Transcript
Speaker: This is not just another medical podcast or a true crime series. This is the voice of forensic nursing in Canada. This is Beyond the Rape Canada's Forensic Frontline.
Speaker: We're the Canadian Forensic Nurses Association, and we're pulling back the curtain on what really happens when trauma meets healthcare, when survivors seek justice, and when nurses stand the front lines of both.
Speaker: Follow us on Spotify, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Blue Sky, or check us out on the Canadian Forensic Nurses Association website.
Speaker: Welcome back to the CFNA podcast, Beyond the Rape Kit, Canada's Forensic Frontline. I'm your host, Hannah Varto. I'm a practicing forensic nurse practitioner. Today, we begin with a case that has shaken British Columbia.
Speaker: It's exposed deep cracks in our justice system. On July 4th, 2025, Bailey McCourt, a mother of two, was murdered in broad daylight in a Kelowna, BC parking lot.
Speaker: Just hours earlier, her estranged husband had been convicted of multiple charges, including assault by quote-unquote choking, better described as strangulation. Despite this conviction, he was released pending sentencing.
Speaker: Bailey had done everything she could to protect herself. She had spoken out, followed legal channels, and sought safety. But the system failed her. Witnesses describe a brutal attack with a hammer.
Speaker: One kind human held Bailey's hand as help arrived, offering comfort in her final moments. Her mother has since spoken out, calling for urgent reform and accountability in how intimate partner violence is handled in British Columbia.
Speaker: Then, just last month, Jessica Cunningham was found dead in Maple Ridge, B.C. Her partner charged with indignity to human remains. Trina Hunt went missing from Port Moody, British Columbia in 2021.
Speaker: Her remains were found months later in near Hope, B.C., and her husband was charged in connection with her death. Stephanie Forrester shot and killed in her car by her estranged husband, despite having a protection order, changing her phone number and moving three times in six months just to get away from him.
Speaker: Vanessa Terry, murdered by her male partner who had a prior conviction for assaulting another woman a year earlier. Also in 2021, Langley, British Columbia, Naomi Onatera, murdered and dismembered by her husband.
Speaker: Tatiana Stefanski, murdered by her ex-husband. Powitra Preet Kaur Sindhu, murdered by her husband. Balwinderkaur, Lindsay Christina Danchella, Roshi Gurung, all murdered by men they had once trusted.
Speaker: And this list just keeps growing and it's so frustrating. These cases are not isolated. They are femicide. The killing of women and girls because of their gender. So today we examine this issue further, how systemic gaps have contributed to these tragedies and what needs to be done to prevent them.
Speaker: We'll be joined by Karen Mason, co-founder and executive director of Supporting Survivors of Abuse and Brain Injury Through Research, also known as SOAR. Karen brings expertise in gender-based violence and advocacy, and together we will unpack the realities behind the statistics and discuss how legal systems can respond and how healthcare professionals play a role in early intervention, documentation and advocacy, maybe even prevention.
Speaker: These women named are more than a statistic. Intimate partner violence femicide is the most extreme form of gender-based violence, and it's happening here in our communities, in our province and in our country.
Speaker: So thanks, Karen. Thanks for joining us today. I'm really glad we have some time to discuss this really important and what I think is a really urgent issue. Thanks for having me. Let's first talk about femicide in the Canadian context.
Speaker: um How is it different from other forms of murder or homicide? Right. So femicide is different in that it comes from a different motive.
Speaker: Femicide is the killing of a woman or girl because of gender, whereas any other kind of murder homicide is one human killing another, no matter what the motivation is.
Speaker: So the fact that someone is being killed only because of their gender as a girl or woman makes it femicide and makes it distinct. And if we don't call it femicide, we're minimizing how important that gendered aspect is to this crime.
Speaker: Karen, I've read a statistic recently that one woman is killed every six days by a current or former intimate partner. And that's a Canadian statistic. What do you think of that? Do you think that's true? Is is that what you're seeing?
Speaker: The most recent numbers actually tell us that a woman or girl is killed violently in Canada every two days, usually by a current or former intimate partner or a male family member.
Speaker: So the numbers are staggering. And if we were seeing these kinds of deaths from another cause or to another population, people would be screaming and shouting about it everywhere all the time. And that's not happening because misogyny allows us to somehow think that this is normal.
