Summary: This article analyzes the death of 15 year old Alexandru Radita and the court hearing for first degree murder laid against his parents. In 2013, Alexandru Radita passed away due to complications and lack of treatment of his diabetes and starvation at the hands of his parents. Emil and Rodica Radita neglected the care of their child for many years and didn’t accept the fact that he had a disease that needed attentive care. The parents were fully trained on how to care for the diabetes but failed to take action and care for Alexandru Radita, resulting in his death; crown prosecutor Susan Pepper said, “any reasonable person would have known lack of treatment would have fatal consequences for Alexandru”. The mother believed that God would cure their child and the trial heard that the parent’s religious beliefs included not visiting doctors. Their religious beliefs play a factor in the reason for the neglect of Alexandru Radita’s care and in the end his death. There is no evidence of Alexandru going to see a doctor but, he did have an Alberta health insurance number. The judge said that the death of the boy could have been avoided if the parents hadn’t neglected him for years. The couple were sentenced to life in prison with no chance at parole for 25 years.
Question: In the universal declaration of human rights, it states individuals have a right to freedom of religion, should this be more specific, should there be restrictions? If religion is considered the underlying excuse for the death of a child, should it be justifiable? Connection to Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Alexandru Radita’s years of neglection from his parents resulted in his many health problems and ultimately his death. The 15 year old boy weighed 37 pounds at the time of his death; he had untreated diabetes and was starved. Along with his disease he suffered from ulcers, loss of almost all of his teeth, and being severely underweight. Article 3 of the universal declaration of human rights claims “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”. In the case of Alexandru Radita, his security as an individual was not cared for, his parents didn’t treat his disease, not even accepting that he had the disease until a near death experience occurred. When his parents failed to care for him, they also violated article 5 which states, “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. It seems that Alexandru Radita’s health problems resulted from the inhumane treatment that his parents allowed for to happen; although being trained to care for a child with diabetes the couple didn’t use their training to help their son. Leaving a child to suffer in the ways that Alexandru Radita did can only result from the inhumane treatment of the parents neglect towards their son and his disease.
Summary: This article details the ongoing controversy of abortion within our world. Each country is responsible for their own laws and regulations on abortion; for some countries, it is state/regional/provincial governments control. Different parts of the world have different requirements in order to be able to have an abortion, factors range from personal choice, health concerns, rape or incest cases, socioeconomics, to flatly illegal. In the United States, abortions have been legal since 1973 but, access to treatments vary by state. For most states, there is a gestational limit to terminating a pregnancy that spans between 20 to 24 weeks. On his first day of presidency, Donald Trump shined a spotlight on the substantial debate of abortion by signing an executive action. Trump, who clearly declared himself as a pro-life president, reinstated the Mexico City Policy. This policy prohibits international nongovernmental organizations that perform, promote, or discuss abortion as a family planning option from receiving government funding from the United States. Marie Stopes International, an NGO for abortion and contraception services, believes the results of Trump’s actions to be catastrophic, saying “that women in developing countries will end up "paying the price"”. The NGO states that the loss of its family planning services, will have disastrous outcomes. In Trump’s 4 year reign, there will be an estimated “6.5 million unintended pregnancies, 2.2 million abortions, 2.1 million unsafe abortions and 21,700 maternal deaths”.
Question: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares “Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein”, an implication that no one can detain an individual from their rights. Is an abortion detaining the right of life of the fetus? What restrictions should be made to the laws in order to balance the rights of the mother as well as the fetus? Consider factors such as personal choice, health concerns, rape or incest cases, and socioeconomics. Connection to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Country to country laws on abortion vary, they can be as free willed as personal choice or as rigid and upheld as not being allowed at all. Article 3 states “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”. When terminating a pregnancy, especially as the fetus development progresses, the life of the fetus is diminished; the fetus will never be born and loses their rights at the moment they’re aborted. Article 5 discusses that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. Essentially, abortions can be seen as murder, to stop a life from flourishing, is to kill; the fetus is subjected directly to the most primary form of cruel, inhumane treatment. Article 30 tells that “nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein”. To take a life is to detain the rights of the fetus but, to not allow abortions is detaining the rights of the mother’s freedom of choice. Abortion generally contradicts one another between the fetus and the mother. Article 25 says “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control”. By not allowing abortions in the cases where the fetus or mother’s life is at risk, this right is being neglected. The standard of living of the fetus or mother is being detained because in the event of sickness, if abortion is not allowed where one is located, living standards are not being met medically.
Summary: This article analyzes the multiple charges of murder and assault against ex-nurse, Elizabeth Wettlaufer. She pleaded guilty in Superior Court to 8 charges of first degree murder and 6 charges related to seniors in her care; these brutalities have taken place between 2007 and 2014 in long term senior care homes. Wettlaufer often was the nurse that would oversee the night shifts at these homes in Woodstock, London, and Paris. She would prey on elderlies with dementia and use lethal dosages of insulin to harm them. In court, Elizabeth Wettlaufer speaks out with no sense of remorse; Justice Bruce Thomas asked “You knew this could be fatal?", she calmly replied “Yes, your honour”. After killing one of her victims, she stated “she felt awful "but I just went home to bed"”. Wettlaufer later shared that before injecting her victims she had gotten a “red surge” and after would have felt “a laughing feeling”. She believed that God wanted to use her to execute these murders and assaults; it was confirmed that intoxication by drugs or alcohol was not a factor when she was injecting victims with the intent to kill them. At Caressant Care, she was suspended multiple times and was later fired; knowing this, Meadow Park proceeded in hiring Wettlaufer. Elizabeth Wettlaufer has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and is currently staying at the Vanier Centre for Women in Milton. She will be returning to court June 26 and 27 for her sentence.
Question: Is the highest form of punishment that Canada allows (life imprisonment) sufficient for the crimes that Elizabeth Wettlaufer committed? Do you believe that the death penalty should be reinstated? Keep in mind that Canadian tax dollars are used to keep criminals alive. The death penalty does contradict articles of the Declaration of Human Rights but, so do the crimes that these criminals commit.
Connection to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Individuals in Canada are fortunate for the amount of freedom that they are granted; essentially, Canadians can do anything as long as they don’t harmfully affect others. This is outlined through article 30 which says “Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein”. The crimes that Elizabeth Wettlaufer commits, results in the destruction of the rights of her victims. Article 2 states “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty”. When taking the lives of 8 seniors and harming 6, Wettlaufer clearly detains their rights that are outlined in the Declaration of Human Rights. She detains others of their rights through the distinction of age and disease, seniors with dementia. She rebuttals against article 3 which reads “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”. This article says that all individuals have a right to live, Wettlaufer’s multiple murders take this right away from the victims. The seniors’ security was also taken away; the care homes that they lived in were intended to be a safe place where they got the care that they needed. As a nurse, it was Wettlaufer’s position to give the elderlies the help that they needed, she clearly contradicts this when she injects them with lethal doses of insulin. When the ex nurse fails to properly do her job, she abuses article 5 which claims, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. To purposely inject the insulin into patients, is a cruel and inhumane treatment which, Wettlaufer unquestionably displays. Through the actions of Elizabeth Wettlaufer, she distinctively abuses the Declaration of Human Rights and, 14 individuals had their rights violated or taken away.