First Nations girl chooses traditional medicine over chemo

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

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.

Letting a child die for the sake of avoiding a PR debacle, is a horrible course of action.
This girl does not have the ability to make a rational decision abou th best course of action, so it's up for people who do to make the tough decisions for her . She is being influenced by people who are not making rational decisions for her, and as a result will likely die. To me that's no different than straight up neglecting your children, and if that was the case here, instead of a science vs tradition argument, then most would agree the state should step in.
Parents have an obligation to provide the necessities of life for their children. It may be unpleasant in the short term, but the treatment is just that, necessary for this girls life. Denying that is shortsighted, selfish, and neglectful.

[peter12]

What makes this situation so difficult is that the family actually went ahead with the biomedical treatment in the first place, and only decided to switch to folk medicine once the side effects became too severe.

It is not similar at all to say the Jehovah's Witnesses refusing to give sick children blood transfusions.

I guess I could insert all sorts of banal semi-philosophical thoughts on the meaning of life in a bourgeois society but that would be dumb. Simply, it would be worse if the state intervened than if the girl died surrounded by her spiritual community. Even if the death was 80% avoidable.

[Locke]

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.

I agree. They arent making this decision out of ignorance or lack of education. They know the score and want to do it anyways.

It isnt ill-advised, they have all the pertinent and relevant information, its just a bad decision and if they decide to ultimately make that decision then they'll have to suffer the seemingly inevitable consequences.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Locke

I agree. They arent making this decision out of ignorance or lack of education. They know the score and want to do it anyways.

It isnt ill-advised, they have all the pertinent and relevant information, its just a bad decision and if they decide to ultimately make that decision then they'll have to suffer the seemingly inevitable consequences.

I think your namesake would agree that this is something we all sign on for when we are privileged enough to live in a free society.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

I guess I could insert all sorts of banal semi-philosophical thoughts on the meaning of life in a bourgeois society but that would be dumb.

I think I'm hallucinating.

[Minnie]

They should really call all the Young Living Essential Oils freaks that troll all the sick kids pages on FB and blogs, who insist that a few oils applied "properly" will cure everything.

Right. Because that's worked before in the history of...oh...never ever.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Letting a child die for the sake of avoiding a PR debacle, is a horrible course of action.
This girl does not have the ability to make a rational decision abou th best course of action, so it's up for people who do to make the tough decisions for her . She is being influenced by people who are not making rational decisions for her, and as a result will likely die. To me that's no different than straight up neglecting your children, and if that was the case here, instead of a science vs tradition argument, then most would agree the state should step in.
Parents have an obligation to provide the necessities of life for their children. It may be unpleasant in the short term, but the treatment is just that, necessary for this girls life. Denying that is shortsighted, selfish, and neglectful.

What's the alternative? They're saying the chemo has 75% chance of being successful. What do you think that percentage drops to when you induce stress related to removing and isolating this girl from her family and community?

[1stLand]

Originally Posted by Minnie

They should really call all the Young Living Essential Oils freaks that troll all the sick kids pages on FB and blogs, who insist that a few oils applied "properly" will cure everything.

Right. Because that's worked before in the history of...oh...never ever.

Oh Great. Just what we need. Interference from "Big Oil" in a Native Rights Debate

[Locke]

Originally Posted by peter12

I think your namesake would agree that this is something we all sign on for when we are privileged enough to live in a free society.

I think so too. Its not all roses and sunshine.

[puckluck2]

When is the sufering too much? Chemo is damn tough and it should be up to the family if they want their child to suffer or take the risks and let her be at peace.

If it was up to my grandma she'd likely want to just take her chances. She's attempted to call the doctor so many times and let him know she doesn't want to continue chemo or that she was too sick to do it but my dad has pretty much forced her to go. I don't think the state should intervene at all. This isn't something like blood transfusions. This is torture from chemo.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by peter12

Simply, it would be worse if the state intervened than if the girl died surrounded by her spiritual community. Even if the death was 80% avoidable.