Speaker: and okay when it's not. Absolutely. I think the names of the women that I read out earlier in the introduction ah were all from British Columbia and you and I are both from BC and I feel like there's this rise in femicide cases in the past like six months alone, um and Bailey's case seems to just really fit into this pattern, whether it's British Columbia or Canada.
Speaker: But can you walk us through, like do you see these patterns? What are the commonalities that we're observing?
Speaker: Absolutely. there you know There is such a predictable pattern to femicide that for those of us working in any way in the sector, it is just endlessly frustrating and angering because the same things are often there.
Speaker: There is a relationship. The overwhelming majority of femicides are committed by a current or former partner. Many of them, most of them, happen at the time a woman is leaving that relationship or after leaving. In the case of Bailey McCourt, this is her estranged partner. In many of these cases, this is after the woman has finally found the the power and the bravery to leave and has things in place that are supposed to protect her, but our system is just not stepping up.
Speaker: um Often we will have similarities with um jealousy from the former partner or anger. partly because once the woman has left, this abuser has now lost that power and control over her.
Speaker: And they feel that loss because having that power and control gave them something that fed some part of them for the time when they were with this person. So exercising that power with that ultimate action of taking their life gives them that sense of power back.
Speaker: We also see an over-representation in intimate partner violence and in femicide with Indigenous women and girls. They are disproportionately affected and more likely to be hurt or killed by a current or former partner.
Speaker: And then again, those systemic issues. We don't have enough safe housing for women. We don't have enough support services. Our police and our justice systems will often... call a femicide, you know, a single incident and say the community isn't at risk.
Speaker: And for those of us working in this sector, when we read that police say the larger community isn't at risk, we know before it's even been reported that this is probably a femicide and there was probably intimate partner violence in this person's history. So there's a lot of factors that are common in these crimes.
Speaker: You mentioned Indigenous women being disproportionately represented. Why? Well, there are a number of factors at play, but the key one is the ongoing implications of colonization and racism.
Speaker: Indigenous women and girls have been treated as less than and not been given support or equality or equitable service for years. When you think about, you know, our missing and murdered Indigenous women, when you think about having their lands taken, of having their language taken,
Speaker: of the generational trauma that has resulted from things like residential schools, the 60s scoop, disproportionate number of children being removed from their families by our our child protective services.
Speaker: We end up with a generation of people who very rightfully don't trust the systems that we believe are there to support us, like health care. like policing, like the justice system.
Speaker: So even when women and girls from Indigenous backgrounds are at risk or are victimized, they don't necessarily have the confidence to seek support.
Speaker: And many of them don't live in areas where the supports exist. They're perhaps in rural or remote remote communities. So combine racism and the impacts of colonialization and lack of services and lack of culturally safe, supported systems and care It shouldn't be a surprise, and yet it's devastating at the high numbers of Indigenous women and girls who are victimized.
Speaker: It makes me think about the number of systemic barriers that non-Indigenous women face, um and then adding and compounding all of those other things that you mentioned, Karen.
Speaker: It's definitely overwhelming. ah Let's talk a little bit more about some of those systemic barriers, though. um Can you go through, with your experience working in transition houses and with women who are fleeing violence, tell me you know more concretely, do you have a story or an example of some of the barriers that just are created um for women when they're trying to seek safety or leave a relationship?
Speaker: Yeah. Yeah, so finances is a key piece, but the other one is safety. a woman is most at risk to be killed or injured at the time of leaving or soon after leaving. So in some bizarre way, some counterintuitive way, she may actually be safer to stay in the relationship.
Speaker: Then there's the part about not being believed. Too often our systems and those in positions of power who might be able to help just don't believe women when they disclose abuse. Then we think about our systems of care like healthcare.
Speaker: One survivor I worked with had experienced a number of concussions and other brain injuries in years with her partner. At one point they were driving in the car and he pushed her out of a moving car and she smashed her head open on the pavement.
Speaker: he took her to the emergency room. The care providers did not even attempt to separate him from her. They did not attempt to discover if he had been the cause of her injury.
Speaker: And when she displayed behavior that seemed odd to them, which perhaps was a result of a brain injury and having her head split open, they treated her like she was using substances and was high or drunk.
Speaker: That woman in subsequent incidents never, ever sought medical care again and didn't trust the system to support her and ended up staying in that relationship much longer than she might have if the right questions had been asked.
Speaker: So I'm going to come at it from um the clinical perspective because that's where my background is. What should they have done differently in the hospital for that woman? They should have immediately found a way to separate the person who brought her in from her.
