Chemo Or Indigenous Treatment For Eleven Year old?

cybercoma · May 21, 2014

I've already said I wouldn't, but what do I with my body is my choice. If I was suffering from chemo and just wanted to resign to my death, perhaps I would stop treatment too, only without the pretence of religious nonsense.

Smallc · May 21, 2014

I've already said I wouldn't, but what do I with my body is my choice. If I was suffering from chemo and just wanted to resign to my death, perhaps I would stop treatment too, only without the pretence of religious nonsense.

And I'm telling you that a 10 year old can't decide such things. She does not and cannot understand what death means at her age. At her age, I didn't really even understand the concept of consciousness, let alone the finality of death. Further, parents allowing such a decision are basically committing negligent homicide. The chemo will almost certainly work. Without it, the outcome is not so certain. Further, the daughters freedom from pain is not guaranteed by this decision (almost the opposite again). I simply can't see any logic in the decision here, and I don't even see it as the compassionate thing to do.

cybercoma · May 21, 2014

I don't see any logic to it either, but again, it's not our decision to make. It's between her, her family, and her doctors. Ultimately it's her decision to be made with her parents.

Wayward Son · May 21, 2014

Let's just pray that the treatment she is now receiving will save her life.

Getting better happens without treatment on occasion. The chances are obviously much better with medical treatment then without. Also she has had some treatment (some chemo, and undoubtedly other treatments). Several articles have said that without continued treatment they were worried about remission occurring. For the type of cancer she has (ALL), treatment almost always includes chemo given in many cycles over a couple years, that would mean to me that she has completed at least one cycle and the cancer is no longer detected, but follow up chemo reduces the chances of the cancer (which is really good at hiding) returning. If that is the case and she doesn't relapse (which does happens without follow up chemo, but is more rare then with treatment) there is no reason at all to suspect that it had anything at all to do with this Ongwehowe Onongwatri:yo traditional "medicine." She just will be one of the lucky ones.

I am fine with this treatment being stopped, IF the proper authorities feel that the child is informed, and understands the risk she is taking.

I assume that they did their job properly, but I have my doubts when I read things like this coming from the mother:

"She has just as much a fighting chance on traditional medicine as she does without side-effects. She hasn’t had one side-effect being on traditional medicine," said her mother.

1) She doesn't. The mother is either completely uninformed, has been influenced by a crackpot, or she is in denial and says those things to make herself feel better about a decision which is riskier.

2) Chemo does have side-effects, and those side effects can be brutal, but in general the alternative medicines that have no side effects, also have no effects.

If the mother would have said something like: "We know she is taking a risk, but because the side effects were so bad she has decided to stop the chemo, and we are supporting her in that decision along with looking at alternatives. We understand that the efficacy is unknown for those alternatives." I would have at least felt that they were informed as the child was being put at risk.

This is biggest problem with the whole alternative medicine scam industry when it comes to cancer. Most patients start by getting the conventional treatment. If that is effective they generally are encouraged to accept something like follow up chemo to reduce their chances of relapse. Many don't complete this chemo, because they don't like the side effects (which is totally understandable). However, they start to feel guilty about stopping a medical treatment so they find some crackpot alternative medicine which does nothing, but the patient often now thinks this nonsense is what "cured" their cancer. I have witnessed it among friends. I have witnessed it from health care providers who have to know how full of crap they are, but there is a strong psychological factor involved.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Wayward Son

Boges · May 21, 2014

Typical. CAS is backing Off.

http://www.caledonenterprise.com/news-story/4530217-cas-closes-file-on-cancer-stricken-makayla/

The Children's Aid Society of Brant has ceased its investigation into a cancer-stricken New Credit girl who is refusing chemotherapy.

"We're going to close our file," said executive director Andrew Koster. "We feel that Makayla is in a loving, caring home and that they are carrying on with medicine that would be very appropriate for a First Nations family."

The CAS reached its decision following a face-to-face with Makayla Sault's family and band officials Tuesday afternoon.

McMaster Children's Hospital referred the case to the agency earlier this month after the 11-year-old decided to halt further treatment.

-1=e^ipi · May 22, 2014

This is one of the saddest stories I have read in a while. This poor girl is going to die an avoidable death due to a combination of ignorance, political correctness and belief in superstitious nonsense.

However, people have the right to refuse treatment. They're not mentally ill.

The girl believes that she was visited in her dreams by a magical zombie man from 2000 years ago, who sacrificed himself to himself in order to save humanity from the sin of a talking snake telling a rib lady to eat a magic fruit. How is that not mentally ill?

Let's just pray that the treatment she is now receiving will save her life.

Prayer doesn't work.

monty16 · May 22, 2014

This doesn't pass the smell test of everyone being concerned about the child as much as it smells like hate for aboriginal people. Why bother getting involved when it's so easy to stay out and take the high road?

The_Squid · May 22, 2014

This doesn't pass the smell test of everyone being concerned about the child as much as it smells like hate for aboriginal people. Why bother getting involved when it's so easy to stay out and take the high road?

