emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Mom on trial accused of killing 5-year-old with salt - Yahoo News
on this news story of a sick mother who killed her son by feeding him lethal doses of salt
I have two questions after reading the comments below the article
1. if the legal team BLOCKS any mention comparing symptoms of mental illness to Munchausen syndrome
(claiming it is too often seen as a MOTIVE in a criminal case, and not sympathized with as a mental illness)
can't the appeal team later go back and claim the OPPOSITE? that if the defense team PREVENTS and FAILS to mention this mental illness "in defense of the client" then that can be inadequate defense and get thrown out?
What's to stop this from being used later to void the proceedings?
2. someone brought up that Munchausen by proxy runs up hospital bills for
these sick parents who keep pushing for unnecessary surgeries or treatments for illness they cause themselves.
What's to stop hospitals from taking these cases
if govt is going to pay for it all anyway?
If insurance is going to pass the expense on to taxpayers,
where is the check on abuses of health care resources?
But if the family was held responsible,
or the insurance company had to pay for fraud and not pass it on to taxpayers,
wouldn't there be motivation to fix if these people are sick?
So the cost to the families or the insurance is minimal
instead of dumping it on the govt and taxpayers who have no direct contact with the situation to
control, question or check it.
on this news story of a sick mother who killed her son by feeding him lethal doses of salt
I have two questions after reading the comments below the article
1. if the legal team BLOCKS any mention comparing symptoms of mental illness to Munchausen syndrome
(claiming it is too often seen as a MOTIVE in a criminal case, and not sympathized with as a mental illness)
can't the appeal team later go back and claim the OPPOSITE? that if the defense team PREVENTS and FAILS to mention this mental illness "in defense of the client" then that can be inadequate defense and get thrown out?
What's to stop this from being used later to void the proceedings?
2. someone brought up that Munchausen by proxy runs up hospital bills for
these sick parents who keep pushing for unnecessary surgeries or treatments for illness they cause themselves.
What's to stop hospitals from taking these cases
if govt is going to pay for it all anyway?
If insurance is going to pass the expense on to taxpayers,
where is the check on abuses of health care resources?
But if the family was held responsible,
or the insurance company had to pay for fraud and not pass it on to taxpayers,
wouldn't there be motivation to fix if these people are sick?
So the cost to the families or the insurance is minimal
instead of dumping it on the govt and taxpayers who have no direct contact with the situation to
control, question or check it.