Speaker: so that they could have a proper conversation about what may have happened. You know, I think what often happens in healthcare care scenarios, a woman walks in and perhaps she displays with an injured or broken wrist and the medical professional may focus on that and work on treating that, but not asking the right questions around how that might've happened and if other injuries that might not be as visible were present.
Speaker: So I think Getting her alone and asking her the right questions was would have been key to to finding out what had really happened there. Coming to that conversation with a lens of perhaps a brain injury could have happened. She does have her head split open and perhaps that would explain her behavior and having a more trauma-informed approach instead of this presumption that her behavior was caused by drugs or alcohol.
Speaker: So those are, I think, two key pieces to how that could have been dealt with differently that could have made a difference to her longer-term experience and well-being.
Speaker: I know that working in health care, i I often say this, is that a hockey player with a helmet on smashes their head against the board and they come into the emergency department and they say, hey, doc, you know, i was unconscious for a few seconds, according to my coach, and they get a full workup, they get a referral to the concussion clinic, they get ah pain medication, they get a CT scan, even though they may not need it.
Speaker: And then the woman shows up and she's got a big laceration on her head and a big goose egg or a black eye or something very visible. and we know not all brain injuries are visible, but let's just say it is.
Speaker: And she maybe gets sutured up, maybe handed some Tylenol and a pamphlet for counseling. um like it it drives me crazy in in the work that I do.
Speaker: And so, Karen, how do we how do we change this? um Like, because we're coming from a forensic nursing podcast here. So I want to look at the health care aspect. But how do we change this? Like, what question could a triage nurse the emergency physician ask when that patient's alone?
Speaker: um you know, in in a trauma-informed way and and trying to elicit some of those responses and understand better. I think i think the key is to to use very open-ended question starters.
Speaker: Too often, even in those contexts, we ask questions that have yes or no answers, which are not giving agency to the person at the other end to really tell their story. When we ask a question starting with who or what or when we're going to give that person agency and space to tell us what they want to tell us and to be the expert in their own experience, which they are.
Speaker: So asking questions like, how safe do you feel with the person who brought you in today? Or what else should I know about what happened that brought you to the hospital today?
Speaker: That sort of question is giving the person permission to tell their real story and opening up that space to say, you know they're an expert and you believe what they're going to tell you.
Speaker: I think also we have this, we have still this notion that intimate partner violence is a private thing that happens between a couple behind closed doors. And it's really not our business because it's not a comfortable thing. We don't want to acknowledge how often people who are supposed to love each other are physically hurting each other and also killing each other.
Speaker: That's a really uncomfortable thing to acknowledge and to talk about. And I think many of our frontline health care providers have this unique opportunity to gather information that could make or break someone's health, safety and and life.
Speaker: And they're not taking it because they don't feel comfortable. They don't know how to ask the question. They don't want to presume that this might be happening. If I'm in a perfectly healthy relationship and I fall down the stairs because I'm clumsy and I hurt myself,
Speaker: I would be so impressed and honored and grateful if my health care provider actually asked me what had really happened and probed in case intimate partner violence were a factor.
Speaker: I would feel safe and cared for and seen. I would not blame or judge or be offended. And I think we need to start taking that approach that asking about this epidemic is actually doing our job and showing true care for someone.
Speaker: Wow. but That's given me a lot to think about and a bit overwhelming in the work that we need to do. And then it leads me to thinking about... It's also a lot, right?
Speaker: Expecting our frontline professionals to be all things. And I think we hear a lot from from frontline workers in shelters when we talk to them about assessing for brain injury. They say, look,
Speaker: I'm now expected to be a frontline gender-based violence support worker, but I'm also expected to be an expert in mental health. I'm expected to be an expert in in alcohol and drug addiction and support.
Speaker: And now you want me to understand brain injury and be screening for that. It is a lot that we're asking. And yet, when we have folks in these frontline positions who are often a first point of contact,
Speaker: there is this higher level of responsibility to ask the right questions and provide that care right off the bat.
Speaker: See, I don't see it any different than asking, you know, what medications are you on What medical conditions do you have? How long have your symptoms been happening? um You know, I think that we ask it in many other things, like if you're driving a car and you get a car accident, our first question is, were you wearing a seatbelt?
Speaker: Because that actually gives us clinical information about to assess in a different way than if you were not wearing a seatbelt, for example. So, you know, if somebody is hitting you, um is the head injury significant significantly different? I don't know. I think we have yet to figure that out.
