can’t wait for your explanations!!!

And the above is the best case scenario – a self-deluded but otherwise well-intended physician. But, if he has knowingly defrauded this family by providing and charging for treatment he knows has no case for efficacy, well… I’d favor maximum sentencing too.

As a health care consumer who tries to stay in the real world, I expect perfection out of no doctor, no clinician, but I do expect them to professionally manage these risk/benefit ratios, in fact, am paying for their expertise to do just that. That’s as it should be and I am certain few doctors would disagree – the medical field is to be respected for its adherance to high ethics, and I am gratified to see so many ‘fight the good fight’ against whatever serves to lower those ethics, Dr. Novella absolutely among them. They have my full support.

Ours (US) is a large country and the set called “medical practioners” is large enough and open enough to have its ethical and philosophical fringe. Without negative consequences for unethical or even criminal acts, the hurtful aspects of their practcing go unchecked, rewarded even.

But this guy? Action ought to be brought. Such practice needs review.

From wikipedia:

Involuntary manslaughter, sometimes called criminally negligent homicide in the United States, gross negligence manslaughter in England and Wales or culpable homicide in Scotland occurs where there is no intention to kill or cause serious injury but death is due to recklessness or criminal negligence.
I’d say that that’s an accurate summation of what happened to that boy.

Off-topic (off at a tangent, anyway), I once had a conversation with someone who was attempting to impose himself as the alpha male. Whilst regaling me with his tales of machismo, he said that he’d been held on remand for attempted manslaughter.

IV EDTA in children is a moderate risk statistically, but that risk includes the possibility of death – it is reasonable to say “high” risk based upon the possibility of death.

Because there is no proven efficacy for autism, and no scientific justification for it, that’s risk without benefit, and I would argue that any deaths are unacceptable because they have bought nothing in terms of health benefit to anyone.

Chelation therapy, however, does work for what it is supposed to do – it does chelate heavy metals and is an approved treatment for legitimate heavy metal poisoning. Other uses may also be found. But each indication must stand on its own evidence – it matters not if it is useful for anything else, it is worthless for autism.

Are you saying that 1) there is a high risk of EDTA?, and 2) EDTA has no efficacy?

I suggest that you are wrong. I am not an expert on EDTA, but from what I was reading, fatalities are extremely rare from this medication, as are morbidity rates. So why do you say “risks = great”?

I also am aware of much anecdotal evidence that chelation has some efficacy. I am aware of a number of qualified ophthalmologists in FL, for example, who were routinely giving chelation therapy for macular degeneration. These doctors presented their findings at respectable meetings. A prospective randomized trial was undertaken which showed no statistically significant efficacy in this disease (but a positive trend), but the study has been widely criticized. There remains an albeit minority of physicians, who are otherwise competent, who continue to use this therapy.

Now, suppose they are wrong. Let us grant that they even have misread the data and have misapplied their experience. Let’s even grant that they are motivated in part by greed. In this cases, they are perhaps guilty of medical malpractice.

But manslaughter?

Give me a break!