A D V E R T I S E M E N T
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
ADVERTISEMENTS
<< Prev. Page 1 | 2
In prosecution rebuttal, Young showed in extreme detail and explained his methods and reasons they were the best way to reveal the effect the mass had on Ava’s ability to breathe.
“The contents of her neck were under extreme pressure,” Young told the court Tuesday morning. “Dr. Ophoven suggests that removing the chest organs and the neck organs all in a block would have somehow shown that the lumen (air tube) of the neck was suppressed, if that had been performed, the lumen would have been opened up because you no longer have the skin pressing on the cystic hygroma, you no longer have the muscles and the bones pushing forward on the cystic hygroma.”
Young also used a photo of Ava on the autopsy table to back up his original assertion that she was about 26 inches tall when she died.
Dr. Janice Ophoven of Minnesota testified for the defense in the Worthington manslaughter trial. POOL PHOTO THE OREGONIAN.
The defense introduced a photo of Ava from two months before she died, showing her leaning against an end table that was slightly more than 25 inches high. Ava appeared taller than the table. But her feet were not shown in the photo, and it was unclear whether she was standing on something or on the tips of her toes.
Young, using drainage holes on the autopsy table as markers, re-measured the area Ava too up on the table after the testimony about the table and said it was about 26 inches.
During cross examination, defense attorney Mark Cogan, who represents Carl Brent Worthington, repeatedly asked Young if he felt his qualifications in assessing Ava’s corpse were equal to those of Ophoven, with 30 years specialty experience in autopsies of children.
“This particular case, the association between a mass and the compression on the airway and the resulting pneumonia that ensued and finding the same infection in the blood, the connection between all this is so rudimentary that a first year medical student could (see it),” Young said.
When pressed again, Young countered: “I feel more qualified in this particular case because I did the autopsy and saw the actual findings. Furthermore, there is no forensic pediatric pathology certification.”
“Do you think that your five years of experience are equal to those of someone who’s specialized in pediatric cases for 30 years?” Cogan asked.
“I don’t know how to answer that,” Young said.
<< Prev. Page 1 | 2
The beliefs of the parents are irrelevant. The child died of a relatively easy to remedy ailment while in their care and custody. Hiding behind their so-called beliefs is just an irreverent form of cowardice.
(email verified)
Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 03:54 PM
There was a religious person who fell into a swift flowing river and got caught in a deep current running toward a several hundred foot waterfall a mile away.. One person on the bank held out a tree branch, “No”, said the religious person, “I will be saved my Maker”. Another person threw out a life preserver attached to a rope and was met with the same response by the religious person. The religious person even bit through the fishing line tied to the hook that accidentally got caught in their flesh. Finally, just before going over the falls and meeting their end, the religious person dove below the surface of the water to flee from the Coast Guard helicopter.
Disappointed, the religious person stood before the Almighty. “I believed in you and you didn’t save me from drowning and now I won’t be with my family and friends until I see them here. The Almighty responded, “I sent four people to help you and you refused all of them”.
A. Cressy Morrison wrote a great piece called The Seven Reasons Why The Scientist Believes In God. Religious folks ought to consider that like evolution, science and medicine are more than creations. The creationist is well advised to give more than a passing fancy to science and the use of the mind. Physics tells us that faith may not be the best protection against an oncoming locomotive. Getting off the tracks is a good start.
Is it any wonder that religions get a bad rap when people willfully neglect the well being of what they consider blessings and gifts from God? Even Noah was told to stop praying and get busy building the ark.
The scriptural assertion is that the Almighty seeks out the righteous. Evidently, in this case, the Almighty had better keep looking.
Creationists or no, the Worthingtons are to abide by the law of the land, which is secular. Any medical facility would have treated Ava for so much as an ear infection and the ability to pay would have been mitigated had it been an issue.
Avas end might as well have been at the hand of meth addicts or some other form of social malcontent. But no, Avas end came at the hand of her good church going parents.
(email verified)
Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 07:51 PM
Find a paper
Enter a street name
or a 5 digit zip code
Browse archive
The Oregon City News
News feed
Facebook
Digg
Del.icio.us
Newsvine
Stumbleupon
Reddit
Re: Medical examiner blasts defense witness on autopsy findings
I'm still confused as to why the "faith healing" aspect of this case is even relevant when there is no "spiritual treatment" element in the law anymore, and the Worthington's are not trying to justify the death based on their religious freedom.
Or am I missing something?
It certainly goes to motive, but it doesn't seem to be the real issue here, which is - how severe was Ava's condition prior to her death, and at what point should the Worthington's have been expected to seek medical care?
If she had nothing more than a minor fever...and then was suddenly dead, then the Worthington's beliefs are irrelevant, because most rational parents wouldn't seek medical attention at that point either, and wouldn't have seen it coming.
If, as the prosecution seems to be proving, they knew for a length of time that she was in serious trouble and THEN she died, the religious beliefs are irrelevant except as motive for why they waited.
It seems to me the defense is speaking out of both sides of their mouth, saying "be lenient on them because they were practicing their faith," but also saying "they didn't know she was that sick and she died suddenly." Which one is it? If they're not guilty, then why bring up the faith-based healing aspect at all?
I think the faith healing business is just a distraction from the real crux of the issue, which is "how much did they know about her condition before she died."
And an attempt by the defense to elicit sympathy from the jury/public over religious freedom.
"JG"
(email verified)
Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 02:10 PM