Baby dies while parents play World of Warcraft

[Mindi]

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=59697

I can't decide which is more unconscionable, the fact that a child died because of this sort of neglect or the implied comment that if they had only left their 4 month old daughter home alone for 1 to 2 hours, like usual, it would be okay. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/mad.gif

[FJ_MD]

Sad news indeed, but you cannot left a 4 months baby all alone! I think the baby have the priority above all other things...

[Leslie]

Their time in court would be short.

I would sterilise both and tell them both after they got out of jail they could forget adoption as well.

Even an idiot can get an equally stupid woman pregnant.

But it takes brains to be a parent.

[Mephisto]

If we judge the situation with fewer emotions I think we will come to much more founded judgment. Let’s see:

1.) A baby has died by suffocation.
2.) It did happen without the environment noticing.
3.) The parents were away playing a computer game.

Regarding 1.) Quite a number of babies die by suffocation, less in the last years. A reason for this was because parents were told to put their babies to sleep in the stomach to reduce the risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). But as newborn babies are mostly not strong enough to move their head from one extreme position to the other they rest their head quite in the middle in the pillow and suffocate. It’s an accident and happens from time to time. There is not much you can do besides putting the baby on the back (but even then some babies roll).

Regarding 2.) Babies are often left without observation for hours – every night when the parents are asleep. Total control over the baby is not achievable and not realistic.

Regarding 3.) Playing the computer game was irrelevant to the fact the baby died by suffocation. It would have even if the parents were were just watching TV next door. One who suffocates does not cry – he has no breath to do so.

So, all in all, we have a baby who died a horrible and tragic way because – most probably, but we don't really know – the parents were not observing the best way to put a baby to sleep. In the end, the baby died to an error many parents do and an accident, that the baby tried to move its head and wasn't strong enough. The parents neglected the baby not more or less then millions of other parents did, including our own parents. Ask them if they were watching you 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year without pause. I doubt it. "Let him who is without guild cast the first stone". My 0.02$.

[FJ_MD]

What you say, Mephisto, is right but I still think that the baby must have the priority.


I don't want to judge the parents, but some errors in this case were made.

[Mindi]

Mephisto,

Addressing your points:

1. They actually have specialized pillows so they can't roll over now and accidently suffocate as this poor child did. There are other methods that people use to make cribs and sleeping in general safer for a baby. Of course there are no guarantees.

2. Babies should only be left for hours during the night when parents are sleeping. I would think at 4 months however you would still be using a baby monitor and be getting up during the night to check on the child as well. Granted, this does not guarantee a baby will not suffocate, but they are basic safety precautions that most parents use to ensure they know if their baby is in trouble. And the fact remains that in this case they chose to leave a baby alone for 5 hours with no one in earshot to hear if the child was in trouble or to check on the child. In the states if you did that and the authorities found out, your child would be taken from you and put in foster care until you got some parenting courses and proved you were a fit parent along with dealing with criminal charges of neglect.

3. Playing a computer game is irrelivent, the neglect is not. I purposely said that the baby died from neglect and not a computer game as the computer game did not suffocate the baby, nor could it. I see this as a selfish act in which they are now responsible for the death of their child. What they were addicted to that they chose to put priority above their child is irreleveant--they could have been partying, at a bar, shopping, whatever--that doesn't matter. What matters is that the parents were neglectful and negligent in their daughter's death by leaving her, a 4 month old baby, in a house by herself for 5 hours. The implication from the parents that it would have been okay if they left her for only 1-2 hours by herself as usual completely boggles my mind. It shows that their parenting is lacking as is their judgement. Especially considering there was someone living right upstairs that could have watched the infant, but they chose to leave her alone anyway.

Just my $.02

[Leslie]

I find Mephisto's post a bit weird to be honest. No offense.

Yes accidents happen, that's why they are called accidents.

When my son was an infant though, I was unable to NOT contiuously check the lad. And I only slept when it was my turn. My wife and I basically didn't sleep normal for about 3 years.

In that time, yes accidents might have occurred, hence the term.

And yes, I had a baby monitor going.
I often held my son as he slept. He slept many sleep times while I held him safe. I would watch TV and would not be concerned about my son, as I was holding him.

