First Nations Girl who Refused Chemo has Died

[cybercoma]

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?

It needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis. If the child is mature and intelligent enough to understand the gravity of the decision then it should be theirs to make. If the child is very young or simply not mature enough to make the decision then it's up to the parents. The court has used this line of reasoning before. There is no one-size-fits-all solution for these circumstances. In this case, where the girl and her family tried chemo, saw the adverse consequences, and didn't want to continue going through that, and where the girl was clearly mature and articulate enough to explain the situation and understand the consequences, then it was their decision to make. If they don't want to undergo therapy that they know has a 90% chance of curing her cancer, then—again—that's their choice to make. If people want to refuse medical treatment, I don't give a crap what their reasons are. If they're mature enough to understand the consequences of their choices, then let them die the way they choose.

[cybercoma]

People who've posted on this forum know I'm an atheist, but I believe in respecting people's wishes. If they want to come to their conclusions about their medical treatments using voodoo, scientology, or fringe christian dogmas, then that's their personal choice. Would I do that personally? Hell no. Would I want my kid refusing chemo? Absolutely not. But this isn't MY life or MY kid's life. This is their lives and their decision to make by whatever means they're willing to live with. I would base my decision on doctors' recommendations and the established science, not some religious dogma, but who the hell am I to tell someone else that they shouldn't when the decision ultimately has absolutely ZERO affect on my life or anyone else's but theirs?

Edited January 30, 2015 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

You know what would be a problem? Them petitioning the government and trying to get chemo therapy pulled from provincial health coverage because it doesn't fit with their worldview. That would be a problem. What they do to themselves is not, as far as I'm concerned.

[WestCoastRunner]

People who've posted on this forum know I'm an atheist, but I believe in respecting people's wishes. If they want to come to their conclusions about their medical treatments using voodoo, scientology, or fringe christian dogmas, then that's their personal choice. Would I do that personally? Hell no. Would I want my kid refusing chemo? Absolutely not. But this isn't MY life or MY kid's life. This is their lives and their decision to make by whatever means they're willing to live with. I would base my decision on doctors' recommendations and the established science, not some religious dogma, but who the hell am I to tell someone else that they shouldn't when the decision ultimately has absolutely ZERO affect on my life or anyone else's but theirs?

The decision of the parents and the courts had a direct effect on the child. She died when she quite possibly had a pretty good chance of surviving.

[cybercoma]

The decision of the parents and the courts had a direct effect on the child. She died when she quite possibly had a pretty good chance of surviving.

And she didn't want to suffer through chemo nor did her parents want to watch her suffer through chemo anymore. Her body, her choice.

[Smallc]

And she didn't want to suffer through chemo nor did her parents want to watch her suffer through chemo anymore. Her body, her choice.

And now she's dead. Good, I suppose. Nothing like losing a lifetime to stop some temporary pain.

[WestCoastRunner]

And she didn't want to suffer through chemo nor did her parents want to watch her suffer through chemo anymore. Her body, her choice.

She was a child. There is no way she should have been held to her decision. Plenty of adults surrounded her and protected her from her right to the best medical care she could receive to allow her the chance to survive. She died because of the adults around her supporting her decision.

[Wilber]

This is very sad. Every case is different but I can't help but wonder if the parents over reacted. An old friend of mine was diagnosed with chronic leukaemia ten years ago. Last fall it was affecting his health enough that he finally started chemo. The first IV session was hell and they had to do a bunch of playing with the drug combinations before he could handle it. The two following sessions went better. A couple of weeks ago I called him and he said his blood count was back to normal and he was waiting to find out if there would be future treatment. Yesterday he called to say that future chemo sessions were being discontinued, although they will continue with blood monitoring. Chemo can be a bitch but it can also really work.

[Black Dog]

It needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis. If the child is mature and intelligent enough to understand the gravity of the decision then it should be theirs to make. If the child is very young or simply not mature enough to make the decision then it's up to the parents.

Even if the parents choose to kill their kid? Their rights to believe in bullshit trumps the child's right to healthcare, is that it?

There is no one-size-fits-all solution for these circumstances. In this case, where the girl and her family tried chemo, saw the adverse consequences, and didn't want to continue going through that, and where the girl was clearly mature and articulate enough to explain the situation and understand the consequences, then it was their decision to make.

