Mom Accused of Withholding Cancer Meds

(CBS)  A woman accused of withholding cancer treatment from her autistic son has been charged with attempted murder.

Kristen LaBrie is scheduled to appear in Salem Superior Court on Monday on charges of attempted murder, child endangerment and permitting bodily injury to a disabled person.

LaBrie's son, Jeremy, was 9 when he died in March. He had been diagnosed with leukemia in 2006.

Prosecutors say LaBrie canceled at least a dozen appointments for chemotherapy treatment and did not fill at least half the prescriptions her son had been given.

She had earlier been charged with child endangerment, and a grand jury returned the more serious indictment Friday. She was arrested Sunday night.

[Renegade.Rivers]

While this might be an interesting debate, the truth is that chemotherapy has never cured a patient, and in many cases has lead to their demise, but you never hear that the chemotherapy killed a patient, because if you did, it would open a whole new can of warms that the pharmaceutical companies, and the medical establishment don't want opened, because were it opened many of the doctors who prescribe it would be charged with medical malpractice, and the pharmaceutical companies would be charged with selling an unsafe drug.

A study was done in Australia a few years ago, and in that study they found that the odds of chemotherapy increasing the survival rate, or the length of life was 1 in 100. The study also found that of those who chose to not undergo radiation or chemotherapy, 1 in 3 went into remission on their own, and 1 and 4 was alive after 5 years. Now that should tell you something, chemotherapy kills more people than it cures, and the odds of being cured by chemo are 1 in 100. Yet the treatments cost 100s of thousands of dollars. Now who do you think is making the money, and who do you think the losers are. It has also been shown that those who take radiation treatments are 50% more likely to develop another cancer in another area of the body after taking radiation treatments.

The fact of the matter is that treatments for cancer are at best risky, and the odds of being cured from either chemo or radiation treatments are slim to none. Its all a scam folks, plan and simple.

I hope this lady finds a good lawyer to defend her that knows the truth about these issues, and can get her exonerated. If he does, this case could send shock waves through the cancer treatment arena. The fact is that in many cases, it puts an undue burden on the family, and the odds of it helping are Slim to none, and Slim just walked out the door. The only ones who are gaining anything are the hospitals, the oncologist and those who are a part of his staff, and big Pharma, who promotes these treatments.

[maryderricotte62]

When you are diagnosed with Leukima it can take a tole. I am writting this from my heart, this is the fist time I wrote of it. I had a friend whom was like a sister. Because she was, of a very religious faith she was given the hardest task to recon with. One day she told me she had uterin cancer, and before I was able to work through comforting her on her illness one of her three daughters in college came home sick after seeing a doctor given two weeks to live. My friend sought help from a naturalist and her daughter was responding to the blood transfussions. As my firend became overwelmed with her daughters illness she drank the herbal tea for herself. Six months later my friends daughter died. and at the memorial I had forgotten my friends illness but noted she looked very thin. The same week that the daughter died a second daughter was diagnoised with leukimia. This battle indured for anothe six months. One of the issues with the second daughter was she was a patient that required heavy doses for medicine.The mother had to make a choice of fighting the cancer or keeping her sain. The daughter choose to fight the desease naturally. The Father was very upset with the mother acussing her of letting the children die, so he talked the daughter into to the best that could be had for treament. The first day of chemo sent the daughter into a coma, as time went by no one could see a possible out come the made plans to pull the life support. On theday that the mother was to go to the hospital to witness her daughters end of Life she died in her sons arms. What I want people to understand is that they should not punish this women for theinevetable outcome we all have and that is death.

[kaszcat]

My son died of leukemia in 2008, there are so many groups out there to help you, you don't have to pay for a thing. Even if I couldn't afford it I would have done what a could to get the meds. My son was at the U of M in Michigan. Some of this meds was over $2000. each. No child is left without treatment. We are a lower income family, and he had the best care anyone could ask for. His first month in the hospital was over $159,000.00.

[argonaut5]

Good for YOUR son, kascat, at least by way of recieving medical treatment. Down here in the south, those few of us lucky enough to recieve medical treatment (via public sector jobs) often get sent to Physician Assistant 'chop shops' for primary treatment. We sit right beside the Medicare/Medicaid/SSI recipients, and the treatment is often SLOW. Our STATE, in effect, endorses such substandard care, but, hey, at least we all get the same treatment (save the 'snowbirds' who get ANYTHING better for EIGHTish months out of the year [while at their second homes up north])

[rsmik]

How were the cancer treatments being paid? Did the divorce agreement include providing for medical expenses?

[satt1313]

Well said. Typical knee jerk reaction from ill informed morons. Let's blame the dad (the usuall scapegoat))or blame it on our health care system. Most likely just a selfish vengeful woman.

[tmittelstaed]

Both of you are idiots. Do a little research before commenting next time. You want to know where the father was? By his dying son's bedside. Because, the court terminated Kristen's access rights as a result of her not giving her son the medicine.

