First Nations Girl who Refused Chemo has Died

January 21, 2015

Could be. Maybe they told her she would go to Heaven. Not sure how I feel about that.

Smallc · January 21, 2015

Could be. Maybe they told her she would go to Heaven. Not sure how I feel about that.

That's exactly the problem. This was about a sky fairy. That's crazy.

jacee · January 21, 2015

Without treatment, her sentence was certain...with it, not so much?

If she did not die from cancer, your point is irrelevant.

And we don't know.

.

jacee · January 21, 2015

"Chemotherapy did irreversible damage to her heart and major organs. This was the cause of the stroke."

An oncologist countered, however, that untreated leukemia can in fact cause strokes.

A leukemia cell could go into the bone marrow and crowd out normal cells, leading to a very low platelet count which could result in a bleeding stroke in the head, explained Dr. Jacqueline Halton, a pediatric hematologist-oncologist at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario.

Alternatively, leukemia could cause a patient to have a very high white cell count, which could also lead to a stroke, she said.

"If your white cell count is so high, it can make the blood very sludgy," she said. "You can have a stroke from the blockage of the arteries in the brain."

Halton added that while certain forms of chemotherapy can possibly lead to a stroke, that would happen within days or weeks of receiving chemotherapy, not months after it was stopped.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/arts-and-life/life/health/ontario-aboriginal-girl-who-refused-chemotherapy-dies-------------289158971.html

In fact, I do.

Read what you quoted: "could" "could" "could".

We don't know.

.

Smallc · January 21, 2015

We have a pretty good idea.

jacee · January 21, 2015

We have a pretty good idea.

You have an opinion.

We don't know the facts yet, may never.

.

Smallc · January 21, 2015

My opinion is supported by medical experts..your's...your's appears to be ignorance.

Big Guy · January 21, 2015

Perception is reality. There is no indisputable proof that she would have lived with chemotherapy. There is no indisputable proof that the chemotherapy killed her. You will believe what you want to believe.

WestCoastRunner · January 21, 2015

This is one of those issues that I am very torn over. I have waffled back and forth during this whole ordeal for the family. Now that the child has died, and hindsight is 20/20, I would have to say that I think the parents were wrong in not giving their daughter chemo treatment. This child has lost the opportunity to pursue a career, marry and raise a family, retire, spend time with grandchildren. And all this because they didn't want the child to endure the harmful and painful effects of chemo treatment.

Earlier in this thread, I assumed this child was cancer free or 'in remission'. I now believe the parents were in denial or were not being honest with her situation. I have to believe the doctors when they say that she could not possibly have survived without chemo treatment and for her to be denied this treatment at such as young age and to have left it up to the parents decision is shameful.

Let's consider that we use force feeding for prisoners when they undertake a starvation program. Why can we not force a child to undergo treatment that may ultimately save their lives (albeit with some painful days).

As I say, this is a difficult situation, but when it comes to children.. they just don't know what is good for them.

Smallc · January 21, 2015

For once we agree. I'm shocked actually.

kimmy · January 21, 2015

You don't like their decision not to subject her to chemo, that's your own damn problem. Keep it to yourself. They tried chemo. The kid suffered. They made a very difficult decision together not to continue treatments. That's for them to decide. Not you. Not me. And not anyone else.

I'm not comfortable with saying that it's all up to the parents.

In this case, maybe there's an argument to make that the chemo was too awful and wouldn't have guaranteed survival anyway. I still don't agree, but let's leave this case aside for the moment and look at the more general case when parents' religious beliefs come into conflict with modern medicine.

We've had court battles where Jehovah's Witnesses went to court to fight against life-saving blood transfusions. We've had numerous cases of children dying of easily treatable causes because their parents only believe in faith healing. In the case of this Native girl, you can press the argument that there's no guarantee that chemo would have saved her, but that can't be said of all these cases. There are plenty of cases every year where children die needlessly because of their parents' beliefs. So I'm simply not comfortable saying "it's up to the parents, end of story."