If they don't want to undergo therapy that they know has a 90% chance of curing her cancer, then—again—that's their choice to make. If people want to refuse medical treatment, I don't give a crap what their reasons are. If they're mature enough to understand the consequences of their choices, then let them die the way they choose.

The point you keep avoiding is that 11 year olds generally don't have that capacity, which is why we trust their parents to do what's right. if the parents won't, then they forfeit that right. They don't own their children. I'm loathe to employ a slippery slope argument here, but by your logic, parent could choose to murder a disabled child to spare them a life of suffering and walk free. But even that analogy falls short given the high probability that this girl would have actually overcome her cancer and lived a healthy life had her parents not decided to let her die.

[cybercoma]

Black Dog, for someone who slams others faulty logic constantly, I'm quite surprised that you would compare this case to euthanizing (against their will, which is murder) someone who is disabled. That is absolutely not comparable to this in any way. It's not a slippery slope even. It's a strawman. You've created an argument that I didn't make and are arguing against that, when I too would argue against that.

Edited January 30, 2015 by cybercoma

[Black Dog]

Black Dog, for someone who slams others faulty logic constantly, I'm quite surprised that you would compare this case to euthanizing (against their will, which is murder) someone who is disabled. That is absolutely not comparable to this in any way. It's not a slippery slope even. It's a strawman. You've created an argument that I didn't make and are arguing against that, when I too would argue against that.

Actually, I never said the euthanization is against their will. That was your contribution. By your logic, there's no reason why a disabled child and parents couldn't agree to murder the child to spare them future discomfort or pain. Do you dispute that?

[Boges]

What about adolescent suicide? (a point I've already made in this thread)

A lot has been made in the media about mental health being just like any other type of physical health. If someone is depressed and wants to kill themselves should that be allowed? It's a permanent solution to a temporary problem, sort of like forgoing chemo to avoid the pain but ensuring your death.

[cybercoma]

Actually, I never said the euthanization is against their will. That was your contribution. By your logic, there's no reason why a disabled child and parents couldn't agree to murder the child to spare them future discomfort or pain. Do you dispute that?

Look, there's a subjective difference between allowing someone to die and actively killing them. Until you recognize that fault in your metaphor, there's not much else to say about it.

[Bonam]

Look, there's a subjective difference between allowing someone to die and actively killing them. Until you recognize that fault in your metaphor, there's not much else to say about it.

Subjective or objective?

[cybercoma]

What about adolescent suicide? (a point I've already made in this thread)

A lot has been made in the media about mental health being just like any other type of physical health. If someone is depressed and wants to kill themselves should that be allowed? It's a permanent solution to a temporary problem, sort of like forgoing chemo to avoid the pain but ensuring your death.

Again, you're making a comparison of someone actively killing themselves and someone refusing medical treatment. They're very different things. If someone is dying and I could potentially save their life by donating my kidney to them, but I refuse, then I'm not killing them. I'm not saving them. It would be nice if I did, perhaps, but the morality of allowing someone to die is very different from the morality of actively killing someone.

[cybercoma]

Subjective or objective?

Subjective. I've only been arguing subjectively. Edited January 30, 2015 by cybercoma

[Boges]

But in both scenarios someone in choosing to forgo short-term and temporary pain and instead chooses death. There was no question she would die from this cancer.

I would argue suicide is a better way to go then expiring from cancer.

Edited January 30, 2015 by Boges

[Bonam]

Subjective. I've only been arguing subjectively.

I would argue that the difference between causing someone to die, and not saving them from dying, is an objective difference rather than a subjective one.

[cybercoma]

There's nothing objective about this case other than 1) she had leukemia, 2) there was a 90% chance of survival with chemo, 3) they tried chemo, 4) they refused chemo after the first round of treatments. Everything else about what they should or should not have done, about the morality of the situation, about people's rights to choose what medical interventions they receive or not, about child (or aged adults) caregivers' authority, etc. are all subjective.

[Boges]

One could argue it's grave indifference to life. Which can land someone with a murder conviction.

[Black Dog]

Look, there's a subjective difference between allowing someone to die and actively killing them. Until you recognize that fault in your metaphor, there's not much else to say about it.

"Your honour, I didn't kill her, I just didn't give her any food or water and allowed her to die naturally."