Parents come in all manner of varieties. And I won't cut any slack for those that should have opted for oral sex the time their child was conceived.

Newborns face so many challenges when they are born. And the first 3 years are just one long challenge. Not that your 15 year old son is much safer. Might not die from crib death, but he still has to pass through being a teenager http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

The facts are, the parents were not present in the room, they were not present in the home and they were not making a hurried dash to a very close store to get something utterly essential.
No, they ABANDONED the child. And all so they could go out and play a %$#@%# online video game.

For starters, they should have their fingers broken, made incapable of ever using a mouse or keyboard.
They should have their pictures displayed so all could see them for the fools they truely are.
Warning, don't make the mistake of leaving your kids in the care of this couple, their own offspring wasn't safe, and neither will yours be.

Excessive you say, nope, I don't think I am being excessive at all.

The baby suffocated.
The baby could have burned in a fire that the parents would have been oblivious to. The baby could have been stolen by a thief.
The manner of harm that might have befallen the child is hard to estimate, because let's face it, the parents would not have been there to do anything about it.

[Mephisto]

No problem. I'm a bit weird. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
You are all right that the baby should have the highest priority. There is no debating that and no one did. But let’s not forget that not all people live the way you and I live.

Yes, there might be pillows that prevent the rolling and suffocation. But not everyone has access to them. The medical standards of the US are not met by most of the world.

Yes, there are monitors. “Real” monitors – not baby phones- are expensive and will not be covered by insurances if no hint for a higher risk for SIDS is diagnosed (talking for Germany, of course). Baby phones make you feel save but you aren’t. If a baby suffocates, it doesn’t cry any more. It has no breath for it [Hence the “first” rule for a paramedic: The one who can cry is treated last, he has enough breath. The ones not crying any more are the severe patients.]. I had my share of SIDS as a paramedic and the parents were sleeping right next to the child.

Yes, I wouldn’t let my child be alone for any length of time. However, we all do not know when the baby died. It could have been 2 minutes after the last person left it or 2 minutes before they returned. Before calling for punishment we should convince ourselves if they could have done anything about it. Just because they were not there did not necessarily killed the baby. That’s my main point.

Leslie, I admire your resolution to sleep in shifts and have a constant watch over your child. But I stand to my point that not very many parents can do this, neither physically nor economically.

[Leslie]

My key point though, remains that the parents, through entirely screwed in the head logic, figured they actually could leave a child alone, with them not even being remotely close at hand, so that they could go and stroke an obvious obsession.

These two parents are not in the same category as any other parent that has had to suffer the grief of finding their loved one dead through a cruel act of fate.

Damn it but I hope it makes them grieve. I hope they suffer for the rest of their lives.

They didn't even make the attempt to even try to ensure the safety of their child. They didn't even make the effort.

[Mephisto]

Leslie, on this we agree.

[Mindi]

Mephisto said:
No problem. I'm a bit weird. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
You are all right that the baby should have the highest priority. There is no debating that and no one did. But let’s not forget that not all people live the way you and I live.



I don't see this as a subjective thing depending on the way someone lives, I see this as a basic responsibility of having kids.


Yes, there might be pillows that prevent the rolling and suffocation. But not everyone has access to them. The medical standards of the US are not met by most of the world.



This is why I said there were "other methods". There are ways to wedge blankets and regular pillows so that the baby can't move.



Yes, there are monitors. “Real” monitors – not baby phones- are expensive and will not be covered by insurances if no hint for a higher risk for SIDS is diagnosed (talking for Germany, of course). Baby phones make you feel save but you aren’t. If a baby suffocates, it doesn’t cry any more. It has no breath for it [Hence the “first” rule for a paramedic: The one who can cry is treated last, he has enough breath. The ones not crying any more are the severe patients.]. I had my share of SIDS as a paramedic and the parents were sleeping right next to the child.



What you call "baby phones" is what most people call Baby Monitors. You can pick them up in the US starting at about $30. No they are not full proof, but if your baby starts making noises during it's sleep, you should hear it and be alerted to go in and check on the baby. Furthermore, we're not talking about a case of SIDS here, the article says when they got home they found her on her stomach which leads one to believe that they did not place her that way, she rolled over. In which case, see my above response.