I believe that people have the right to raise their children as they see fit, but that right doesn't extend to include abuse or negligence or failure to provide the essentials of life. Abuse, negligence, and failure to provide the essentials of life are three things that can definitely be said faith-healing parents let children suffer and die by withholding medical care.

As a general principle, I completely reject the idea that parents have carte-blanche to withhold medical care for religious reasons.

Now, maybe you can argue that in specific cases that declining medical treatment is a reasonable decision. Maybe you could even convince me that this was one of those instances, although I'm skeptical of that. But in the general case, no.

-k

msj · January 21, 2015

The other option then, would be to force the child to undergo painful medical treatment to which she did not wish to be subjected, against the wishes of her parents.

I wouldn't want to do that.

My first round of chemo was so bad I had to be hospitalized for the next two rounds.

I didn't want to do it but when you have cancer and you want/need to live for the sake of your parents and your wife you suck it up, stop being a little princess, and do whatever is necessary to survive.

The pain is momentary and survival is for decades where the pain is now mostly forgotten.

Instead, these "parents" now have decades to reflect on their poor decision all because they didn't want her to undergo "painful" medical treatments.

But, of course, this is why the "parents" will tell you that their daughter died from a stroke from the western based cancer treatment. They can't handle the truth that they killed their daughter so they make crap up.

No different than when someone buys a new car: they find all kinds of reasons why the car they bought is better than the one they didn't buy to justify their decision.

But survival, especially for an 11 year old, is usually considered better than a comfortable death except in First Nations land....

AngusThermopyle · January 21, 2015

Of course she was cancer free. Everyone knows that cancer just goes away on its own all the time. Get real people! That was sarcasm by the way, for those who are obviously cognitively challenged. All I can say is that this comes as no surprise to me at all. At the time I remember thinking death sentence. It really wasn't all that hard to figure out.

What amazes me is that some here still appear to be unable to figure it out.

Mighty AC · January 21, 2015

As a general principle, I completely reject the idea that parents have carte-blanche to withhold medical care for religious reasons.

Now, maybe you can argue that in specific cases that declining medical treatment is a reasonable decision. Maybe you could even convince me that this was one of those instances, although I'm skeptical of that. But in the general case, no.

Agreed.

I once read an article about how doctors with cancer deal with it. As it turns out they are far less likely than the general population to accept chemo as a treatment. It seems that doctors recognize when odds are not in their favour and instead choose to live their final days free from the awful sickness and side effects caused by chemotherapy.

I haven't been following this particular case that closely but I believe the prognosis for recovery with chemo was very good. So is there a line to be drawn? If so, where? I wouldn't want to put one of my children through any unnecessary suffering, if the treatment was unlikely to be successful, but I'm not sure where I would draw the line myself.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Mighty AC

Boges · January 21, 2015

Agreed.

I once read an article about how doctors with cancer deal with it. As it turns out they are far less likely than the general population to accept chemo as a treatment. It seems that doctors recognize when odds are not in their favour and instead choose to live their final days free from the awful sickness and side effects caused by chemotherapy.

I haven't been following this particular case that closely but I believe the prognosis for recovery with chemo was very good. So is there a line to be drawn? If so, where? I wouldn't want to put one of my children through any unnecessary suffering, if the treatment was unlikely to be successful, but I'm not sure where I would draw the line myself.

How about 80-90%?

Mighty AC · January 21, 2015

How about 80-90%?

So a treatment for a child should be mandatory if the likelihood of success is above 80%? Maybe. I'd hate to be the medical ethicist responsible for drawing such a line. I also can't imagine having to make the call for one of my children.

Boges · January 21, 2015

So a treatment for a child should be mandatory if the likelihood of success is above 80%? Maybe. I'd hate to be the medical ethicist responsible for drawing such a line. I also can't imagine having to make the call for one of my children.

But the State steps in all the time when the well being of a child is at risk. What's putting your child at risk more than allowing them to succumb to a very treatable disease?

