Thursday, January 21, 2010

A woman has been convicted of murder after killing her son in an “act of mercy”. The Old Bailey, a London court, heard that Frances Inglis, 57, injected Tom, 22, with heroin and gave her a life sentence.

Tom had been injured in a street fight in July 2007 and was put in an ambulance depite his desire not to be hospitalised. The ambulance door was opened three times; the third time Tom jumped out and sustained injuries that left him in a coma. He became mute and dependant on 24-hour care. His only method of communication was to squeeze a hand.

Frances was told that if she wanted Tom to die legally then she could ask the High Court to allow his food and water to be withdrawn, so that he would starve to death. Frances told the court “I know Tom – no way would he have wanted to live totally dependent. I can remember saying I felt I would rather he go to heaven than to hell on earth. I know Tom would not want to live. He had lost his life.”

“I couldn’t bear the thought of Tom dying of thirst or hunger,” she said of the idea of food and water withdrawal. “To me that would be so cruel, so cruel. To die slowly like that would be horrible.” Instead she used the Internet to research Tom’s condition and concluded that a heroin overdose would be the most painless method available. A learning disabilities worker with no convictions, she concluded two grams was sufficient to kill and began spending time in areas she believed drugs were on sale – outside the local station, job centre and needle exchanges.

Frances was determined to release Tom from his “living hell” and said she had “no choice” in the matter. “I asked myself what I would want,” she said. “I would want someone to love me enough to help me die. That’s why I thought heroin – a painless, peaceful death.” She obtained her two grams and stole syringes from Tom’s hospital before injecting him, but he was revived by nurses and she was charged with attempted murder. She was bailed but barred from contacting her son.

Fourteen months later she obtained access to Tom by posing as his aunt and placed superglue in the lock of his door, further barricading it with an oxygen cylinder and a wheelchair. It took staff thirty minutes to break in, by which time Frances had injected one of Tom’s arms and both his thighs with heroin. This time he died.

Frances had left a letter to her family in which she talked of her concerns for her other two sons and dog, as well as the running of the house, expecting a murder arrest. On one bed she left a photograph of Tom as well as a prayer written by his girlfriend. Police also found older letter by Frances, one of which read “People keep saying Tom is not suffering. How can they know how he feels?”

She was asked if guilty of murder and attempted murder, to which she responded “I don’t see it as killing or murder. The definition of murder is to take someone’s life with malice in your heart. I did it with love in my heart, for Tom, so I don’t see it as murder. I knew what I was doing was against the law. I don’t know what name they would call it but I knew that the law would say it was wrong. I believed it would have been Tom’s choice to have been allowed to die rather than have the intervention to keep him alive.”

The jury “could not have had a more difficult case,” according to Judge Brian Barker, but he told them nobody was allowed to override the law. Ten members of the jury agreed, but two sided with Frances, leaving a conviction by majority verdict. The jury foreman was greeted by cries of “shame on you” from France’s relatives, for which they were ejected from the building. “We can all understand the emotion and the unhappiness that you were experiencing,” Barker told Frances, later adding “You knew you were breaking society’s conventions, you knew you were breaking the law, and you knew the consequences.” He ordered her to serve a minimum of nine years.

“What this case and a number of others have exposed,” said France’s eldest son, Alex, “is a need for a complete rethink of existing laws in regard to people that have been, and will be, in the same position as Tom. How can it be legal to withhold food and water, which means a slow and painful death, yet illegal to end all suffering in a quick, calm and loving way? It’s cruel, inhumane and illogical… We have a duty of care to them and we should not allow this situation to continue. It should not be left to a wife, husband, mother, father, sister or brother to have to end their suffering, and be convicted for murder.” Detective Chief Inspector Steve Collin, who was in charge of the case, flatly disagreed. “There’s no such thing as a mercy killing in law.”

“I want to say that all of the family and Tom’s girlfriend support my mum 100%. All those who loved and were close to Tom have never seen this as murder, but as a loving and courageous act,” said Alex.

Sunday, August 21, 2005

A robotic system at Stanford Medical Center was used to perform a laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery successfully with a theoretically similar rate of complications to that seen in standard operations. However, as there were only 10 people in the experimental group (and another 10 in the control group), this is not a statistically significant sample.

If this surgical procedure is as successful in large-scale studies, it may lead the way for the use of robotic surgery in even more delicate procedures, such as heart surgery. Note that this is not a fully automated system, as a human doctor controls the operation via remote control. Laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery is a treatment for obesity.

There were concerns that doctors, in the future, might only be trained in the remote control procedure. Ronald G. Latimer, M.D., of Santa Barbara, CA, warned “The fact that surgeons may have to open the patient or might actually need to revert to standard laparoscopic techniques demands that this basic training be a requirement before a robot is purchased. Robots do malfunction, so a backup system is imperative. We should not be seduced to buy this instrument to train surgeons if they are not able to do the primary operations themselves.”