That's silly. Wouldn't matter if it was a JW, voodoo practitioner, or whomever denies modern medicine for their own silly mythology.... They are all equally in the wrong and the child should be saved, by force if necessary, regardless of the ethnicity/culture/religion of the parents.

-1=e^ipi · May 22, 2014

This doesn't pass the smell test of everyone being concerned about the child as much as it smells like hate for aboriginal people. Why bother getting involved when it's so easy to stay out and take the high road?

So either people agree that the girl should die or you imply that they are racists?

cybercoma · May 22, 2014

So either people agree that the girl should die or you imply that they are racists?

This is and your previous response are hysterical hyperbole. Her cancer is in remission. The doctors said that it may return without treatment. The girl herself said that she understands the ramifications of what's going on. You're not acknowledging that the side effects of chemo were incredibly brutal for this girl. She was put into intensive care from the side effects. She doesn't want to go through that any more. The family didn't entirely reject Western medicine. They went through their rounds of chemo and are refusing additional treatments because the side effects are horrible for this poor girl. She knows she might die, but does not want to go through the suffering she has had to endure from the treatments any longer. If she's going to suffer, she would rather suffer at home from her disease surrounded by her family than in a hospital hooked up to machines. It's a reasonable response that any adult who was put into ICU from the side effects of chemo might make themselves. And that's a further point, people can and do refuse chemo, particularly additional rounds after they've tried it once. It's not like this is the only time that has ever happened.

Edited May 22, 2014 by cybercoma

Smallc · May 22, 2014

No matter what she says, she does not understand the ramifications.

cybercoma · May 22, 2014

No matter what she says, she does not understand the ramifications.

You keep saying that, but the CAS workers that spoke with her disagree with you. Since they actually interviewed her and made the decision, I'm going to take their word over your opinion about someone you've never met and only read about through the media, which has an interest in sensationalizing stories.

Smallc · May 22, 2014

If CAS is anything like any CFS agency I've ever dealt with, that makes it less likely this is a good decision.

Edited May 22, 2014 by Smallc

Boges · May 22, 2014

You keep saying that, but the CAS workers that spoke with her disagree with you. Since they actually interviewed her and made the decision, I'm going to take their word over your opinion about someone you've never met and only read about through the media, which has an interest in sensationalizing stories.

Of course this can't be proven, but you're taking the CAS's opinion on face value and completely ignoring the political ramifications of taking a First Nations child away from her family.

The CAS opened a case against a dad when his daughter drew a gun!

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/02/25/arrested-dad-wants-answers-after-daughter-draws-gun-pic

He was arrested!

But parents sitting by and allowing their child commit suicide is all good?

I don't trust the CAS as far as I could throw it.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/09/08/jeffrey_baldwin_inquest_toronto_detective_haunted_by_boys_starvation_death.html

cybercoma · May 22, 2014

They're completely different cases with different circumstances. What can you generalize from the one about the other? Absolutely nothing.

I'm going to take CAS's opinion at face value because it's the best information about the child's competency that we have.

And at the end of the day, we all have the right to refuse medical intervention. If a child can't make that decision, then it's up to their parents/guardians. It is their child after all. If the parents/guardians don't seem competent enough, as decided by a court, to make the decision, then and only then should the state intervene. But the way some of you are posting here, it would appear that you're arguing that no one can ever refuse medical treatment that could potentially save their life. That's just not true and it certainly flies in the face of fundamental liberties and freedoms. I don't want the state to be able to force people to undergo medical procedures against their will, unless they (or in the case of children too young to decide, their parents) or not competent enough to make the decision. The non-competence bar should also be set extremely high, i.e., suffering from a serious mental disorder or learning disability.

I do not want laws passed or regulations created that violate people's right to bodily autonomy because it sets a dangerous precedent. It opens the door to things like: Hey! You don't need that kidney, you have two and this person is going to die without one. Come with us at gunpoint to the hospital so we can take one of your organs; or, this new experimental drug could potentially save a lot of lives but the side effects are potentially deadly. You're going to be a guinea pig for it because the potential to save many far outweighs the risks of killing you. Once you start allowing for legislation that violates people's freedom to choose for themselves what is done with their bodies, you create the groundwork for some horrifically unethical situations.

Edited May 22, 2014 by cybercoma

Big Guy · May 22, 2014

An eerily similar story of 10 year old Sarah Hershberger. A lengthy but interesting presentation on the same issues but in the USA;

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-sad-saga-of-an-amish-girl-with-a-curable-cancer-whose-parents-are-refusing-chemotherapy-in-favor-of-natural-healing/

WestCoastRunner · May 22, 2014

There is no reason at all to suspect that it had anything at all to do with this Ongwehowe Onongwatri:yo traditional "medicine." She just will be one of the lucky ones.

You are right about this point IMO. And as mentioned above, she is in remission. If the cancer does come back, they may very well decide to continue chemo once the girl and her parents have regained their strength and can look at this from a more emotionally healthy base from which to make decisions.

