First Nations Girl who Refused Chemo has Died

Black Dog · January 30, 2015

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.

If they chose to forgo treatments on in the genuine belief that some Florida quack could cure her with wheatgrass enemas, they are deluded fools who have no business making life or death decisions for anyone. If they know that those fake "treatments" wouldn't work and that the inevitable result of not getting real medical care would be death, then yes, they chose death.

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.

So a mentally ill adult does not have the same right to bodily autonomy as an 11 year old. Interesting.

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.

We're not talking about persons. We're talking about children.

Bonam · January 30, 2015

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.

I don't think the 1/10 chance of still dying is particularly relevant. Would your argument change if the chance of survival was 95%, or 99%, or 99.9%? Would Black Dog's argument change if the chance was 80% or 50%? The reality is that nothing is ever 100% guaranteed. When it comes to cancer, a 90% chance of recovery is pretty damn good.

Bonam · January 30, 2015

We're not talking about persons. We're talking about children.

Children are not persons? I don't know about you, but I was sure a person when I was a child.

cybercoma · January 30, 2015

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.

It's callous to you. That's the point. I've seen family go through chemo and I know how brutal it is. I also know that in some cases it doesn't help and makes people suffer even more. I can completely appreciate someone not wanting to go through it, even if there was a 90% chance of recovery through it. It's very unlikely that I would make that same decision, but it's not my decision to make for other people. That's my point. Some of you are saying it's perfectly fine for an adult to turn down chemo, but in every single case a child MUST be subjected to it. If an adult can turn it down, then there's no reason that a child who's capable of understanding the situation can't turn it down, nor is there any reason that an adult with their full faculties couldn't make that difficult decision for the child either. Someone who's not suffering from a severe mental illness and understand the situation certainly doesn't decide these things lightly. This wasn't some off the cuff decision. They went through the treatments and saw the effects. They choose not to continue down that path. That's rational. It's not a choice I would make, but it is indisputably rational. Starving your kid to death for no reason is not rational. Not bringing your kid to the doctor in the first place is not rational. But that's not what happened in this case at all.

Black Dog · January 30, 2015

Children are not persons? I don't know about you, but I was sure a person when I was a child.

i was thinking about the concept of legal personhood, but I guess I was mistaken. The point, that children don't have the legal capacity to make these decisions for themselves, stands even if I goofed on the terminology.

overthere · January 30, 2015

children do have a different legal status than adults, unless a court deems otherwise.

That is why kids have different rules, and why parents are required to make decisions on their behalf.

Black Dog · January 30, 2015

It doesn't matter because it supports the ridiculous strawman arguments you're standing on

Or you're calling it a strawman because you recognize the absurdity of your own argument and need some cover.

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.

If you read what I wrote, i made no suggestion the situations were similar, only that the logic you use to justify one applies equally in the other.

If someone has the unassailable right to choose the time and manner of their death, the method doesn't matter and I challenge you to tell me why it does.

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.

I don't know why it's so difficult to accept that children do not and should not have the right to make such decisions.

cybercoma · January 30, 2015

So a mentally ill adult does not have the same right to bodily autonomy as an 11 year old. Interesting.

Yes. Someone who's going to kill themselves because they have a sickness that inhibits their ability to think clearly has less bodily autonomy than a person who's capable of making decisions clearly. Why is that so hard to understand?

cybercoma · January 30, 2015

I don't think the 1/10 chance of still dying is particularly relevant. Would your argument change if the chance of survival was 95%, or 99%, or 99.9%? Would Black Dog's argument change if the chance was 80% or 50%? The reality is that nothing is ever 100% guaranteed. When it comes to cancer, a 90% chance of recovery is pretty damn good.

Of course it's good. I'm not disputing that. The number doesn't matter, but it's still a point that nothing is guaranteed. We will all die some day. That's the gift you get for living. If someone understand that there's a high likelihood that they will die and chooses not to undergo the treatment, but instead try to live as comfortably as possible before they die, then I don't see the problem with them making that choice.

Bonam · January 30, 2015

Or you're calling it a strawman because you recognize the absurdity of your own argument and need some cover.

I don't think either argument here is absurd. There's a strong case to be made for both positions. I, for one, have not yet made up my mind.

Boges · January 30, 2015

Of course it's good. I'm not disputing that. The number doesn't matter, but it's still a point that nothing is guaranteed. We will all die some day. That's the gift you get for living. If someone understand that there's a high likelihood that they will die and chooses not to undergo the treatment, but instead try to live as comfortably as possible before they die, then I don't see the problem with them making that choice.

I think you're missing the caveat that she was being fed completely false hope that the treatment she'd get by a massage therapist in Florida was going to give her something higher than 0% chance of surviving without going through chemo.

They pretty much lied to the kid.

She used a vision from Jesus as evidence that she'd be alright. So it's specious to say that she was "fully informed".

Edited January 30, 2015 by Boges

cybercoma · January 30, 2015

Or you're calling it a strawman because you recognize the absurdity of your own argument and need some cover.