There are precedents for just such a problem occurring. A previous “new technology”, the electrocardiogram (ECG), has lead to a lack of basic education on the older technology, the stethoscope. As a result, many heart conditions now go undiagnosed, especially in children and others who rarely undergo an ECG procedure.

Monday, April 17, 2006

Seven weeks after citizens of the Six Nations of the Grand River reserve repossessed land near Caledonia, Ontario, on February 28, the Ontario Provincial Police, who have authority from a court to arrest the protesters for contempt of court, have yet to act.

On April 11, more than 50 police cruisers, two paddy wagons, and several vans gathered outside an abandoned school on Unity Road in Caledonia. However, reports from last night are that visible police presence is minimal, with just a few police cruisers parked down the road from the protest site.

Before the site was blocked, Henco Industries had begun construction on 10 luxury homes out of a total of 71 scheduled to be built as part of the $6 million Douglas Creek Estates subdivision.

The tract of land under dispute was registered as a land claim by the Six Nations Band Council in 1987 but its status has yet to be settled. The land originally made up part of a large land grant given in 1784 to the Six Nations for services rendered during the American War of Independence. The government and the developer claim that the Six Nations surrendered title in 1841, but the Band disputes this.

The protesters are demanding a nation-to-nation dialogue with the Canadian government and continue to call for a peaceful resolution. Some protesters, however, have stated that if the OPP forcefully try to remove them, they will defend their land with force.

“If they break the peace, we’ll do what we have to do,” said protester Dick Hill. “Things are very tense. We are trying to defend our lands, which were taken from us. Every time we try to stand up for who we are and what we are, they come and drag us away.”

An injunction was issued to the development company a month ago that allowed for the protesters to be removed. Police have not enforced the injunction.

However, David Ramsay, Ontario’s Aboriginal Affairs Minister, said that the province was going to have a meeting with both protesters and developers in an attempt to address their concerns.

“This is a very serious situation. I have to be very hopeful that we’re going to see a peaceful end to this situation. We think we can resolve this by negotiating, and by talking so that’s what we’re doing,” added Ramsay.

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

On November 1, 2006 the old five, ten, twenty and fifty cent coins will be illegal tender, but the Reserve Bank of New Zealand says there are still at least 100 million still to be returned.

According to the Reserve Bank, most of the old coins have been lost in drains or buried in rubbish. “We think there is still another 100 million sitting around in people’s homes,” Brian Lang, currency manger for the Reserve Bank, said.

Lang said: “So far, just over 280 million coins have been returned, but there are more out there. Since 1967 the Reserve Bank has issued more than a billion of the old ‘silver’ coins. So if you don’t want to be stuck with loads of old coin – there’s never been a better time to empty your coin jars, sweep the car glove box and rummage behind the couch cushions.”

The coins still awaiting to be handed in, by either spending them, taking them to a bank or donating them to charity, are estimated to be worth between NZ$5 million and $50 million.

“A last-minute burst of publicity may convince people to bring the coins in. It’s a bit of a hassle though. Human nature being what it is, people just don’t care,” Lang said.The Karori Wildlife Sanctuary located in Wellington say that they have collected over $9,000 in old coins. Sanctuary spokesman, Alan Dicks said: “The campaign was particularly fitting because the old coins depicted tuataras and kiwis, both of which can be found living at the sanctuary. The money will go towards supporting general ecological restoration of the sanctuary. We want to get over ten grand, but the more the better.”

Lang said: “Though the coins will no longer be legal tender, banks will continue to exchange them until at least the end of the year,” and the Reserve Bank will always exchange them. “We are still getting people coming in with two-dollar notes,” Lang added.

Thursday, April 7, 2005

The U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee passed an amendment on Wednesday to extend daylight saving time by two months. The bipartisan measure is sponsored by Representative Fred Upton, Republican of Michigan, and Representative Ed Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts.

“The more daylight we have, the less electricity we use,” Representative Ed Markey said. Markey also supported the measure by pointing out the business benefits. “There’s more economic activity, because people feel they can walk around safely,” he said.

“Extending daylight-saving time makes sense, especially with skyrocketing energy costs,” Rep. Fred Upton said.

The bill extends daylight saving time to begin on the first Sunday in March and to end on the last Sunday in November. Daylight saving time currently begins on the first Sunday in April and ends on the first Sunday in October.

The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that extending daylight saving time would save 10,000 barrels of oil per day. The United States consumes approximately 20 million barrels of oil per day.

The House is planning to approve the energy bill to which the amendment was attached in several weeks. Several other amendments to the bill are still being debated.