First Nations girl chooses traditional medicine over chemo

[Azure]

What kind of legal justification would the state have in this case for actually taking the child away from the parents and making her take chemo?

Not agreeing/disagreeing either way. Just wondering how the state would handle it legally.

Tough choice really.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Azure

What kind of legal justification would the state have in this case for actually taking the child away from the parents and making her take chemo?

Not agreeing/disagreeing either way. Just wondering how the state would handle it legally.

Tough choice really.

Especially because even the chemo is a long-shot, but its a shot.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I would be, if it were logistically possible for them to do so.

Fair enough, but I think the logistics of this aren't as simple as they appear on the surface.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Fair enough, but I think the logistics of this aren't as simple as they appear on the surface.

I don't know what he means by "logistics." Like can they find a car with gas in it?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

I don't know what he means by "logistics." Like can they find a car with gas in it?

I think he means we're more equipped to handle resistance/response from a small First Nations community than we are a megapower.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by peter12

I don't know what he means by "logistics." Like can they find a car with gas in it?

Pretty much, because that is all it takes.

The Canadian government has the right and obligation to interfere in cases of straight forward child endangerment or abuse (it happens all the time in Canada already). For the Canadian government to interfere is a case on American soil, it would definitely be a lot more difficult (or impossible) to accomplish anything and the legality would be question. I would be all for the U.S. government interfering of course.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by rubecube

That's a pretty ridiculous analogy. I disagree that this is similar to JWs refusing blood-transfusions, as that decision is often made by the parents without the consent or consultation of the child, and also forgoes any alternative path. At least in this situation the parents and community are attempting to continue treating the girl.

Whether people want to admit it or not, there is also a huge political aspect to this that revolves around sovereignty and autonomy. Plucking the child from her community is a direct assault on the autonomy of the community she's in.

"Plucking the child from her community" is IMO a red herring. From a moral standpoint I don't really see a significant difference than if she was taken from any other set of parents and friends. It's not likely she'd be taken away forever. She would still be a part of the same community after the treatment.

Legally this might be different, I know very little about the legal status of First Nations.

The way I see it, being First Nations should not give the community a special right to drive their children to decisions that kill them, nor should it give them special protections against the law.

IMO moral problem comes more from the likelihood that the child would try to resist the treatments. Given the prolonged nature of chemo, this could be a serious problem. You might have to effectively imprison this child for the duration of the treatment.

Ultimately it comes down to what the law says. That's what the law is for. (Of course, the law might say a lot of things.)

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Holy ####, I'm actually going to agree with peter12 for once. I don't think forcibly removing the girl from her community does any good. Imagine the ####storm that would accompany the removal of the girl, and then imagine what that ####storm looks like if she dies while in the custody of the state.

If this is the decision she's made, and has the backing of her family and her band, then I think you have to let things be. If this group wants to assert some level of autonomy or sovereignty, then their leaders can be held accountable for the consequences.

This...

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Itse

"Plucking the child from her community" is IMO a red herring. From a moral standpoint I don't really see a significant difference than if she was taken from any other set of parents and friends. It's not likely she'd be taken away forever. She would still be a part of the same community after the treatment.

Legally this might be different, I know very little about the legal status of First Nations.

The way I see it, being First Nations should not give the community a special right to drive their children to decisions that kill them, nor should it give them special protections against the law.

IMO moral problem comes more from the likelihood that the child would try to resist the treatments. Given the prolonged nature of chemo, this could be a serious problem. You might have to effectively imprison this child for the duration of the treatment.

Ultimately it comes down to what the law says. That's what the law is for. (Of course, the law might say a lot of things.)

A lot of the native kids I used to go to school with were removed from their homes and lived in foster homes because of neglect or abuse, so it happens a lot (our family was a foster family). I don't see a case of depriving a child of medical care as any different from a case of depriving them of food.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

A lot of the native kids I used to go to school with were removed from their homes and lived in foster homes because of neglect or abuse, so it happens a lot. I don't see a case of depriving a child of medical care as any different from a case of depriving them of food.

Good comparison. I would imagine it's pretty much the same with romani and sami people here in Finland.

Yes, a high number of native heritage children taken into custody in a rich western country is a failure of that country. But you can't not take an abused child into custody because of their cultural background. You have to live in the world that is, not the one you'd like.

This is also not a case where the parents are not able to do what is right for their child because the society has somehow failed them. This does not compare to a family not being able to feed their child because they are poor. A comparison would be a family that refuses to feed their child even when the government is offering them all the food they need.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Itse

Good comparison. I would imagine it's pretty much the same with romani and sami people here in Finland.

Yes, a high number of native heritage children taken into custody in a rich western country is a failure of that country. But you can't not take an abused child into custody because of their cultural background. You have to live in the world that is, not the one you'd like.

