First Nations Girl who Refused Chemo has Died

The_Squid · January 29, 2015

This lower court ruling doesn't seem to square with the Supreme Court's ruling in 2009. But this recent ruling wasn't appealed to a higher court. The child was allowed to die instead.

Canada's top court on Friday dismissed the case of a Manitoba girl — a Jehovah's Witness — who said her rights were violated when she was forced to get a blood transfusion against her will when she was a minor.

In a 6-1 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that such medical interventions are constitutionally sound, striking a balance between the choice of the child and the state's protection of the child.

However, the ruling also said lower courts from now on must consider the maturity and decision-making skills of minors before deciding on enforced treatment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The court stressed that this in no way means that a child should be allowed to make a decision that might endanger his or her life.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/girl-s-forced-blood-transfusion-didn-t-violate-rights-top-court-1.858660

Given the SC's ruling in the past, I think that treatment could have been forced, and legally so.

cybercoma · January 29, 2015

Actually, according to more than one Oncologist, it is.

There's no oncologist on the planet who would say that she absolutely would have recovered. In fact, you've been throwing around the 90% figure. That's not a 100% chance of recovery, is it? Even with treatment she still had a chance to die. Without treatment, it was nearly certain. But the treatment is horrible and it was their decision to make. Not yours, mine or anyone else's.

Smallc · January 29, 2015

There's no oncologist on the planet who would say that she absolutely would have recovered. In fact, you've been throwing around the 90% figure. That's not a 100% chance of recovery, is it? Even with treatment she still had a chance to die. Without treatment, it was nearly certain. But the treatment is horrible and it was their decision to make. Not yours, mine or anyone else's.

For someone who tells me I need to listen to what people say, you sure seem to have missed what Argus said. Her chance of survival, without chemo, was 0.

Black Dog · January 29, 2015

Now do you see the danger in over compensation? This never should have been allowed to happen.

Yes if not for the life of the kid, but for the fuel it would give people with agendas like yours.

Black Dog · January 29, 2015

There's no oncologist on the planet who would say that she absolutely would have recovered. In fact, you've been throwing around the 90% figure. That's not a 100% chance of recovery, is it? Even with treatment she still had a chance to die. Without treatment, it was nearly certain. But the treatment is horrible and it was their decision to make. Not yours, mine or anyone else's.

The point is it shouldn't have been their decision to make.

cybercoma · January 29, 2015

The point is it shouldn't have been their decision to make.

No? People shouldn't have a choice about their own bodies? You want to extend that logic to abortion?

Black Dog · January 29, 2015

No? People shouldn't have a choice about their own bodies? You want to extend that logic to abortion?

Minors don't get a choice on these things and when parents are acting in a way that threatens the health and well-being of said minor, the state has a obligation to intervene.

As for extending this logic to abortion, this is more analogous to parents forcing their underage kid to have an unwanted child for religious reasons.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Black Dog

Smallc · January 29, 2015

Yes if not for the life of the kid, but for the fuel it would give people with agendas like yours.

Yeah, equality is a such a terrible agenda.

The_Squid · January 29, 2015

Two leading Canadian medical ethicists are calling on the attorney general to have a higher court weigh in on a ruling they say wrongly puts aboriginal rights ahead of the lives of children.

"This is the only case in Canadian history involving the life or death of a child in which the court has not placed the best interests of the child as the factor that trumps everything else," said Arthur Schafer, director of the Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics at the University of Manitoba.

------------------------------------------------------

First Nations across the country have celebrated the decision as a major victory.

New Credit Chief Bryan LaForme called Sault a "trailblazer" who sent out "a strong message that you as an individual can make your own choices."

"The only opposition she had was from those who didn't understand," he said.

"When you talked to First Nations they understood. Non-natives didn't … Typical Makayla, she took it in stride and she shrugged it off … She was proud of her history and who she was."

http://www.insidehalton.com/news-story/5272164-medical-ethicists-decry-death-of-aboriginal-girl-who-refused-chemo/

Hopefully the government takes this to a higher court to overturn this ridiculous decision that goes against the SC decision that I posted earlier.

The attitude of this chief disgusts me. He considers this little kid's death to be a political victory.

overthere · January 29, 2015

Minors don't get a choice on these things and when parents are acting in a way that threatens the health and well-being of said minor, the state has a obligation to intervene.

As for extending this logic to abortion, this is more analogous to parents forcing their underage kid to have an unwanted child for religious reasons.

It cannot be extended to abortion. Canadian courts have taken the wishes of the minor child into consideration wherever possible. A pregnant child would almost certainly be 12+ years, and their opinion would be considered in any judgement. Same with other medical decisions, and in divorces/custody proceedings. It also depends on the maturity of the child.

Black Dog · January 29, 2015

Yeah, equality is a such a terrible agenda.

Well, it certainly has appeal for superficial people seeking simple solutions to complex problems. Not to get into a big OT thing, but the idea that hundreds of years of inequity can be solved by legal equality is risible at best.

The attitude of this chief disgusts me. He considers this little kid's death to be a political victory.

As I said earlier: there's nothing traditional about the Vitamin C injections and other mumbo jumbo that passed for treatment.