Speaker: But at the same time, are we releasing you back into risk? And how can we mitigate that risk? It's got me thinking a lot about the new proposed bail reform on intimate partner violence.
Speaker: Tell me about that, Karen. Maybe give an introduction to it for those who may not know a lot about it. But then what are your thoughts on it? I have some mixed opinions personally, but I want to know what your thoughts are. I think, you know, especially since this most recent femicide that you mentioned in the introduction, Bailey McCourt in Kelowna, she was allegedly attacked by her former partner, allegedly with a hammer.
Speaker: And the key piece here is that it happened in broad daylight in a public space. And interestingly, but not surprisingly, that has made this case a bit of a flashpoint for folks across the country pushing for reform and better supports and services.
Speaker: And it it makes me sad that it took it happening in broad daylight in a public space for people to care that much. But that's what it was. Up until now, and in many, many cases of intimate partner violence and femicide, it does happen behind closed doors. And we can somehow pretend it's not happening.
Speaker: In this case, we can't. And so Bailey McCourt's murder really led to these increased calls for changes to how bail is done and increases in reverse onus.
Speaker: So in the case where someone, for example, like this had been alleged or charged with choking, strangulation, that there would then be onus on the person charged to prove that they were okay to be given bail and to be on on the street.
Speaker: In this case, her estranged husband was convicted of choking her, but was already on bail and didn't have another hearing till the fall.
Speaker: So there was no change. There was a huge outcry that in that case, that alleged perpetrator should have been immediately placed in jail. And hours later, Bailey McCourt was dead.
Speaker: So there has been since then this push for stronger reverse onus and making it more difficult to get bail if someone is looking at a history of intimate partner violence, particularly if strangulation had been part of that, because we know strangulation is the biggest red flag for future mortality.
Speaker: We know women who are strangled are 750% or seven and a half times more likely to be murdered on a subsequent incident. So the notion that if someone has been convicted of strangling someone, or there has been a history of strangulation, should not be on the street.
Speaker: Emotionally, that makes sense, of course. But when you consider that some of these potential bail reforms could also affect women who defend themselves when they're attacked, and then they end up not getting bail, even though they were defending themselves, there's definitely some pluses and minuses to it. I'm curious what you think about the bail reforms.
Speaker: ah Well, I think we already have a little bit of this onus on the um accused to justify why they need bail. That already exists. So I don't know that strengthening it's going to change a whole lot.
Speaker: um And, you know, and yet I'm always for strengthening legislation that will help to prevent femicide or future intimate partner violence and maybe start acknowledging the seriousness of this crime.
Speaker: um What I feel really frustrated with is I feel like our courts are ignoring the research, such as the lethality and the potential lethality of strangulation, the potential lifelong um injury of repeated brain injuries over time.
Speaker: Why are we ignoring the very clear research, very clear evidence? Talk to me about that.
Speaker: Well, Hannah, i hate to say that everything comes down to the patriarchy and misogyny, but it kind of does. You know, um what would it look like from from the perspective of the patriarchy?
Speaker: What would it look like if the system truly looked at the research and the evidence and truly openly and honestly acknowledged the harms that are done to women and girls and gender diverse folks, most often at the hands of men.
Speaker: What would the court system look like? What would our justice system look like? And how could the patriarchy survive if we did those things? I mean, that's kind of very high level, but you know, it, if,
Speaker: The evidence is all there, as you say, it is there. We know what's happening. We know the lethality and the potential lethality of these behaviors that are happening.
Speaker: We know strangulation is on the rise. We know more of our young people are participating in strangulation because they've seen it normalized in pornography and mixed martial arts.
Speaker: And the evidence shows it can kill you. The evidence shows it can cause these lifetime challenges from brain injuries. So I don't know if it's that our systems and those who are in our systems need better education.
Speaker: i think our lawyers and our judges are relatively educated people and they have, they're capable of reading research and seeing the evidence. So I don't know why they're not acting on it, except to say that in the end,
Speaker: If we acted on it to the extreme that we could, it would not serve our current system, which is driven by the patriarchy. It's a very, very um almost anti-victim system in so many ways. I think about the Hockey Canada trial, which we have a podcast coming up um about specifically, and the onus that was placed on the victim to be the perfect victim and to align with this
Speaker: I guess I want to say rape myth, um but it's it's almost surreptitious now ah to present in a very specific way to prove that she was a victim. um I also want to mention that ah Justice Martha Devlin, she was the um ah justice on the Naomi Onatera case, and she made sentencing remarks um that acknowledged IPV or intimate partner violence and the need for courts to send stronger messages.