Boges · May 22, 2014

If she's in remission, then why is this news?

-1=e^ipi · May 22, 2014

This is and your previous response are hysterical hyperbole.

It's a reasonable response that any adult who was put into ICU from the side effects of chemo might make themselves.

It's not hyperbole to point out the stances some people take where they imply that anyone who disagrees with them is racist (see the post that I was responding to). Progressive racism and political correctness is a big factor behind why so many Canadians would be okay with this girl using 'traditional aboriginal medicine' but not be okay if this girl were a white Mormon that wanted to use 'faith healing' instead.

And it isn't a reasonable adult making a decision. It is an 11 year old girl who has been fed lies by her delusional parents and made the decision because she things a 2000 year old magic zombie visited her in her dreams.

You keep saying that, but the CAS workers that spoke with her disagree with you. Since they actually interviewed her and made the decision, I'm going to take their word over your opinion about someone you've never met and only read about through the media, which has an interest in sensationalizing stories.

You know there is a video of this girl explaining her decision on youtube, right?

Also, appeal to authority fallacy.

I'm going to take CAS's opinion at face value because it's the best information about the child's competency that we have.

No, why don't you look at the girl's competency yourself?

Also, it's worth pointing out that the owner removed & disabled comments on this video after getting too many negative comments.

And at the end of the day, we all have the right to refuse medical intervention.

Except mentally insane people, the mentally retarded & children.

I do not want laws passed or regulations created that violate people's right to bodily autonomy because it sets a dangerous precedent. It opens the door to things like: Hey! You don't need that kidney, you have two and this person is going to die without one. Come with us at gunpoint to the hospital so we can take one of your organs; or, this new experimental drug could potentially save a lot of lives but the side effects are potentially deadly. You're going to be a guinea pig for it because the potential to save many far outweighs the risks of killing you. Once you start allowing for legislation that violates people's freedom to choose for themselves what is done with their bodies, you create the groundwork for some horrifically unethical situations.

Slippery slope argument much?

Smallc · May 22, 2014

I stopped about 1 minute in. I've totally changed my mind now. Jesus told me everything will be okay.

guyser · May 22, 2014

I stopped about 1 minute in. I've totally changed my mind now. Jesus told me everything will be okay.

Have to say I agree, jesus told me Im healed.

What a bunch of hoeey that is.

But, let her parents make that call I suppose is fine by me. If they want to sacrifice their own kid, I say let them. Harsh as it is, one less religious nut on the planet.

May 23, 2014

You are right about this point IMO. And as mentioned above, she is in remission. If the cancer does come back, they may very well decide to continue chemo once the girl and her parents have regained their strength and can look at this from a more emotionally healthy base from which to make decisions.

She's in remission? After Jesus told her everything was going to be okay? I might have to rethink my deathbed conversion plan.

cybercoma · May 23, 2014

If she's in remission, then why is this news?

Because paternalism.

cybercoma · May 23, 2014

It's not hyperbole to point out the stances some people take where they imply that anyone who disagrees with them is racist (see the post that I was responding to). Progressive racism and political correctness is a big factor behind why so many Canadians would be okay with this girl using 'traditional aboriginal medicine' but not be okay if this girl were a white Mormon that wanted to use 'faith healing' instead.

it would be fine for a Mormon girl too, if the courts decided she was competent to decide for herself or her parents were competent enough to make the decision.

And it isn't a reasonable adult making a decision. It is an 11 year old girl who has been fed lies by her delusional parents and made the decision because she things a 2000 year old magic zombie visited her in her dreams.

No less reasonable than you sound here. It's your opinion that they're not competent. It has been determined by those involved, including CAS that they are. What makes your opinion override theirs?

Also, appeal to authority fallacy.

I think you might want to look up what an appeal to authority fallacy is. You're arguing about the girl and her family's competency when it comes to the fundamental right to refuse medical treatments. Appealing to the bodies that assessed their competency is not an appeal to authority fallacy. It's calling into question the legitimacy of your position. Watching a clip on YouTube is hardly the same thing as sitting down and interviewing the child and her parents. Of course I'm going to give more weight to the authorities who deal with child neglect and abuse every single day and actually sat down to interview the people involved here over the hyperbole-filled rants of someone in an Internet forum that thinks he's just as qualified to asses their competency because he read about the story in the news and saw a YouTube video. That's not a fallacy. It's critical thinking. You should try it sometime.

Except mentally insane people, the mentally retarded & children.

What part of competency are you having a hard time understanding?

Slippery slope argument much?

Not at all. We're talking about forcing someone to undergo medical a procedure against their will. Those examples aren't down the slope. They're the very essence of the argument that says she should be compelled by legislation to undergo treatments that the state deems necessary.

WestCoastRunner · May 23, 2014

She's in remission? After Jesus told her everything was going to be okay? I might have to rethink my deathbed conversion plan.

I don't think you read all the supporting material regarding her case. I did. And I stand by my opinion. Let's leave it up to the family. I do surprise my statements from time to time, but this time, I am sticking to my beliefs.