Chemo Or Indigenous Treatment For Eleven Year old?

[Big Guy]

A New Credit First Nation family has decided to try to treat their 11 year old's cancer with Indigenous medicine rather than chemotherapy. Ontario's children's aid authorities are preparing to intervene.

“This chemo that I am on is killing my body and I cannot take it anymore,” said the girl, who cannot be named due to the involvement of provincial authorities. “I have asked my mom and dad to take me off the treatment, because I don’t want to go this way any more.“

Instead, the girl’s only treatment for the disease will be a regimen of Six Nations traditional medicines and treatments known as Ongwehowe Onongwatri:yo:.

Should Childrens Aid authorities take control of her treatment and go back to traditional chemo treatment?

Should the parents be allowed to make the life and death decisions for their 11 year old?

If the Children's Aid authorities do not get involved and the child dies because of lack of proper treatment (as has been warned by her doctors) should the parents be charged with the death of their daughter?

[Boges]

I was looking to start a thread about this.

If it was a JW or one of the people that think Praying will heal the cancer, the outcry would be enormous. She did say Jesus came to her in a dream and told her everything would be aight.

The success rate of this treatment is 80%. Not doing the Chemo is essentially suicide. 11 year olds are minors, it's her parents responsibility to ensure her well-being. Letting her die because Chemo sucks is most certainly child abuse.

[kimmy]

I feel the same way about this as I would feel if it were Jehovah's Witnesses or Christian Scientists or Asian wizards or New Age kooks or any other group that rejects modern medicine in favor of magic, prayer, power-crystals, or snake oil.

There's a precedent in Canada for intervening in cases where JWs want to deny their kids medical care in life-threatening situations. I supported it then, and I supported now.

But I suspect that the parents in this case may get more sympathy because they're First Nations rather than JWs, and because of increasing public gullibility in regard to the effectiveness of "alternative medicine".

-k

[The_Squid]

Yes, they should intervene. Adults can decide to not do life saving medicine. Children cannot.

If they can show in clinical trials, medical journals, etc that their treatment works, then that would be different. I'm guessing that they can't. Nothing wrong with herbal medicine... It can work at times (I'm not saying it's ok in this case). But it has to be proven to cure cancer before it should be accepted as treatment.

The parents should be charged with child neglect and/or manslaughter if the child dies.

[Smallc]

Children can't make these kind of decisions, and evidently, neither can these parents. Traditional aboriginal medicine is as useful as faith healing - that is not useful at all. This is a death sentence for this child.

[Guest]

She says she can't take it anymore. I imagine it is torture for her. Why should she be forced to undergo it?

[Boges]

She says she can't take it anymore. I imagine it is torture for her. Why should she be forced to undergo it?

Would you say it's cool if she was depressed and decided she wanted to commit suicide and made her plans public? She would be taken away and put in a mental health institute on suicide watch.

[Guest]

Well, depression is a mental illness. Is she mentally ill, and that's why she doesn't want the treatment any more?

Or is she telling the truth, and she can't take it any more?

That being said, I'm generally in favour of people being able to end their lives for whatever reason they want, if they can find a qualified medical professional to help.

[Boges]

Well, depression is a mental illness. Is she mentally ill, and that's why she doesn't want the treatment any more?

Or is she telling the truth, and she can't take it any more?

That being said, I'm generally in favour of people being able to end their lives for whatever reason they want, if they can find a qualified medical professional to help.

Teens and Tweens get depressed for plenty of reasons that don't involve actual mental illness. They could want to end their lives over an ended relationship or bullying. Kids at that age don't have perspective that life changes.

So to her, the pain of Chemo could be worse than death. But I can't imagine any rational adult see life that same way?

Kids probably only want to eat Chocolate and Chicken Nuggets. It's up to their parents to know what's good for them.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Boges

[Smallc]

She says she can't take it anymore. I imagine it is torture for her. Why should she be forced to undergo it?

She's ten...the treatment will almost certainly save her life. Without it she'll certainly die.

[Guest]

I agree, but this is not about depression. It's about pain and suffering she doesn't want to go through.

I think rational adults see it that way all the time.

(This post is in response to Boges last post. My quote, cut and paste features don't work)

Edited May 16, 2014 by bcsapper

[Boges]

Here's another comparison. Let's say through some accident she breaks her femur. I'd imagine recovery from an injury like that would be long, painful and overall unpleasant. But no one would think it rational for someone to want to potentially end their life over that pain.

I suspect these parents are feeding this girl lies about the effectiveness of the proposed treatment.

[Guest]

She's ten...the treatment will almost certainly save her life. Without it she'll certainly die.

(It works in Mozilla, Apparently.)

I do not know what the age cut off would be for a person to decide they no longer want to suffer. I wouldn't want to make that call. When I look at this individual case, I find myself supporting her right to make the decision. Due to her right not to suffer, not due to any religious or indiginous medicine notion that she's going to be okay.