Yes, I wouldn’t let my child be alone for any length of time. However, we all do not know when the baby died. It could have been 2 minutes after the last person left it or 2 minutes before they returned. Before calling for punishment we should convince ourselves if they could have done anything about it. Just because they were not there did not necessarily killed the baby. That’s my main point.



When the baby died is irrelevant. The question is, were they negligent (failing to give proper care and attention) in the death of their child and therefore should they be punished? Could they have forseen that leaving a 4 month old alone for 5 hours could result in the baby dying or coming to harm? I think the answer is obviously yes.

I will use this metaphor on how I see this: if I let my friend drive my car and that person gets into an accident, that is a true accident and it is not my fault in any way--I could not have forseen the accident. HOWEVER, if I let my friend drive my car while KNOWING THEY ARE DRUNK OUT OF THEIR MIND and they get into an accident, I am negligent and therefore have committed a crime and should be punished.

No, it is not the same severity as if I intentionally committed a crime, but I knew very well a horrible accident could occur by letting my friend drive my car while intoxicated and I lent them my car anyway.



Leslie, I admire your resolution to sleep in shifts and have a constant watch over your child. But I stand to my point that not very many parents can do this, neither physically nor economically.



I think we shall agree to disagree on this issue as I see much of your arguments to be 'strawmen' arguments in that they don't fit this particular case in which very poor judgement was used. I agree that not everyone can watch their child 24/7. However, we are not talking about someone who went out to their mailbox to get their mail and came back in to find their child suffocated. We're not talking about someone who went to sleep and when they got up to check on their child in the night, they found their child had died from SIDS. Those are horrible tragedies that no parent should have to go through IMO and I feel sorry for anyone who has had to go through that kind of loss.

Instead we are talking about careless and neglectful parents who felt it was okay to leave their child home alone in house for hours at a time. Did they find a babysitter? No. Did they call the neighbor to go down and check on her from time to time even? No. Did they even think twice about leaving this child home alone? Well from the statement they made, I would think the answer to that is No (unless it took more than 2 hours, they only feel guilty it seems about that part). Parents are responsible for their child's well being and safety until they are to the age to take care of themselves. To me it seems they not only failed to do this (by choice, not by mere accident) but they laughed in the face of it by putting their desire to play a game above their child's well being and leaving the child home alone for 5 hours. An act that I believe the majority of people would find indefensible and unforgivable.

Simply put, I hope they throw the book at them.

Mindi signing out.

[Phoenix-D]

"What you call "baby phones" is what most people call Baby Monitors. You can pick them up in the US starting at about $30. No they are not full proof, but if your baby starts making noises during it's sleep, you should hear it and be alerted to go in and check on the baby."

The point being that in this situation..that wouldn't have done a thing. The baby likely died without making a sound.

[Atrocities]

Sad news. But like with everything, soon the internet and games will be advertised as the new evil of our age and politically motivated oppertunistic SOB's will jump on the "ban us from our freedom of choice" band wagon and pass really rediculas laws governing how we as preportedly free people use our computers and the internet.

First off parents have a responsiblity to take care of their children. The fact that these two negelected to do so is cannot be blamed on the World Of Warcraft or any other computer game. They chose to make a bad decison and a child died for it and now they must pay for the decision they made. If this had occured in the USA I would have no doubt that the Parents would be billed as the victims and the World Of Warcraft would be vilified and sued by every leach lawyer ambulance chaser this nation has to offer.

Watch, as they sued the big tobacco, the firearms industry, fast food, now shall they sue video game developers.

Give me a break.

[Leslie]

I don't actually support the notion, that "online games" will become targeted.

It's a reality too many play them too often, and to rediculous levels in most cases.

People also on average drive 10-20 K over the speed limit ALL THE TIME.

The list of things we do to stupid levels is a very long one, and it is mostly because as a whole, we generally speaking are a species prone to stupid levels of excess in our activities.

If people never drank more than one beer, never smoked more than one smoke a day, never bought more than one lottery ticket at one time, near swore more than once in a hour, never eat more than one junk food item at a time, we would be a very fit, very disciplined, very polite species of creature indeed.

