If that's what it is, then -- regardless of whether it should be punished or not -- this is manifestly not statistical murder.
Your story is describing a situation where one person's decision so strongly and clearly affects numerous unrelated people's lives that it's statistically guaranteed that some of them died as a result. Moreover, there's no plausible argument presented that the decision was in any sense intended to prevent unintended/unpredictable harm to those who would be ultimately affected by it. It's for the "joy of the game".
Whereas the article is describing a situation where one person's decision is increasing the risk of death of one person (their own child). There's no statistical guarantee of anyone's death at the time of the parent's decision to not inject their child. Nor is the parent's decision affecting numerous people. Nor is the parent's decision affecting unrelated people - it's affecting exactly the people they have the most connection to & responsibility over: their own child. Nor are they refusing this "for sport" or "for the joy of the game"...
