Friday, November 04, 2005

Bad parents but guilty of murder?

I remember reading about this story when the baby died. A couple on trial for starving their daughter to death with a strict vegan diet in 2003 are on trial right now. I've been a vegetarian and one of my daughters is. However, none of us were into the very strict "living foods" diet the way this family was. A "living diet" basically means everything that is eaten is raw, nothing is cooked or processed. It is very difficult to maintain a proper balance of nutrition, especially for young children, it is possible and certain religions have done this for years, and with most infants they are breastfed so they have a better chance at enough calories and nutrition. Lamoy, the babies mother stopped breastfeeding at three months. The reason why is disputed. It's obvious that there is some proof that the remaining children were not receiving enough nutrients. What isn't mentioned until you get off of the mainstream media is that Woyah did not have a thymus. I read this on a site that promotes raw foods so I questioned it, then I did some research.

You cannot live without a thymus and babies that are born with out one? Typically die within months of their birth. Yet the coroner who knew that the baby had no thymus, it is clearly mentioned on page three of the autopsy still ruled the death as "accidential due to malnutrition". Was it the nutrition that caused this death? You really have to wonder once you discover the thymus was absent. Were Lamoy and Joseph Andressohn negilient in not being educated enough about raising children with that type of diet? Yes. Had they taken Woyah in for a formal diagnosis of this birth defect would there have been a different outcome? There is an experimental process to try to transplant a part of a thymus into babies born without one, however it is expensive and has not been successful in all cases from what I have read so far. Has the legal system focused on how they were raising their children not as we accept as mainstream rather than the fact this child was born without something necessary to survive cloud their judgement? It appears that might be true.

Hopefully justice will be served in this case and the truth will come out.

3 comments:

Ali Al Axdiri said...

Very interestig weblog.I decide to put it on my favorite list.I am a blogger too, i just spooted one of my regular visitors from Morocco as well, visiting your lovely site from , exactly Oulad Chouaf,near Marrakech. somethig has pushed me to discouver you. What a JOY! Cause i am so liberal too.
A.A

Hooda Thunkit (Dave Zawodny) said...

I hope that common sense and the evidence will provide the correct outcome in this case.

That is, unlike child support laws that hold the husband liable even when the DNA evidence proves him not to be the father...

PridePress said...

DIAL 202-224-4254...Say "Oppose the Marriage Protection Amendment"
Then hang up the phone.

Repeat as necessary up to, and including, November 9th, 2005! That is when the hearing on the Marriage Protection Amendment has been scheduled.

I expect by then that you will all have memorized the DC office number of Senator Arlen Specter!

Dial 202-224-4254

Tell the staffer you want the Senator to

"oppose the Marriage Protection Amendment"

Hang Up.

Repeat until your fingers start to bleed!


Well...What are you waiting for?
We have an amendment to kill in committee!