Speaker: um But I'm not sure that we've gone there yet. So we we have a judge saying ah perhaps a female judge makes it not sound as strong. Interestingly enough, in the Hockey Canada trial, also a female judge.
Speaker: um So very interesting gendered responses from our female justices. um But I don't know, does this reform go far enough? ah Will stronger sentences really prevent femicide?
Speaker: I would love to think so, but I don't know if that's the case. I mean, you look at how often men who kill women are already charged with something, are already facing a sentence, how often men have um protection orders against them.
Speaker: It's not stopping them now. Murdering someone and going to jail for life potentially isn't stopping them now. So it's hard to say whether these reforms and changes are going to be dissuading this sort of behavior because it goes beyond what the results are going to be. In that moment, this person needs that control, needs to have that person at their mercy.
Speaker: And I don't know if they're even capable of thinking about the implications for them or whether they care at that moment. I still think our system has a responsibility to do more, whether this is it or enough, I don't know.
Speaker: I got to come back to like kindergarten. And if I think about what we teach our five-year-olds in kindergarten, yeah when they get in spats in the in the playground is we say, don't hit.
Speaker: We say, use your words, walk away. you And that's what we teach children. and yet we have adults, arguably more more physically powerful adults who haven't got the message that we give to children in kindergarten.
Speaker: It's true, but you know, you look at, we have to consider these same children to whom we're giving don't hit, use your words messages in their early years.
Speaker: We don't know what homes they're going back to. and and this is part of the problem is we can have wonderful educational and awareness programs from preschool up in our education system.
Speaker: And if those children are going home, to households where there's coercive control, there's verbal abuse, there's physical abuse, there's power over.
Speaker: It's really hard to tease apart what's appropriate and what isn't and what sort of behaviors they will indulge in or be capable of indulging in later.
Speaker: There's so much healing that has to happen for her those adults who are already out there. And it kind of creates this cycle that just goes on and on. And And I just don't know what is the interruption, what happens that we can raise the next generation to be healed, to be cleansed of any trauma they experienced growing up in whatever household they grew up in and to use their words and to be kind and to be gentle and to not use violence.
Speaker: It's such a huge, deeply systemic and entrenched issue. And don't we wish there was a simple solution? I mean, culturally, we have a culture that is filled with violence. We have a culture that is filled with sexuality.
Speaker: And yet it feels like it's something that is taboo to talk about still. If I look at some of the video games that we're playing, ah if we look at what's how children are learning about sexuality, i mean, this is a whole other topic around pornography and what is normalized in pornography. And this really is where our children are learning it.
Speaker: um But they're they're learning violence through our culture as well. And yet we seem to not be willing to call it out and address it. in a meaningful way.
Speaker: When I do speaking engagements or workshops, and I know you often do presentations as well, I will so often get asked, usually by someone of the male gender, how do we stop violence against women?
Speaker: And And it's such loaded question because it does come down to, it comes down to the books we read, the magazines and the photos they use, the the pop songs and the rap songs and and the kind of language in there, the movies, everything in our culture still supports this men are dominant, women are objects to be owned, to be controlled narrative.
Speaker: And until we can explode that, Everything else is just a Band-Aid.
Speaker: And it feels almost more and more sneaky these days. If you're not watching, ah say, a movie with that critical lens, it is so sneaky that these messages come Absolutely. I mean, look at look at this trend of trad wives, traditional wives.
Speaker: this This notion of of being the stay-at-home mom and wife who... is in her country kitchen and she bakes sourdough and she homeschools the children.
Speaker: This is wonderful for someone who wants that. And I would never dissuade someone for pursuing that life if that was what they truly wanted and and nourish them. But we're putting we're putting it out there as this desirable state for all women.
Speaker: And yet if you really look at it, it's putting women again in a position of subservience to, of control, controlled by someone else. So it's supporting those patriarchal norms and that control of women, but it's being put out there often by women as this desirable state that all of us should aspire to. And I think that's one of those sneaky ones.
Speaker: Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. Okay. We have a lot of work to do, both as women, as providers. What about men? What about men?
Speaker: I love when I hear not all men or what about men in terms of aren't they victimized as well? um Absolutely. Men are a key player in this because most violence against women is male violence against women.
Speaker: By ignoring the gendered aspect of this issue and this crime, we do a disservice to the victims and the survivors, and we don't hold the perpetrators accountable.
