A West Australian woman injected her severely disabled child with an overdose of insulin in an attempt to get her admitted to the hospital and seen by doctors. The woman claimed that medical professionals were not providing the help her daughter needed, and she was desperate for her to be seen by specialist doctors. The child, who was six years old at the time, was born with Aicardi-Goutières syndrome, cerebral palsy, and various other health issues that severely limited her abilities.
The woman was found not guilty of attempted murder but guilty of doing an act with the intention of causing harm that would endanger the child’s life. The mother claimed she only injected the girl with insulin to induce a medical episode and get her a few nights in the hospital. She stated that at the time of the incident, her daughter’s condition was erratic, and she was struggling to provide her with the proper nutrition as she was fed through a tube.
During the trial, the woman told the Supreme Court of WA that she decided to inject her daughter with a “tiny bit” of insulin after asking her GP for help. She claimed that the GP, Dr. Pieter Theunnis Austin, prescribed the girl with a lethal dose of insulin, mistakenly believing that the woman wanted her daughter to die. The mother insisted that they were talking at cross-purposes and that she only wanted her daughter to receive proper medical attention.
The child’s condition, as described by the woman, was severe, with the girl unable to talk, walk, use her limbs, or eat properly. The mother expressed frustration at the lack of support from medical professionals and her inability to access specialist care for her daughter due to COVID protocols. The woman’s actions, though deemed harmful, were driven by a desire to ensure her daughter received the necessary medical care that she believed was not being provided by the healthcare system.
The jury’s decision to find the woman guilty of endangering the child’s life through her actions reflects the complexity of the situation. While the mother’s intentions may have been driven by a desire to help her daughter, her method of achieving this goal was deemed dangerous and harmful. The case highlights the challenges faced by parents of severely disabled children in accessing appropriate medical care and the difficult decisions they may feel compelled to make in such circumstances.
In conclusion, the woman’s act of injecting her disabled child with insulin was deemed to be done with the intention of causing harm, even though her motivation was to seek medical attention for her daughter. The case raises questions about the support available to parents of severely disabled children and the lengths they may go to in order to ensure their child receives necessary medical care. The verdict underscores the need for improved accessibility to specialist healthcare services for individuals with complex medical conditions and their families.
