimate debate about these terms, but I wonder why Congress needs to take a stand?
I consider also that new addictions seem to be cropping up all over the place---I have heard of video game addictions, of TV addictions, even carb addictions---and of course addiction to pornography. Will we eventually be asked to consider all of these diseases? I wonder also how such a move might affect employment hiring and firing practices. If one's addiction is a disease, might the employer be obligated to provide sick leave or other benefits for behaviors that would otherwise lead to firing?
A Slate article by Sally Satel and Scott Lilienfeld brought this bill to my attention, and I agree with their position that viewing addiction as a disease is a bad idea. (Read the article here)
The text of the Senate bill reads in part, "Addiction is a chronic, relapsing brain disease that is characterized by compulsive drug seeking and use, despite harmful consequences."
Renaming the two institutes might be a fairly benign action that goes unoticed by many, but this establishes some bad principles. Calling something a disease removes personal responsibilty allowing someone to play a victim to his/her "disease" of addiction. And though the bill indicates that the term "abuse" is pejorative and can prevent someone from seeking treatment, I would think that calling something a disease might lead someone to think the cure was another's responsiblity and further hinder the chance of getting sober. I'm sure there is legitimate debate about these terms, but I wonder why Congress needs to take a stand?
I consider also that new addictions seem to be cropping up all over the place---I have heard of video game addictions, of TV addictions, even carb addictions---and of course addiction to pornography. Will we eventually be asked to consider all of these diseases? I wonder also how such a move might affect employment hiring and firing practices. If one's addiction is a disease, might the employer be obligated to provide sick leave or other benefits for behaviors that would otherwise lead to firing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