Eric Fraser and Kristen LaBrie separated in 2000. At that time, she relinquished complete custody of an older son, who is now 16, to Eric, his father. At that time Jeremy had just been born, he went with Kristen.

According to records Eric and Kristen fought with each other with the result that Eric's visitation with his son was sporatic for the next several years.

Eric Fraser and Kristen LaBrie then divorced in 2005, she was given physical custody and Eric had visitation rights every other weekend.
Eric's visits to his son continued to be sporatic, largely due to problems with Kristen. There is no record of Eric ever failing to make the required child support payments.

Jeremy Frasher was then diagnosted with in 2006 and was given a good prognosis. Kristen commenced chemotherapy and the cancer went into remission. By March 2007 Kristen and Eric's relationship was so bad that Eric ceased visiting Jeremy completely until December 2007. In Feb. 2008 Kristen took Jeremy in for an appointment, and the doctors determined from medical records that Kristen had not followed through with the treatments properly, missing numerous appointments, failing to pick up prescription meds, and filed a complaint with DSS. The court then terminated Kristen's rights in April 2008 and Jeremy went with his father - but by then the cancer had come back so strongly that he had no chance of survival.

[argonaut5]

So, 'tmittelstaed', you sound well informed on this. Let me understand: Jeremy was diagnosed with cancer in 2006, well before the span of time in which Eric decidedly(?) stopped visitation with Jeremy. Ergo, did or did not dad have as much foreknowledge about Jeremy's health at the time in which the cancer commenced ('sometime' in 2006 to March 2007)?
Further, the cancer is said to have gone into remission, and everybody that I talk to here says, 'cured' (enlighten me please, if we're wrong on that point).

Now, granted, dear mom had primary custody, ergo, primary responsibility to Jeremy (health included). Now, granded, I don't have any knowledge of divorce/custody law in Massachusetts. My practical knowledge is limited to a childhood with two divorced parents who, even AFTER the first decision, 'reengaged' in courtroom dispute over my custody, NUMEROUS TIMES beyond the first one (arguments over who is better fit for parenting, etc.) IF that option holds possible in Massachusetts, then maybe, just MAYBE... woulda/coulda/shoulda dear DAD be held just as accountable? I mean, is mom held to a higher standard than dad, simply on the basis of dad making the child support payments on time? Hypothetically... The medically accepted, scientifically proven medical treatments are provided, day-after-day, on the spot, for son via mom, and IT FAILS (seeing the amount of time spans involved in your report here, the question of failure on her part would seem to be subjective, to say the least). to continue the absurdity, what if dear mom fails to try out every single medical claim of 'cure' made on the market (herbal remedies, diets or the like). In the meantime, dear DAD has nothing to worry about, because HE is doing everything that the court said that he HAD TO... NOT everything that he COULD, to save that boy. I mean, the courts logic, in effect sounds like, "Did she do everything that she could?" For dad, the word 'could' is, in effect, placed with 'must', rather CONVENIENTLY removing him to a lower standard of responsibility to the kid, no?

[toldyouso29]

Or maybe she was really tired of being a parent and caregiver to an autistic child and thought God was answering her prayer for relief and did not want to help the state to undermine that by helping the child to live.

Chemo should always be a choice. Often it does not work but what is guaranteed is the hundreds of thousands in medical bills that are wracked up for cancer treatments--now the treatments appear to be a mandate instead of an option? The real question is that if she was cancelling so many treatments and the hospital was so adamant that she was harming the child, where in the world was Carmen San Diego? er... Child Protection Services? Perhaps they should be renamed Child reaction services since they seem to be in the picture mostly AFTER the harm is done....

[MPHgrad]

I agree. They are nothing more than Child Reactive Services. There are too many incidents where they drop the ball and don't appear until a child is dead or near dead. I also agree that parents should not be forced to give their children medications that have severe side effects.

[akpals]

100% with you on what you said about chemo being a choice. But I don't agree that child protective services should have ever been involved. Jehova's Witnesses came to my door when my own son was going through chemotherapy. They left a large pamphlet for me about why I was wrong in letting the doctors give my son life saving blood transfusions, they don't believe it's right. Why don't the courts interfere when a Jehova witness child dies from blood loss? I know firsthand that it's a really tough decision for any parent to let their child die, I don't think anyone else should interfere with the parent's decision of treatment when it comes to terminal illness.

[brianbwb-2009]

then you must be pro choice, since you insist that it is the parent's right to choose.

Can't have it both ways, you know, either choice is legal, or it isn't.

[SteelersWinAgain]

Maybe the poor woman couldn't afford the copays and deductibles for this experimantal medicine. Maybe she was 'just above or a little bit above' the poverty line for any assistance. If the young man lived until 9 years old even WITH a severe medical condition, where was the father, where was HE? Where? If there are no other signs of abuse, when it comes to medical treatment, the parent(s) should have the right to decide.