11 year old girl who discontinued chemotherapy for alternative medicine dies

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

That's why we have court, the kids taken into care, they all go in front of a judge and he or she decides what's in the best interest of the child.

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.

[loob job]

If the parents were white I bet they would be charged with some sort of manslaughter / murder. This whole country is afraid of the native "terrorists".

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

That's why we have court, the kids taken into care, they all go in front of a judge and he or she decides what's in the best interest of the child.

That's exactly what happened. I wonder if some of you even read the article.

Also, according to the article, chemo made the little girl so sick that it put her into intensive care. Again, easy decision to make now with hindsight with what happened, but it's not always an easy decision at the time.

[Bagor]

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.

“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.

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.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

Again, easy decision to make now with hindsight with what happened, but it's not always an easy decision at the time.

They were given clear hard facts of what the consequences of their actions would be.
A 75% of life versus guaranteed death.

[polak]

Yeah the line is drawn when the child's life is at stake. Pretty easy line to decide.

The parents killed their child. Plain and simple. There is no confusion, no hindsight, no one else to blame.

The options were laid out and very easy to understand. You either keep your child on the treatment and she suffers short term but has a 75% chance of survival or you take her off and she will die. Surprise, Surprise, now she's dead.

The parents decided that short term pain wasn't worth ~90 more years of life for their kid. That's a decision that NO parent should be allowed to make.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Bagor

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.

In the other recent, similar case involving a girl only identified as J.J. the court documents show that among the reasons for not forcing the child to undergo treatment was that:

Their investigation revealed D.H. to be a devoted mother and concerned only with what was best for her daughter. This was a view even shared by the Applicant Hospital's doctors. Dr. Breakey testified she felt D.H. was an excellent mother and felt she was doing the best for J.J. Aside from the medical decision the Society's investigation concluded there was no protection concern as it related to D.H.'s care of J.J.

[FlamesAddiction]

I am curious, but have any First Nations groups or activists chimed in on this yet? Any decision about First Nations in this country has to take into consideration not just the welfare of the individual, but also the relationships between the FN communities and the government.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I am curious, but have any First Nations groups or activists chimed in on this yet? Any decision about First Nations in this country has to take into consideration not just the welfare of the individual, but also the relationships between the FN communities and the government.

Here is a press release from Makalya's First Nation from 2014 regarding the matter:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/242091176/...a-Sault#scribd

[Bagor]

She understands her condition, the course of her recovery, the medical advice she has received and the possible consequences of foregoing chemotherapy.

The medical advice she received did not include possible consequences. It advised her that she was 100% certain to go into remission.

This is the telling part.

The child and family services act is not binding within our community

[polak]

I argue that there is no way an 11 year old is not capable of understanding the consequences. To them, not being in immediate pain like Chemo was causing is the most important thing.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by Bagor

They were given clear hard facts of what the consequences of their actions would be.
A 75% of life versus guaranteed death.

Again, chemo put the child into ICU. They felt that chemo was killing their child and probably had a very hard time seeing their child suffer like that.

If I was the parent, of course I would have continued the chemo, but I'm sure (given what they know now), the parents would have too.

Doctors aren't always right either, they are human like everyone else.

Personally, we listened to the doctors and (in hindsight) we shouldn't have. Easy to say now, but at the time we trusted their word.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Just one thing to add, I do agree that they should have continued Chemo, so don't get me wrong. I just don't think court rules should be changed, taking decisions and freedom away from people based on a couple exceptions to the norm.

I believe that these parents did what they thought was right, and I'm sure they will regret their decision for the rest of their lives.

[polak]

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

I believe that these parents did what they thought was right, and I'm sure they will regret their decision for the rest of their lives.

Good I hope it eats away at them forever. They killed their kid.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by polak

Good I hope it eats away at them forever. They killed their kid.

That's a bit rough.

Yeah, they screwed up but do I think their intent was malicious? No.
Very misguided? Yes.
But to wish them a lifetime of mental torment?

I hope there's a lesson learned here.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by polak

Good I hope it eats away at them forever. They killed their kid.

In their opinion, chemo was already killing their kid.

If they had continued with chemo and if their kid would have died, you would probably still call them murderers for going against their kid's wishes, while she reacted negatively to chemo.

Again, easy for you to say, in hindsight.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by Bagor

That's a bit rough.

Yeah, they screwed up but do I think their intent was malicious? No.
Very misguided? Yes.
But to wish them a lifetime of mental torment?

I hope there's a lesson learned here.

Can't thank for some reason, but agree 100 percent.

[EldrickOnIce]

Anyone who, either by action or inaction, causes harm to a child should be found criminally negligent (and deserves a lifetime of torment).

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Anyone who, either by action or inaction, causes harm to a child should be found criminally negligent (and deserves a lifetime of torment).

As mentioned, chemo sent her to ICU. Is forcing her to take chemo and going into ICU not harm as well? So either way they should have been found criminally negligent and subjected to a lifetime of torment?

And rightly or wrongly, they blame the chemo for the stroke that killed her. So in their opinion putting her on chemo is what harmed her and killed her. Should they be criminally charged if chemo was in fact the cause of the stroke?

I don't really know where I stand on this as it's more complex than I think most people are making it out to be. But at the very least they attempted the chemo. It's not like they refused it right off the bat.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

As mentioned, chemo sent her to ICU. Is forcing her to take chemo and going into ICU not harm as well? So either way they should have been found criminally negligent and subjected to a lifetime of torment?

And rightly or wrongly, they blame the chemo for the stroke that killed her. So in their opinion putting her on chemo is what harmed her and killed her. Should they be criminally charged if chemo was in fact the cause of the stroke?

I don't really know where I stand on this as it's more complex than I think most people are making it out to be. But at the very least they attempted the chemo. It's not like they refused it right off the bat.

But, you see, because they had the choice between action which would harm the child, and inaction which would harm the child, they TOTALLY DESERVE a life of torment regardless of what they do.

It's the internet. One line of text is enough to judge people in complete absolutes. It's also enough to decide that people must be forced to conform with that thing you agree with.