The jury will resume deliberations Friday morning in the trial of a doctor, charged with the manslaughter of her profoundly disabled daughter by giving her too much sedative.
Offaly GP Dr Bernadette Scully is charged with unlawfully killing 11-year-old Emily Barut at their home at Emvale, Bachelor's Walk, Tullamore.
It is alleged that she killed her by an act of gross negligence involving the administration of an excessive quantity of chloral hydrate on Saturday, September 15th, 2012.
The 58-year-old has pleaded not guilty, and went on trial at the Central Criminal Court two weeks ago.
Ms Barut had microcephaly, severe epilepsy and couldn’t speak or move. She had been in pain for the last eight days of her life, having had a medical procedure to replace the tube into her stomach, through which she received fluids and medication.
Ms Scully said she had administered chloral hydrate when her daughter became upset at 2 am and 6 am that day. She said her daughter then had a massive fit after 11 am and she administered more.
Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy told the jury to leave all emotion to one side and approach its deliberations in a cool, collected manner.
He also explained the law as it related to the case.
He said the jurors had to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused’s conduct was a substantial cause of death. He said the State must also prove that the accused had a duty of care to the deceased.
He explained that, for manslaughter, the accused must have failed to observe the ordinary and necessary care expected of her to the point that she was negligent in a very high degree. That negligence must have brought a very high degree of risk of substantial personal injury to others.
He told the jurors that they had to decide what negligence to a very high degree would be and what would bring a very high degree of risk to others.
He explained that the test was an objective one.
“In some cases in these courts, it’s of importance what the state of mind of the person was,” he said. “Not in this case.”
He said that, in theory, a person could be negligent and guilty of manslaughter without even knowing it. He said that was the general rule.
“There is a modification or there is a gloss on it in the case of professional people such as a doctor,” he explained.
“If a doctor follows general and approved medical practice followed by a substantial number of reputable practitioners, she can follow it without fear of a finding of negligence, unless it’s obviously defective,” he said.
He said a departure from that practice was not necessarily negligent, unless it involved something no similarly qualified expert exercising care would do.
The judge told the jurors their verdict must be unanimous.
The seven women and five men were given all of the exhibits in the case before retiring to their jury room Thursday morning. These included a bottle of chloral hydrate found at the scene.
They returned after a number of hours and asked to hear a portion of evidence relating to the doses and symptoms of chloral hydrate intoxication. The judge read them the evidence given by a retired paediatrician.
They will resume deliberations Friday morning.