In any case, its a irrelevant distinction. Your logic states that if a child is mature enough to understand the consequences of their choices, they should be allowed to die in the way they choose. Whether the choice is to be killed through withholding of lifesaving medical treatment, passive neglect or with the active participation of their parents scarcely matters.

Edited January 30, 2015 by Black Dog

[cybercoma]

But in both scenarios someone in choosing to forgo short-term and temporary pain and instead chooses death. There was no question she would die from this cancer.

I would argue suicide is a better way to go then expiring from cancer.

The girl and her family didn't choose death. They choose not to go through treatments. It lead to her death, which had a 9/10 chance of happening according to the oncologists interviewed. However, she did not choose death. She was already dying.

Someone who commits suicide is actively choosing to kill themselves, as a result of a mental illness. More importantly, when we talk about a person's mental faculties and their ability to decide for themselves, we are talking about someone who's not capable of thinking clearly, as is the case with mental illness. You're hypothetical about teen suicide is not contradictory to what I've already said. Someone with a mental illness, depending on the severity of it, may not be capable of deciding for themselves. Sometimes they're not even legally allowed to enter into contracts, etc.

Regardless, you're still talking about a very different situation. The key issue here, for me at least, is a person's right to choose for themselves what medical interventions they will receive. Even if it's irrational for me, it's none of my business if a person chooses not to get cured from their illness.

[overthere]

It needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis. If the child is mature and intelligent enough to understand the gravity of the decision then it should be theirs to make. If the child is very young or simply not mature enough to make the decision then it's up to the parents. The court has used this line of reasoning before. There is no one-size-fits-all solution for these circumstances. In this case, where the girl and her family tried chemo, saw the adverse consequences, and didn't want to continue going through that, and where the girl was clearly mature and articulate enough to explain the situation and understand the consequences, then it was their decision to make. If they don't want to undergo therapy that they know has a 90% chance of curing her cancer, then—again—that's their choice to make. If people want to refuse medical treatment, I don't give a crap what their reasons are. If they're mature enough to understand the consequences of their choices, then let them die the way they choose.

I agree with most of what you say here.

But it is far from linear...... The courts do consider the wishes of the minor when they court feels that they are mature enough to hold an informed opinion. It is entirely possible that a 12 to 16 old person has thought about the choices. It is equally possible that they are not capable..

Parents have the repsonisbilyt, legally, to ake decisions for their children. The govt has the responsibility to ensure that the parents act in the interests fo the child. Medicine is a science, but lacks certainty. Doctors cannot speak to an illness with complete confidence.

Every one of these is tough.

[Black Dog]

Again, you're making a comparison of someone actively killing themselves and someone refusing medical treatment. They're very different things. If someone is dying and I could potentially save their life by donating my kidney to them, but I refuse, then I'm not killing them. I'm not saving them. It would be nice if I did, perhaps, but the morality of allowing someone to die is very different from the morality of actively killing someone.

If one came across a complete stranger lying in the street, bleeding from stab wounds and didn't call for help or offer assistance and instead simply watched the person die, people would rightly be appalled by one's callous indifference to human life. That's in essence what Makayla Sault's parents did in this case. They didn't inflict the fatal condition on their daughter, but they refused to provide the help necessary to save her life. They chose to watch their own child die. That's beyond callous indifference into something altogether worse.

[cybercoma]

"Your honour, I didn't kill her, I just didn't give her any food or water and allowed her to die naturally."

In any case, its a irrelevant distinction. Your logic states that if a child is mature enough to understand the consequences of their choices, they should be allowed to die in the way they choose. Whether the choice is to be killed through withholding of lifesaving medical treatment, passive neglect or with the active participation of their parents scarcely matters.

It doesn't matter because it supports the ridiculous strawman arguments you're standing on. Sure. I'm sorry that you're so tied up in condemning the situation that you think locking a kid in the closet, not feeding her or giving her water is the same thing as someone who's already dying choosing not to suffer from being radiated for months. There was still a 1 in 10 chance that she would have died with chemo therapy. That's not a guarantee of anything. It would just make it more likely that she would live. Regardless, if she did not want the treatments for whatever reason, then that's her prerogative. I don't understand why it's so difficult to accept that people ought to be able to choose for themselves what they subject their bodies to. If someone doesn't want to be radiated and would rather live out the rest of their days the way they choose, then that's their choice. Not yours or anybody else's.