Chemo Or Indigenous Treatment For Eleven Year old?

[Wayward Son]

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.

I do not think that the two are comparable. But, I do think that some 11 year old's may have the ability to make such a decision. As I have written there is a Canadian case of 12 year old refusing a blood transplant and dying, which was allowed because the court felt that child had the capacity, understood the consequences, and was not being influenced by others.

Do I think that this 11 year old displays that capacity? Not from the little I have seen, but I feel that the courts should make that decision.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Wayward Son

[cybercoma]

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.

I reject your loaded premises. You're just making up some fantasy situations to get whatever answer you want. The point is that it's about the child's capacity for understanding the gravity of the situation and their right to bodily autonomy. Their own personal experience with chemo therapy is beyond my understanding. You call it "short-term pain." But you don't know what it's like for this particular individual. Everyone handles this stuff differently.

Also, I'm with Wayward on this one. I don't think the child truly has the capacity to understand the situation, nor is she making the decision without outside influence. So it's a non-starter anyway.

[Smallc]

This individual would be completely incapable of understanding the implications of life and death involved with this decision. There's a reason we don't allow children to make these decisions.

[TimG]

Their own personal experience with chemo therapy is beyond my understanding.

The issue is what are the chances of the treatment working. If the chances are small then foregoing treatment is a legitimate option. If the chances are high then doctors are letting an 11 year old commit suicide.

[cybercoma]

The issue is beyond that. An adult can refuse treatment. Children can also refuse treatment if they show the capacity to understand the ramifications of their decision. Chemo can cause unbelievable suffering in patients. They endure it to get better, but if they couldn't endure it any longer or didn't want to, the doctors cannot force someone to undergo treatment. The issue I'm addressing here is the idea that no one ever can deny life-saving treatments. They can. Second to that is the idea that children can never deny these treatments. But they too can, if it's determined that they've the capacity to understand the choice that they're making. In this particular case, I don't believe she does have that capacity and I don't believe she's making the decision without misinformation from her family. So in this case, I agree with your conclusions. However, I don't agree with the premises and I don't agree with that conclusion in all cases.

[TimG]

Then I don't understand why people worry about teen suicide then. After all, a teenager should be able to assess his/her life and make an informed decision that death is preferable to living with whatever torment afflicts their life. We should look at each teen suicide individually before passing judgement. All that is needed is the capacity to understand the choice that they are making.

Makes as much sense as what you are arguing. Do you agree or are you going to argue that there is material difference between turning down cancer treatment with a high probability of success and hanging oneself?

Edited May 16, 2014 by TimG

[Guest]

Yes, of course. That would be the compassionate thing to do.

[Smallc]

I'm not sure where people get the idea that children can ever turn down life saving treatment. They can't, because they're children. That's why the state is stepping in here.

[WestCoastRunner]

Children's Aid will step in and take the child in their custody to continue treatment. Perhaps they may face a blockade, but the child will be forced to continue treatment.

[cybercoma]

Then I don't understand why people worry about teen suicide then. After all, a teenager should be able to assess his/her life and make an informed decision that death is preferable to living with whatever torment afflicts their life. We should look at each teen suicide individually before passing judgement. All that is needed is the capacity to understand the choice that they are making.

Makes as much sense as what you are arguing. Do you agree or are you going to argue that there is material difference between turning down cancer treatment with a high probability of success and hanging oneself?

There's a significant difference. One is preventing suicide, the other is violating the sanctity of someone's body with treatments medical interventions that they refuse. One deals with someone that has a significant mental illness, the other, as Wayward and I have said repeatedly in this thread, is about someone with the capacity for understanding their decisions making that choice. Someone suffering from a severe mental illness that puts them at risk for suicide does not have the capacity to understand what they are doing because their illness is making them suicidal. If Canada allowed euthanasia, a terminally ill patient, regardless of age ought to be able to choose to die the way that he/she wants to. So yes, teen suicide (any suicide) is vastly different from someone turning down treatment that might be causing them to suffer and may not ultimately save them anyway. I'm not really interested in discussing whatever hypotheticals you come up with though. It's not entirely relevant here.

[cybercoma]

Children's Aid will step in and take the child in their custody to continue treatment. Perhaps they may face a blockade, but the child will be forced to continue treatment.