[Guest]

Edit> On second thoughts, that was a mean and uncalled for comment and I retract it.

Edited May 16, 2014 by bcsapper

[Guest]

I suspect these parents are feeding this girl lies about the effectiveness of the proposed treatment.

Yes, you could be right. That would be wrong.

[RB]

sad - a child, so much less educated in the matters of science to choose Indigenous treatment. Seems to me folks concern are lots tired - well it shows in the demeanor of the child - just saying

Edited May 16, 2014 by RB

[Smallc]

I do not know what the age cut off would be for a person to decide they no longer want to suffer. I wouldn't want to make that call. When I look at this individual case, I find myself supporting her right to make the decision. Due to her right not to suffer, not due to any religious or indiginous medicine notion that she's going to be okay.

We've already made the Decision. She's not an adult, and at that age she's certainly not able to comprehend the realities of death.

[cybercoma]

Good points from everyone. Reminds me of religious zealots refusing blood transfusions etc. if that's the case, decision making should be revoked from the parents. However, the other great point is about a person's right to refuse treatment. Chemo is brutal. If she accepts that she will die without treatment, but still does not want to go through the suffering of chemo, who are we to decide that? If she believes "alternative" medicine will help her just as well as chemo, well, that's a serious problem that needs to be addressed before the decision to stop treatment is made.

[Smallc]

She isn't old enough to make that decision on her own. She can't possibly have a true understanding of life and death.

[TimG]

However, the other great point is about a person's right to refuse treatment. Chemo is brutal.

Doctors generally recognize the right to refuse treatment if the chances of success are small. If this is the case then why is it getting spun as a child refusing treatment in the media? The media could be lying but I suspect the facts are chemo in this case has a high chance of success and refusing it amounts to suicide. So I don't put much weight on the 'chemo is brutal' argument. Edited May 16, 2014 by TimG

[Wayward Son]

There is no age cutoff for being able to make crappy medical decisions, it is based on capacity. So consent kind of works on a sliding scale partially depending on how significant the decision is. What that means is that the courts may say that this girl is allowed to refused medical care despite her young age if they feel that she understands the decision she is making and understands the potential consequences of that decision. The same would go a JW youth. In 1985 a court found a 12 year old, capable of refusing a blood transplant. That child died. Courts have also found significantly older children to not be capable. It mainly depends on understanding the consequences.

In this case I have concerns about the latter:

Jesus told me that I am healed, so it doesnt matter what anybody says, said the girl, the daughter of a prominent local pastor, speaking in a video released Monday.

That doesn't sound like she understands the reality based consequences she may face. Sounds like her view of her condition is more based on fantasy.

The parents don't help either:

"We know that our traditional medicines work. We know that our daughter is going to be OK. says Sonya Sault.

Being certain about a decision for which skepticism is warranted is not a good sign that the parents understand the consequences either. Adults are generally free to make those kinds of stupid decisions, but the standard for non-adults is higher.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Charles Anthony
fixed links as per WayWardSon; lost some of the text-size but feel free to put it back if you want the emphasis

[Smallc]

You'll have to show me that there's no age cutoff.

[Wayward Son]

Whoops...I meant that edit that post to insert links, not quote it.

But to answer smallc's question:

You can start with the NP article about this specific case: Eleven-year-old's choice to treat her cancer with indigenous medicine instead of chemo may be legal, experts say.

According to Ontario’s Health Care Consent Act, all the girl needs to refuse medical care is “capacity.” According to the act, this includes the ability “to understand the information that is relevant to making a decision about the treatment” as well as an understanding of the “reasonably foreseeable consequences of a decision.”

In Ontario, the Health Care Consent Act, S.O. 1996, c.2 (“HCCA”) , there is no longer a minimum “age of consent”. People under 18 years of age should be assessed as to their capacity to make the decision in the same way as an adult. For example, a 13 year old may be capable to give consent to receive stitches to the hand, but may not be capable to give consent to undergo brain surgery. See section 4(2) of the HCCA. The complexity of the research or treatment, the severity of the risks, the maturity of the child, and other factors must be weighed and considered.

http://mlst.mindzplay.ws/mlst/doc/AgeOfConsent.pdf

Edited May 16, 2014 by Wayward Son

[cybercoma]

Wayward covered it better than I would. It's about having the capacity to decide. Thinking incense is going to cure cancer is not that capacity. Wanting to die in peace at home around family and friends instead of going through the misery of chemo, that would demonstrate capacity to understand.

[Boges]

Wayward covered it better than I would. It's about having the capacity to decide. Thinking incense is going to cure cancer is not that capacity. Wanting to die in peace at home around family and friends instead of going through the misery of chemo, that would demonstrate capacity to understand.

Would you think that an 11-year-old choosing death over short-term pain is in anyway comparable to an 80-year-old who has been fighting cancer for years and finally gives up?

An 11-year-old doesn't have the proper perspective. Also I believe she's being heavily influenced by her parents.