But, we are stupid really. For all our cleverness, we truely are not that bright.

Those parents showed their own version of exceedingly irresponsible levels of stupidity. Because it aided the killing of their child in the process.

Generally, I try to ensure my own stupid actions only affect me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Cypheros]

It's a reality too many play them too often, and to rediculous levels in most cases.



Who determines what qualifies as "too often"? And what gives this person the right to do so? This is a subjective thing. For some people, twenty minutes is too long. For others, ten hours is just fine. My point is that there is nothing wrong with spending time on recreation--it only becomes wrong when it interferes with responsibility. So to your above statement, I would say you are partially wrong.


People also on average drive 10-20 K over the speed limit ALL THE TIME.


What makes this stupid? There are some who ARE CAPABLE of driving such speeds. There are some who aren't. Am I stupid because I do not conform to YOUR view of how I should drive? No--I have different abilities than you. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it is NECESSARILY harmful to you. Laws are made to govern a LARGE group of people, and thus have to cater to the capability of the majority (from the perspective of the government). Therefore, if the majority is incapable of Driving 85 MPH on the interstate, then the speed limit will be lower. But that does NOT NECESSARILY mean that *I* am incapable of driving 85 MPH, or that it is unsafe for me to do so, only that it is unsafe for the major populace, from the P.O.V. of the govt.


The list of things we do to stupid levels is a very long one, and it is mostly because as a whole, we generally speaking are a species prone to stupid levels of excess in our activities.


I agree, but then that is our freedom of choice, and I wouldn't wish to remove that from anyone. Freedom of choice means we have the opportunity to choose good or bad (and other, non-moral choices, of course). If you remove this choice from someone, he/she ceases to be human. Yes, some people choose poorly. That is their right. Just as it is my right to seek justice when someone else's poor choice injures me in some way. THAT is why we have laws: to punish those who make choices that injure someone else.

{end tangent] (Sorry to seem to pick on you, but your post contained the points most directly that I wanted to emphasize.)

Now, as to the video game industry being targeted. If it was in the US, you KNOW they would be targeted. Michael Carneal walked into a High School in Paducah, Kentucky, shot and killed 5 or so classmates. The kid killed people. He is now in a minimum security psych-ward doing whatever he wants, while his parents, and the parents of the deceased SUED a major video game company (forget which one) and WON! Why? Because "violent video games MADE him kill people"!!!! NO, it didn't. Just like in this case, WoW DIDNT MAKE these parents leave their child alone for 5 hours. IT WAS THEIR CHOICE--THEY are responsible, not the video game manufacturer. Yet, because our society is too wussy to stand up like adults and take the blame for OUR OWN ACTIONS, we blame everything on everyone else. How do we sleep at night?

[Leslie]

The key to this story, is two adults are criminally negligent, regardless if babies die all the time whether a parent tries everything under the sun to prevent it from happening.

No, it wasn't the game, that's silly.

The game was just lucky to become the target.

The target of two people that never should have been allowed to become parents, at all, ever.

Is that me denying them basic human freedoms? Damn right.

What right do I have to do that?

Explain your question to the dead baby.

Oh wait, the baby is dead, can't be asked.

Given a choice, I tend to side with the real victim, rather than champion a good cause (rampant out of control freedom for the sake of it) when the recipient is a worthless waste of skin.

Re the driving laws example. I vote we remove all speeding limits. If you cause an accident that results in a fatality, as a result of your careless actions, we just give you the death sentence. Seems fair.
Remember, driving fast isn't entirely about YOUR being able to deal with driving fast, it's also about other users of the road dealing with you insistence on driving as fast as you like. They might not be able to deal with your excessive speed eh.

And that can be applied to other thought processes.

Sometimes the good of the many, is just that, about the good of the many. Even if it inconveniences the potential of some of the few.

[Uncle_Joe]

The thing I find disturbing is that in the US, you have to have a license to drive a car. In many cases, that means having to pass a course on the rules of the road and complete a written test. This is in addition to a 'behind the wheel' test. All of this is to drive a car.

