Quote:
Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988
So where do you draw the line? That's the problem here, as I see it.
In this particular case, the kid should have had treatment (according to our limited information), but how do you pick and choose which kids should be forced and which shouldn't be? These decisions need to be made on the spot, not with the benefit of hindsight.
|
For one. You draw the line when it is a simple matter of life and death. And the information wasn't limited. The information given to the parents was clear and concise. By taking your kid off treatment you are GUARANTEEING that she will go into remission and the treatment you are opting for has ZERO chance of success.
Cole's notes version. Your actions are guaranteed to kill your child.
Quote:
|
“They basically said she would have 100 per cent relapse and she would die if we discontinued chemotherapy. And that going the route of traditional medicine has zero per cent success rate,” said Sonya Sault.
|
There was no room left for confusion as far as information given to the parents goes. They were made fully aware of the consequences of their actions.
Courts should have stepped in right there once these options were made clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgarygeologist
In this case that did happen. A judge rejected an application by the Hamilton hospital and Children's aid to provide treatment. The higher powers have spoken and saw that it was acceptable and within reason for the parents and child to make the decision to stop treatment.
|
You are speculating here. I am speculating too but I am guessing that the judge was aware of the information the mother just quoted but I find it hard to believe that his reason for rejecting the application was because he found the parent's decision to let their child die acceptable and within reason.