Why exactly would it be worse to have a living child as opposed to a dead one? In my opinion the state should intervene here. Why? To simply save a life.

The interests of the child should be paramount and this is a life and death issue.

Originally Posted by puckluck2

When is the sufering too much? Chemo is damn tough and it should be up to the family if they want their child to suffer or take the risks and let her be at peace.

Just my opinion again but two factors that should weigh heavily in the decision should be age and prognosis.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Why exactly would it be worse to have a living child as opposed to a dead one? In my opinion the state should intervene here. Why? To simply save a life.

The interests of the child should be paramount and this is a life and death issue.

Oh my goodness, you care so much, it shames me.

There are other considerations that must be taken into place. For example, the brutal override of her community and family's preferences (not to mention her own) would not have simple consequences.

For the record, I am not falling down on any side of the argument. As with all complex ethical issues, this one is better left unsolved by a technical solution and swept under the rug.

[old-fart]

I don't see a ton of difference in this situation compared to say, JWs not getting life saving blood transfusions for their children. My general opinion is that once you hit adulthood as defined in your region (18, 19, 21... whatever) you should have every right to refuse lifesaving medical care based on whatever crazy superstitions you have. But underage children sometimes need to be protected from idiocy and moronic superstitions. Would we allow parents who believe that stabbing their children will help make them closer to "gawd" to continue to do so?

As for alternative medicine, I'll quote the wonderful Tim Minchin in his great short film "Storm":

Originally Posted by Tim Minchin

Alternative medicine has, by definition, either not been proven to work, or been proven not to work. You know they call alternative medicine that's been proven to work? Medicine.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by peter12

Oh my goodness, you care so much, it shames me.

What's your point?

Edit to add as just noticed your edit.

Originally Posted by peter12

For the record, I am not falling down on any side of the argument.

"Simply, it would be worse if the state intervened than if the girl died surrounded by her spiritual community."

?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by old-fart

I don't see a ton of difference in this situation compared to say, JWs not getting life saving blood transfusions for their children. My general opinion is that once you hit adulthood as defined in your region (18, 19, 21... whatever) you should have every right to refuse lifesaving medical care based on whatever crazy superstitions you have. But underage children sometimes need to be protected from idiocy and moronic superstitions. Would we allow parents who believe that stabbing their children will help make them closer to "gawd" to continue to do so?

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.

[FlamesAddiction]

Would you agree that the environment is neglectful and harmful for the child's survival?

What if the child was burning in a house fire and they decided that it would just be better if the child was left there to die, since burn treatments in the hospital are too tormenting to deal with? Would you be against challenging their autonomy in that case?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Would you agree that the environment is neglectful and harmful for the child's survival?

Yes, personally, I actually do feel this way.

[old-fart]

JW's are "treating" their children too. They're praying to the magical sky fairy for healing. How is that different than having a cancer victim licking a frog, or eating purple jello in direct contradiction to the best medical advice known.

Again, I'm 100% fine with adults offing themselves for their stupid beliefs and superstitions. I'd rather they do it before procreating, thus helping natural selection along, but whatever. To each their own. I do have an issue with parents subjecting their kids to pain, suffering and death because of their (the parents) superstitions - superstitions that the children are too young to understand and knowingly accept or reject, especially if those superstitions have been forced upon them in a brainwashing fashion since their early life.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

What if the child was burning in a house fire and they decided that it would just be better if the child was left there to die, since burn treatments in the hospital are too tormenting to deal with? Would you be against challenging their autonomy in that case?

Yes, absolutely. It's up to the community to hold each other and their leaders accountable for their actions. I think the issue here is how we view the sovereignty of our First Nations communities. Would you support a Canadian agency removing children from the U.S. on similar grounds as this?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yes, absolutely. It's up to the community to hold each other and their leaders accountable for their actions. I think the issue here is how we view the sovereignty of our First Nations communities. Would you support a Canadian agency removing children from the U.S. on similar grounds as this?

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