What do you have to do to have a child? Nothing...nada...zip. If you want one, go for it. You dont have to display any competence to care for one and you dont really even have to display any means to afford one. All you have to do is want to have one.

To me, that is just crazy. Sure we have all kinds of laws and agencies that can go after negligent parents, but that all occurs AFTER the negligence. In cases like this (and many others), its too late.

I'm not sure what the solution would be, but I know I'd certainly like to see potential parents have to display SOME form of basic parenting skills...

[Leslie]

To extend Joe's thoughts.

When I got married, I had to endure several sessions on marriage. Likely had something to do with wanting a church ceremony I suppose.

The lessons were moronic plain and simple. But they were also not negotiable. They were not about being a useful spouse, they were all mumbo jumbo religious dogma. Still, they insisted I went to them, and answered all manner of carefully slanted questions.

Years later, and not one iota of that course aided in me in the slightest.

I am a parent, and I am a parent of a son, who yesterday was 11 actually.
I was never given any teaching by anyone, parents included, in the joys and pitfalls of being married. And by logical extension, of becoming a parent (largely unavoidable if you sleep with a woman long enough eh).

This seems to be a weird shortfall of society here specifically. I am sure their has to be at least SOME cultures or societies that make SOME effort to ensure their members have at least a clue about what's involved in parenthood.

But I can't think of any at the moment.

And how many children occur, simply because no one took the effort to teach people how NOT to become a parent eh.
I could go to some rather extreme comment lengths is that area, but won't.
But lets just say, avoiding parenthood requires more teachings, than birthcontrol pills for girls, and how to fit a condom for boys.

Our featured incompetent Korean parents of this thread, can't possibly be considered anything but incredibly stupid, where matters of child care and proper parenting our concerned.
I wonder what THEIR parents think of what happened?

If my son had let that event happen, and under similar conditions, well the scathing lecture would leave marks he would not be able to easily hide.

But, then again, I don't expect my son to ever be capable of behaving so grotesquely irresponsibly either.

As a parent, I actually give a damn.

Becoming a parent is easy. Being one takes work.

[Chazar]

I am basically with Mephisto, Atrocities and Cypheros here.

However, while I always advocate that people should be required to obtain a licence in order to own a pet, I am strongly against the idea of a parenting licence, for this is nothing else but eugenics!

Nevertheless people should be educated in childcare. Maybe the accident could have been prevented by special cushions or by rolling up a towel or blanket, but you can only do this if you are aware of the impending risk at all. I do not know about korean education in order to judge them therefore. I do agree that childcare should become a topic at schools.

[tigertunes]

I am just too emotional to talk about this subject i feeel greatly for those poor parents and will hold back any comments about their parenting skills , i believe it is not for me to judge ;(

[Veldor]

Leslie said:
It's a reality too many play them too often, and to rediculous levels in most cases.




What exactly is too much to you? 40 hrs a week? 20? 10? I'll bet you, or at least the average wargamer, spends FAR longer playing wargames or otherwise thinking or talking about them than the vast majority of MMPORG players.

Why must every group of gamers think that every other group of gamers is nuts?

Nothing in the news article suggests they were addicts. Though they very well may have been, 1 or 2 hours a couple days a week or even every day is peanuts compared to how much time the average wargamer spends playing.

Likewise the average MMPORG player these days is not a teenager. They are the slightly older if not much older crowd like us wargamers and strategy enthusiasts. This is exactly why most MMPORG have changed from what they were a long time ago. They have evolved to cater towards the more casual and/or solo players. This is less true of WoW than say EQ2, but the basic premisses still apply.

Many Many adults play MMPORGs and do so quite happily with only occasional frequency. You can no more get addicted to an MMPORG than any other type of game. Curt Shilling is a big EQ2 fan as are plenty of other notables.

Likely the fact that they had to go to an internet cafe just to play also suggests they weren't exactly rich to begin with. So all manner of special pillows and baby monitors were likely unavailable.

Did they use poor judgement? Of course. One way or the other one of them should have stayed home, or were they both to go out a babysitter of some sort left to care for the infant.

MMPORG's have nothing to do with this, nor does this event provide any reason to make any negative remarks about the MMPORG community.