Parents kill disabled son - a sad decision to make

      Home » Current events and news » Parents kill disabled son - a sad decision to make

Parents kill disabled son - a sad decision to make

Now here is an ethical and moral problem. A 28 year old blind son born without eyes was also going to lose his hearing, and at best only have 10% hearing after an operation. It doesn't say if he had an intellectual disability, or if he consented to the euthanasia. But you can appreciate the postion of the parents.

Margaret Ellen Sutton, 60, and her 63-year-old husband Raymond Douglas Sutton had always done what they thought was best for their son Matthew, even up to the point of his death, their lawyer said.

The couple faces up to 25 years in jail after pleading guilty to the April 2001 manslaughter of Matthew.

The 28-year-old, who lived in a home for the disabled at Katoomba, in the Blue Mountains, died while he was visiting his parents at their home in Leonay, in Sydney's west.

Matthew, who was born without eyes, died a day before he was to have an operation that would have, "at best" left him deaf for three months, and then with 10 per cent hearing thereafter, Margaret Sutton said during sentencing submissions yesterday.

She told the NSW Supreme Court that Matthew had developed a disease in 2000 and without the operation, would have completely lost his hearing.

She said Matthew loved his music and the prospect of him not being able to listen to it had troubled her deeply.

Matthew died at his parents' house on April 22, 2001, days before his 29th birthday.

An autopsy could not determine the cause of death but toxicology reports found traces of sedatives in his body.

Sutton told the court Matthew was her second son, born after she had experienced five miscarriages.

Under questioning from defence barrister Tony Bellanto QC, Sutton said that out of desperation for another child she had a stitch in her womb to prevent miscarrying Matthew.

She said she had been concerned about Matthew after a series of violent assaults by another disabled resident at the home in Katoomba.

She said she had spoken to the Department of Community Services (DoCS) about the violence.

"(DoCS said) They would teach him self-defence over the phone," she said, adding that Matthew did not know what a phone was.

She said it troubled her to think she was taking Matthew back into a "hostile environment".

Mr Bellanto told the court the public "would understand the need for compassion and the need for mercy in a case such as this".

"Through his life, they (the Suttons) did what they thought was in his best interests and it was based on love, even in the end," he said.

Rebecca Harris, a senior lecturer from the University of Technology Sydney, told the court the Suttons had a very strong network of support.

She agreed with Mr Bellanto that what the Suttons did to Matthew, was "born out of love".

Crown Prosecutor Patrick Barrett said that while there was no doubt the Suttons' decision to kill Matthew was one of "desperation," the crime of taking a life warranted a full-time custodial sentence.

"They both joined in a planned exercise to bring about the death of a person for whom they. . . were responsible for caring," he said.

Justice Graham Barr will sentence the Suttons at a date to be fixed.
By netchicken: posted on 18-3-2007

IF only some people would let Scientists proceed with stem cell research there could be a chance that such people could have cures in the future. Instead there is more precedence given to a group of cells than a sentient being that is condemned to suffer in disability and misery in the name of subjective morality.
You cant be suprised that people would go on to do such a thing. To care for a disabled person for 29 years and then decide to kill them can only show the depth of suffering that the person himself experienced but also all those around him.
By IAF: posted on 18-3-2007

Wow....what a terribly troubling case of murder. Your article wants to sway people into believing that the parents wanted what was best for their son but if you step back and look at the big picture it looks like selfish murder to me. Worthy of 25 years in prison.

A mothers love normally goes without question in my book but after reading this story it appears it has always been about this mother and her need to procreate. She went as far as to have a stitch sewed into her in order to keep from miscarrying this child. Thats a selfish act in itself. I was brought up to believe that miscarriages were caused because something was wrong with the baby and God chose to bring that child back instead of leaving it to suffer. She went out of here way to bring a child into the world that she wasnt meant to mother in the first place.

The boy was merely blind and about to become (out of choice) deaf. There are many mute people in this world that contribute to society and manage to live life. Without knowing anything more about this case than what NC has presented in his original post....I think the parents should be held accountable.:(
By Venus: posted on 18-3-2007

... Quote:
Originally posted by Venus
There are many mute people in this world that contribute to society and manage to live life.

I believe that these people do well despite their disabilities and not because of their disabilities. Many people try to rationalize that just because people are disabled, it is some divine will or some greater purpose for them to be that way but that has never been the case.
Beethoven was a great composer not because he was deaf but rather despite being deaf.

There is absolutely no need for there to be disability and to perpetuate disability in our society especially when it is possible to prevent them all together. Life is not the mystical and enigmatic product of divine will but rather the consequences of mitosis of a Zygote.
By IAF: posted on 18-3-2007

By valentina: posted on 21-3-2007

:;) SO FUNNY :tu:ufo:):sh:worm
By valentina: posted on 21-3-2007

Id certainly will go with Venus on this one, looks like nothing but selfish
Cold blooded murder to me going by the information provided.
Sure I could understand if he was terminally ill and suffering tremendous
Pain, but just for the fact he was being bullied?

And what’s being blind has anything remotely to do with it anyhow.
The article stated he was born with no eyes, so he would not be suffering from
Not having eye sight for which he’s never experienced.

And potentially facing only ten percent hearing doesn’t cut it for me neither,
Well not to justify killing your son in mercy for.

Maybe, just maybe there’s more to it than what was said, that would shed some
Light and if indeed it was a mercy killing out of desperation for the love of
There child.

Or simply he was a Burdon on them.

... Quote:
She said it troubled her to think she was taking Matthew back into a "hostile environment”.

Yeah why send him back to a hostile environment when he can be catered for by his parents "hostile environment”.

Though I could Totally understand it if they were animal rights activist.
By Shan: posted on 23-3-2007

Parents kill disabled son - a sad decision to make | [Login ]
Powered by XMB
Privacy Policy