There's two separate conversations going on here. One is about this specific case and the other is about turning down medical treatment in general. If you agree with the principle of individuals having bodily autonomy, then you cannot force someone to undergo treatments that he/she does not want to have. A child may not have the capacity to understand the ramifications of their decision, but every child is different and they should be assessed on a case by case basis. If the child cannot understand, then it falls to the parents. If the parents do not have the capacity to understand the decision either--for instance, they believe things that are categorically incorrect like prayer and incense will save their child's life--then the state can and will step in on the child's behalf. However, the fundamental principle here is bodily autonomy, same as the abortion discussion. People have a right to turn down medical treatment, as long as they have the full capacity for reason and are not being coerced in any way.

[WestCoastRunner]

There's two separate conversations going on here. One is about this specific case and the other is about turning down medical treatment in general. If you agree with the principle of individuals having bodily autonomy, then you cannot force someone to undergo treatments that he/she does not want to have. A child may not have the capacity to understand the ramifications of their decision, but every child is different and they should be assessed on a case by case basis. If the child cannot understand, then it falls to the parents. If the parents do not have the capacity to understand the decision either--for instance, they believe things that are categorically incorrect like prayer and incense will save their child's life--then the state can and will step in on the child's behalf. However, the fundamental principle here is bodily autonomy, same as the abortion discussion. People have a right to turn down medical treatment, as long as they have the full capacity for reason and are not being coerced in any way.

We are talking about a child. If the parents refuse treatment, the child will be taken into custody if the health care providers determine chemo will save her life.

[WestCoastRunner]

We are talking about a child. If the parents refuse treatment, the child will be taken into custody if the health care providers determine chemo will save her life.

From what I have read, there is an 80% chance chemo will save her life.

[cybercoma]

We are talking about a child. If the parents refuse treatment, the child will be taken into custody if the health care providers determine chemo will save her life.

Nobody in this thread has said otherwise, but you do realize people have the right to refuse medical treatment, right?

[Smallc]

We are talking about a child. If the parents refuse treatment, the child will be taken into custody if the health care providers determine chemo will save her life.

Exactly. In this country, when their life can be saved, children never have the capacity to refuse treatment.

[Smallc]

Nobody in this thread has said otherwise, but you do realize people have the right to refuse medical treatment, right?

Not people under the age of majority. You'll have to show me where it says otherwise.

[cybercoma]

Not people under the age of majority. You'll have to show me where it says otherwise.

Sure. Like I've been saying, "it depends."

http://www.carters.ca/pub/bulletin/church/2009/chchlb26.htm

Edited May 17, 2014 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Another article about the same case.

http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/index.php?section=article&articleid=958

Children under age 16 may make life and death decisions about their medical treatment if a court deems them capable of “mature, independent” judgment about their health, a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled.

[cybercoma]

Mature and independent are the important words here and is what we've been referring to as the "capacity" to decide for themselves.

[WestCoastRunner]

Nobody in this thread has said otherwise, but you do realize people have the right to refuse medical treatment, right?

If the parents of a child refuse treatment that can save the child's life (and I'm pretty sure this is what is happening), the child will be taken into custody. It's pretty straightforward as to what will happen. There are many precedents where this has occurred in Canada.

[WestCoastRunner]

An 11 year old child who has delusions of Jesus Christ visiting her and telling her it's ok to refuse chemo is not mature and does not have the capacity to determine what's best for her.

[cybercoma]

If the parents of a child refuse treatment that can save the child's life (and I'm pretty sure this is what is happening), the child will be taken into custody. It's pretty straightforward as to what will happen. There are many precedents where this has occurred in Canada.

Links above to SCC decision in 2009, WCR.

[cybercoma]

An 11 year old child who has delusions of Jesus Christ visiting her and telling her it's ok to refuse chemo is not mature and does not have the capacity to determine what's best for her.

No crap. Have you read the thread? Did you read what I posted? I've said repeatedly in this case that she doesn't have the capacity. I was even nice enough to inform you explicitly that there's two completely separate discussion here. One is about this case and the other is about the general principle of bodily autonomy.

[WestCoastRunner]

I read them. Thanks for the links.

[WestCoastRunner]

No crap. Have you read the thread? Did you read what I posted? I've said repeatedly in this case that she doesn't have the capacity. I was even nice enough to inform you explicitly that there's two completely separate discussion here. One is about this case and the other is about the general principle of bodily autonomy.

Geez, then why are you arguing with me......