from Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children said that You Decide! their son would never be able to discontinue his insulin injections. Nevertheless, in October 1980. Carol stopped giving the injection njections in the belief that her son had been healed by divine interven- WHEN FAITH HEALING RESULTS tion. In two days, Christopher became seriously ill IN DEATH and was rushed to hospital. A doctor found the R v. Tutton, [1989] 1 SCR 1392 boy suffering from diabetic acidosis, a potentially fatal disorder resulting from the absence of insulin. Arthur and Carol Tutton were convicted of He admonished the parents, telling them the boy manslaughter in the death of their five-year-old would require regular insulin injections for the son, Christopher, a diabetic. The Tuttons had rest of his life. Arthur promised that insulin would stopped Christopher's insulin treatments in the not be withheld in the future without consulting a belief that he had been miraculously cured of the doctor. disease. When they appealed their guilty verdict, A year later, Carol stopped the injections the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the lower again. She believed she had had a vision of God court's finding and ordered a new trial. The Crown telling her that Christopher was cured, there was then appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. no more need for insulin, and God would take care of her son. Christopher sickened quickly and Facts two days later was taken to hospital, where he was The Tuttons had a good reputation in their com- pronounced dead on arrival. The autopsy identi- munity for honesty and integrity, and they were fied the cause of death as diabetic hyperglycemia. known to be loving and responsible parents. They The police charged Arthur and Carol Tutton were also deeply religious and belonged to a sect with manslaughter resulting from a failure to pro- that believed in faith healing. This belief did not vide Christopher with the necessaries of life and prevent them from seeking and acting on medical from criminal negligence. advice, but they believed that divine intervention The Law could effect cures for illnesses in a way that sur- passed the power of medical science. At the time, the relevant sections of the Criminal In 1979, the Tuttons' family doctor diagnosed Code read: Christopher as a diabetic and admitted him to hospital, where he remained for several weeks. Duties of persons to provide necessaries During this time, Carol Tutton attended classes at 197(1) Every one is under a legal duty a diabetic education centre, where she learned (a) as a parent, foster parent, guardian or how to give insulin injections and studied the head of a family, to provide necessaries effect of diet and exercise on diabetics. of life for a child under the age of six- Both Carol and Arthur believed Christopher teen years; ... would be healed through a spiritual cure. Their doc- tor told them this was impossible, and a specialist (2) Every one commits an offence who, being under a legal duty within the meaning ofsubsection (1) fails without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies upon him, to per- Argument of the Tuttons (Respondent) form that duty, if At trial, the Tuttons raised the defence of "mistake (a) with respect to a duty imposed by of fact." In other words, they had an honest paragraph (1)(a) or (b), though mistaken belief in a circumstance that, if (i) the person to whom the duty is present, would mean that they were not to blame owed is in destitute or necessitous for Christopher's death. As far as the Crown's case circumstances, or rested on their failure to provide Christopher with (ii) the failure to perform the duty insulin, they honestly believed that Christopher endangers the life of the person to had been cured by divine intervention and, there- whom the duty is owed, or causes fore, that he no longer needed insulin. As far as the or is likely to cause the health of Crown's case depended on their failure to provide that person to be endangered per- timely medical assistance for Christopher, the manently; ... Tuttons argued that they were not aware that he was seriously ill as a result of the withdrawal of the Criminal negligence insulin. Consequently, their conduct could not be 202(1) Every one is criminally negligent who said to exhibit a wanton or reckless disregard for (a) in doing anything, or the life of their son. (b) in omitting to do anything that it is his On appeal, the defendants' counsel said that duty to do, shows wanton or reckless the trial judge erred in telling the jury that for any disregard for the lives or safety of other such belief to be effective as a defence, it must have been reasonably held. persons. Make Your Decision Argument of the Crown (Appellant) 1. Summarize in point form the facts in this case. The Crown argued that, under law, the Tuttons 2. Explain in your own words the meaning of had a duty to provide Christopher with the neces- the term "criminal negligence." saries of life, namely, his daily injections of insulin 3. In this particular case, what did the Crown and timely medical assistance once he fell ill. They mean by the term "the necessaries of life"? neglected to provide these necessaries without a 4. The Tuttons believed they had a lawful excuse lawful excuse. (A lawful excuse would be, for for stopping Christopher's insulin injections. example, that they did not have the money to buy What was it? the insulin or that they did not know how to 5. How does this case illustrate possible conflict administer it.) In neglecting to provide insulin and between religion and law? medical assistance, the Tuttons showed a wanton or 6. Dismiss or allow the Crown's appeal, giving reckless disregard for Christopher's life. It was this reasons for your decision. omission or failure to act that caused his death