We hear today that a women left her 6-year-old at home alone for 90 minutes has been charged and her child has been taken away. I'm not defending this woman but it's an example of the state stepping in for the "benefit" of the child. The only reason I can see that the state isn't doing it here is because they don't want to tell people from a minority group how to raise their kids.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Boges

Mighty AC · January 21, 2015

But the State steps in all the time when the well being of a child is at risk. What's putting your child at risk more than allowing them to succumb to a very treatable disease?

I agree. I'm opposed to people avoiding treatment for religious reasons or woo in general. We have religious people turning down life saving blood transfusions and new age nuts avoiding vaccines yet will align their chi with little pins for optimum health. It's a crazy world.

My point was just that if we are going to force parents to treat children, especially with painful long term procedures, that many doctors avoid for themselves, how good does the prognosis have to be?

Boges · January 21, 2015

My point was just that if we are going to force parents to treat children, especially with painful long term procedures, that many doctors avoid for themselves, how good does the prognosis have to be?

If the doctors believes the treatment would provide the patient with a better long term prognosis, shouldn't the courts cede to them since their the experts?

I agree that people shouldn't be forced to undergo painful treatment if their prognosis is bad. But in this case the prognosis was very good. Laws are all about interpretations and subjective analysis of the facts. I think most reasonable people would agree the short-term pain was worth it for this child to live.

We don't want people to kill themselves because they are going through short term mental issues do we? It's always been said that suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. I think this girl essentially committed suicide.

Smallc · January 21, 2015

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/20/makayla-sault-likely-died-from-rebounding-cancer-not-chemotherapy-effects-specialist

The end of this article is extremely disturbing. A judge choosing traditional rights over a child's life is bad enough, but a group of doctors - the group of doctors - telling other physicians to ignore their training and be culturally sensitive even when they know something is wrong is insane.

Why even bother training doctors? Why not just let everyone go to medecine men and cure themselves through tradition and prayer? Oh that's right, we tried that, and it doesn't work. This is a dangerous strain of political correctness that has absolutely no place in issues of science and life and death healthcare.

Smallc · January 21, 2015

We don't want people to kill themselves because they are going through short term mental issues do we? It's always been said that suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. I think this girl essentially committed suicide.

And the worst part is that her parents helped her to do it. She wasn't terminal, she wasn't in a situation of long term suffering. By probability she would have been fine, and now she's dead. Her parents influenced her decision with their make believe fairy tales, and that's not okay. None of this is okay.

guyser · January 21, 2015

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/20/makayla-sault-likely-died-from-rebounding-cancer-not-chemotherapy-effects-specialist

The end of this article is extremely disturbing. A judge choosing traditional rights over a child's life is bad enough, but a group of doctors - the group of doctors - telling other physicians to ignore their training and be culturally sensitive even when they know something is wrong is insane.

I dont think thats what is said, but rather "urges physicians to show more respect to aboriginal people and their beliefs about traditional medicine."

I would liken it to this, I can respect someones religious affiliations/thoughts /beliefs , but thats not the same as believing what they tell me.

Smallc · January 21, 2015

I'm not sure how what the doctors did was disrespecting them. They were doing their jobs. A bunch of hocus pocus does nothing but get in the way.

Argus · January 21, 2015

Yes they would. And that would really only be comparable if you think eating is anything like suffering from radiation poisoning.

Dying is comparable to dying, though. Her parents killed her by withholding medical care.

Argus · January 21, 2015

No adult should ever be forced to undergo a medical treatment that they don't want to. Parents make the decisions for their children. If these parents decided to let their child decide for herself, then that's all there is to it, as far as I'm concerned.

And if their 11 year old daughter decided she wanted to have sex with a forty year old man and their parents agreed to that you'd want them in prison for life.

If their 11 year old daughter decided she wanted to climb a mountain, without ropes or safety gear, and she fell to her death you'd want them imprisoned for that, too.

11 year olds are not old enough to make decisions of this consequence. They're not even old enough to decide to get a tattoo or a piercing! Most 11 year olds don't even get to decide what they're going to have for dinner.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Argus