Smallc · January 29, 2015

Well, it certainly has appeal for superficial people seeking simple solutions to complex problems. Not to get into a big OT thing, but the idea that hundreds of years of inequity can be solved by legal equality is risible at best.

It would be a massive start. It might even have saved this little girl's life.

-1=e^ipi · January 29, 2015

Yeah, equality is a such a terrible agenda.

I know. It is much more socially acceptable in Canada to view native people as some sort of quaint safari animal, whose habitat must not be disturbed by imperialist white people so that white people can continue to be entertained by these creatures and their quaint undisturbed customs.

But advocating for equality? ... That's racist! *sarcasm*

Edited January 30, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

cybercoma · January 29, 2015

So adults can decide for themselves whether or not to have treatments, but parents and their children can't make a choice at all. They have to do what doctors and you people say they have to do? Is that what you're all saying? Because if I don't want to undergo chemo, especially after already attempting it, screw everyone else's opinion on the matter. It's my choice.

Smallc · January 29, 2015

Not if you're 11 and believe in magic.

cybercoma · January 29, 2015

Not if you're 11 and believe in magic.

So religious people can't make decisions now? You'll decide what's best for them?

You make it sound like they avoided treatment altogether. She went through chemo and suffered from it. They decided to stop after trying it. That's a big difference from someone saying the voices in their head told them not to go to the doctor at all.

Smallc · January 29, 2015

That's basically what happened though. Jesus told her she was healed. Well hell, that's good enough for me. While we're at it, to be sure, let's go to a quack and call it traditional medecine. We take children for their own protection all the time, often against their wishes. Under your way of thinking, parents could withhold anything they wanted as long as the child agreed.

The_Squid · January 30, 2015

So religious people can't make decisions now? You'll decide what's best for them?

You make it sound like they avoided treatment altogether. She went through chemo and suffered from it. They decided to stop after trying it. That's a big difference from someone saying the voices in their head told them not to go to the doctor at all.

Did you read the link about the SC judgment from my earlier post? If a child and/or their parents put that child's life in danger by denying medical aid for religious reasons then the state has a duty to step in and look after the child's well being.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24212-first-nations-girl-who-refused-chemo-has-died/?p=1026637

Edited January 30, 2015 by The_Squid

The_Squid · January 30, 2015

The SC judgement in 2009:

http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7795/index.do

cybercoma · January 30, 2015

That's basically what happened though. Jesus told her she was healed. Well hell, that's good enough for me. While we're at it, to be sure, let's go to a quack and call it traditional medecine. We take children for their own protection all the time, often against their wishes. Under your way of thinking, parents could withhold anything they wanted as long as the child agreed.

Under my way of thinking, people get to choose what medical interventions they go through. They have sanctity of the body and the right to life and liberty. Under your way of thinking the government gets to harvest your organs and do medical experiments on you because there is no sanctity of the body and the government gets to decide what's best for you and best for society.

WestCoastRunner · January 30, 2015

So religious people can't make decisions now? You'll decide what's best for them?

You make it sound like they avoided treatment altogether. She went through chemo and suffered from it. They decided to stop after trying it. That's a big difference from someone saying the voices in their head told them not to go to the doctor at all.

Yes, she went through chemo and suffered through it. Of course she suffered through it. It's chemo! At the time they withdrew from chemo, they had faith that their quackery treatment they headed for in the U.S. would cure her. I bet that if they and the child knew that she would die if she did not continue chemo and I mean 'really knew', they would have continued on with the chemo.

The parents should be held accountable for her death. And has been mentioned earlier, if she were white, she may quite possible be alive today or had a pretty good shot at staying alive.

cybercoma · January 30, 2015

The SC judgement in 2009:

http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7795/index.do

I disagree wholeheartedly with the court making an arbitrary choice that suddenly at the age of 16 a child has the capacity to understand the gravity of their choices. If you want to get technical, this is a psychological milestone that doesn't occur until the early 20s anyway. Regardless, the child is under the care of adults who are over that age and are charged with making those decisions for the child. If both the child and parents refuse life-saving treatments, then that's their choice and their prerogative. The state is in no position to force medical treatment upon unwilling participants. It's completely unethical and that supreme court decision is a poor one, imo.

cybercoma · January 30, 2015

At the end of the day, it's the parents who have to cope with the death of their child.

Bonam · January 30, 2015

Under my way of thinking, people get to choose what medical interventions they go through. They have sanctity of the body and the right to life and liberty. Under your way of thinking the government gets to harvest your organs and do medical experiments on you because there is no sanctity of the body and the government gets to decide what's best for you and best for society.

Cybercoma the libertarian, never thought I'd see the day.

Bonam · January 30, 2015

I disagree wholeheartedly with the court making an arbitrary choice that suddenly at the age of 16 a child has the capacity to understand the gravity of their choices. If you want to get technical, this is a psychological milestone that doesn't occur until the early 20s anyway. Regardless, the child is under the care of adults who are over that age and are charged with making those decisions for the child. If both the child and parents refuse life-saving treatments, then that's their choice and their prerogative.

So is it the child or the parents that are really granted the right to make this decision, in the final analysis? What if there is a disagreement? What if the child wants the treatment but the parents don't want the child to have the treatment? Or vice versa?