This is also not a case where the parents are not able to do what is right for their child because the society has somehow failed them. This does not compare to a family not being able to feed their child because they are poor. A comparison would be a family that refuses to feed their child even when the government is offering them all the food they need.

It's a little more complicated in Canada because there are a number of First Nations communities that have a completely legitimate distrust of the government, and a number of these communities also feel that Canadian laws do not hold jurisdiction on First Nations land. Effectively, they consider themselves to be independent societies.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by rubecube

It's a little more complicated in Canada because there are a number of First Nations communities that have a completely legitimate distrust of the government, and a number of these communities also feel that Canadian laws do not hold jurisdiction on First Nations land. Effectively, they consider themselves to be independent societies.

The romani and sami have completely legitimate reasons to distrust the Finnish government too. I mean we effectively had a government sanctioned eugenics program up until the 1960's, and you can guess who that targeted. The legal system and social service system have also been rather brutal on them at times. It's a really ugly part of Finnish history. (And not something you hear about in school, unfortunately.)

The legal and practical side of this is course a rather different issue than the moral side, and yeah, the First Nations have a rather unique status, so that complicates things.

[loob job]

They live five minutes from me, they are doing their "native right", it's ridiculous. The next native thing they will be doing is "longhouse" which is the native term here for funeral. Sad that this girl has been brainwashed to say she's not afraid to die. Those parents deserve to be punished, how can they think native medicine is going to cure her.

[Daradon]

While I'd definitely push through any (well most) treatments I needed and would get my kids to do the same, I'd say that this particular case isn't as black and white as similar stories.

It was said that she had one of the worst reactions to the treatment the doctors ever saw.

So while I don't agree with it, I can understand the decision. There can be a dignity in death, even for kids.

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by rubecube

It's a little more complicated in Canada because there are a number of First Nations communities that have a completely legitimate distrust of the government, and a number of these communities also feel that Canadian laws do not hold jurisdiction on First Nations land. Effectively, they consider themselves to be independent societies.

And no one should really give much of a damn what they "feel" or "consider" when we're talking about what happens in practice. In practice, things are procedurally simple:

Step 1: determine the state of the law in Canada. Step 2: apply said law.

What certain bands feel should be the law or the extent to which Canadian federal law applies to them (and I'm sorry but the Constitution Act, 1867 is pretty clear in this regard at least in terms of broad strokes), you look at the legislation and jurisprudence governing the situation and see whether it applies.

What one "feels" or "considers" right in this instance may influence the creation or amendment of law but it does not give anyone the ability to ignore the law as it currently stands.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

What one "feels" or "considers" right in this instance may influence the creation or amendment of law but it does not give anyone the ability to ignore the law as it currently stands.

Ability? Anyone has the ability to ignore any law at anytime, there just occasionally happen to be consequences for doing so. The government can try and push this through on legal grounds if they want, but the fallout will be fairly predictable.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Holy ####, I'm actually going to agree with peter12 for once. I don't think forcibly removing the girl from her community does any good. Imagine the ####storm that would accompany the removal of the girl, and then imagine what that ####storm looks like if she dies while in the custody of the state.

If this is the decision she's made, and has the backing of her family and her band, then I think you have to let things be. If this group wants to assert some level of autonomy or sovereignty, then their leaders can be held accountable for the consequences.

As if that would ever happen. If she dies, it will be spun as "white man's fault", somehow. Everything is.

Just like if she gets cured by chemo, credit will still be given to spirits, Jesus, God, native medicine, or any other BS that will avoid admitting to being wrong.

This is a "****storm" either way.

[19Yzerman19]

It's basically uncontroversial that Canadian law applies throughout Canada whether on reserve (or other aboriginal title land), to the extent modified by law specifically applicable to first nations people.

If by "push this through on legal grounds", you mean "apply the law as it stands", I care little for the fallout as applying the law is what the government must do. There are no exceptions. That said, I don't know what the law in this area is, and whether it would apply such that this kid gets taken away and given the treatment that's being declined. Someone will figure that out and act accordingly.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by SebC

As if that would ever happen. If she dies, it will be spun as "white man's fault", somehow. Everything is.

Just like if she gets cured by chemo, credit will still be given to spirits, Jesus, God, native medicine, or any other BS that will avoid admitting to being wrong.

This is a "****storm" either way.

Well at least you didn't resort to stereotyping.

[starseed]

When I was that age, my parents had to search for a doctor who would respect my parent's religious beliefs while performing a simple operation. If it was more than that, I could very well have been sacrificed for their beliefs. I was psychologically conditioned to resist certain medical practices, so I understand there is a potential for real psychological damage to the child in enforcing treatment. The good news is that psychological therapy can help the child afterwards.

I am a firm believer in society/big brother/tribe elders having the moral obligation to step in and enforce medical procedures that significantly increase the chances of survival of children. This may be considered to be counter to the ideals of a free society, but nothing in this world is black and white.