Speaker: Men need to stand up and speak out. They need to be allies. They need to ask women what they need, and they need to do it when they're with their friends, buddies, colleagues, coworkers, peers.
Speaker: They need to speak out actively when behaviors or speech about women aren't appropriate. And there's so many men out there who are good. There are so many men who are good, who are feminist allies, who want all of us to be safe and equal.
Speaker: And if they don't speak up, they're part of the problem. So I think active advocacy by men is critical without silencing women along the way. And it's it's a bit of a dance, but it's important. And we can't solve violence against women if men don't actively get involved to help fix it and to stop hurting women.
Speaker: You're so right, Karen, that you know The vast majority of men in my my belief and in my circle are very good humans. And they are allies, but I think they struggle to know how to step up to support women and to to speak out against and to stand up against gender-based violence.
Speaker: um I'm raising a son. And i I'm not sure how to do this either. None of this is easy. We're navigating something that is very complex. And you know, it's funny when you think about it, it shouldn't be.
Speaker: how I think about this sometimes, yeah i and you have this too. My job is all about finding ways to help and save and support women who are experiencing violence, often at the hands of men.
Speaker: How is it we live in a world where half the population are women and half of those in Canada almost will experience violence at the hands of someone they love in their lifetime.
Speaker: What kind of world has half the population pitted against the other half while claiming to love them? It's, it It makes absolutely no sense, and yet here we are. So it is incredibly complex, even though it should be incredibly simple to just be nice to each other.
Speaker: But I agree, it is it's so complex. And one of my favorite authors on this topic um is Jackson Katz out of the United States. He's written a number of excellent books. He is one of the biggest, most powerful feminist allies I know. And he has been fighting this fight for 30 plus years, but i highly recommend that anyone, including any man who wants to have an impact on this on this issue, to follow Jackson Katz, to read his books, to look at his recommendations, because he is an incredible ally and working on this fight against gender-based violence.
Speaker: It's been really great having this conversation with you today, Karen. Is there anything you want to say as we wrap up? I think one thing that all of us consider is the fact that we all know somebody who's experiencing intimate partner or gender-based violence of some kind.
Speaker: It may be us, but if it isn't us, we know someone who's experiencing it. Maybe it's a friend or a family member or a coworker. So I think it's important for all of us to keep an eye out for kind of the the key sort of signs and risks factors, because we can play a role in offering somebody tips, tools, safety, ideas.
Speaker: you know So looking looking at at folks you know who maybe maybe um seem to have injuries that that seem odd or unexplained. Maybe they used to participate in certain recreational or social activities, but they're not anymore. They seem to be isolating themselves.
Speaker: Maybe they're highly emotional or anxious when they didn't used to be. Maybe their partner or the former partner calls and texts a lot or shows up at the workplace.
Speaker: These are all things that could possibly indicate that someone is in an abusive or violent relationship. So I think it's important for all of us to be aware of those things and to be aware that we can be a safe space for someone to share as much as they're comfortable with, to educate ourselves on what resources are available in our community so that if somebody discloses to us, we're able to gently and kindly offer them suggestions on places that might be able to help them.
Speaker: There's a lot of good information out there on how to recognize whether abuse may be happening with someone and how to respond. And I encourage everyone to really educate themselves because whether we realize it or not, we can actually be someone's first step to safety by knowing the right way to respond.
Speaker: Thanks so much, Karen. Those are really powerful tips and definitely i think many of us have been in those positions and not entirely sure what to do.
Speaker: Femicide is a public health crisis and it's a legal challenge and a human tragedy and it's being called an epidemic with calls on all levels of government to acknowledge this. But through forensic nursing, collective advocacy and education, we can push for change and change that may actually save lives.
Speaker: And I want to thank Karen Mason, co-founder and executive director of supporting survivors of abuse and brain injury through research, SOAR, for sharing her insights today with us. If you found this episode valuable, please subscribe and share.
Speaker: We welcome respectful debate and comments below and stay tuned for our next episode where we'll be diving deeper into the Hockey Canada trial and for future episodes on non-fatal strangulation and its implications on safety and health.
Speaker: If you've recently been hurt or assaulted, please seek medical care at your closest emergency department. This is forensic nurse practitioner Hannah Varto and this is Beyond the Rape Kit, Canada's Forensic Frontline, a podcast by the Canadian Forensic Nurses Association.
Speaker: Thank you for listening. Stay safe.