Get back to me when you want to have a conversation without insulting me by calling my arguments absurd. I didn't say your points were absurd or ignorant or stupid. I said you were making a strawman because the thing you were arguing against, I too would argue against. It's not the thing that I was arguing at all. Therefore, it's a strawman.

If you read what I wrote, i made no suggestion the situations were similar, only that the logic you use to justify one applies equally in the other.

You know enough about logical fallacies to understand what's wrong with what you're saying here. I'll assume I don't need to point it out to you.

If someone has the unassailable right to choose the time and manner of their death, the method doesn't matter and I challenge you to tell me why it does.

I wasn't arguing about people having the "unassailable right to choose the time and manner of their death." I said people have a right to choose what medical procedures are done to them. My argument is that no one should be forced to undergo medical practices without their consent. Your and many other people are arguing that children are incapable of deciding for themselves and parents don't actually have a choice in the matter. Parents who make the "wrong" choice are to have their children taken from them and the state is to impose medical procedures on that child against the child and family's will (in this case anyway). It explicitly states that the government must force medical treatments on people. I know you're a smart person and know exactly what that has meant throughout our history. I'm sure you also know those procedures stemmed from progressive values that were meant to make society better and to "help" people.

I don't know why it's so difficult to accept that children do not and should not have the right to make such decisions.

It's difficult to understand why you keep boiling down my argument into something so overly simplistic as this. I said it must be taken on a case-by-case basis and hinge on the child's ability to fully comprehend the situation and the ramifications. It depends on the child's maturity. Never once did I say anything about "children" so generally as you're saying it here.

Black Dog · January 30, 2015

It's callous to you.

I think it would be callous to anyone who is not a complete sociopath.

That's the point. I've seen family go through chemo and I know how brutal it is. I also know that in some cases it doesn't help and makes people suffer even more. I can completely appreciate someone not wanting to go through it, even if there was a 90% chance of recovery through it. It's very unlikely that I would make that same decision, but it's not my decision to make for other people. That's my point. Some of you are saying it's perfectly fine for an adult to turn down chemo, but in every single case a child MUST be subjected to it. If an adult can turn it down, then there's no reason that a child who's capable of understanding the situation can't turn it down,

Children aren't capable of fully understanding the situation. That's the point. That's why we make legal distinctions between "children" and "adults."

nor is there any reason that an adult with their full faculties couldn't make that difficult decision for the child either.

There's very good reasons adults should not be allowed to make these kinds of decisions for their children. For example: if the decision would result in injury or death for the child. That's why we have child welfare laws: to protect the vulnerable individuals from bad decisions by adults.

This wasn't some off the cuff decision. They went through the treatments and saw the effects. They choose not to continue down that path. That's rational. It's not a choice I would make, but it is indisputably rational. Starving your kid to death for no reason is not rational.

What if you had a good reason? Like, say, the child was horribly disabled and wouldn't be able to live a normal life? Seems rational to me.

Bonam · January 30, 2015

It's difficult to understand why you keep boiling down my argument into something so overly simplistic as this. I said it must be taken on a case-by-case basis and hinge on the child's ability to fully comprehend the situation and the ramifications. It depends on the child's maturity.

So does this view extend to a case-by-case interpretation of a child's maturity when it comes to trying them for a criminal act, or assessing their ability to consent to sex, for example?

Black Dog · January 30, 2015

Yes. Someone who's going to kill themselves because they have a sickness that inhibits their ability to think clearly has less bodily autonomy than a person who's capable of making decisions clearly. Why is that so hard to understand?

Children aren't capable of this. Why is that so hard to understand?

cybercoma · January 30, 2015

I think you're missing the caveat that she was being fed completely false hope that the treatment she'd get by a massage therapist in Florida was going to give her something higher that 0% chance of surviving without going through chemo.

They pretty much lied to the kid.

She used a vision she said she saw from Jesus as evidence that she'd be alright. So it's specious to say that she was "fully informed".

You're presuming to know what their thoughts, beliefs, and motivations were. I can't crawl into their minds and truly know why they made the decision. All I know is that she went through chemo and didn't handle it well. So they chose, as they said, to make her comfortable and surround her with family and friends with whatever time she had left. She could have been saying, "Jesus said I would be alright," meaning that she had accepted her inevitable passing. Who knows? Regardless, to me the salient point is that they tried chemo, the girl didn't handle it well, and they made the rational choice to discontinue treatment despite it's high likelihood of helping her survive. It's not a decision I would make, but it's a rational one and one that was not up to me to decide. I don't want anyone else deciding for me what medical treatments I MUST undergo. I especially don't want the government deciding what kind of medical treatments I must undergo.

Bonam · January 30, 2015

Children aren't capable of this. Why is that so hard to understand?

I don't think it's so clear cut. The legal definition of a child is overly arbitrary. While it works fine for general things in society to make an arbitrary cutoff at 18 for things like contracts, when it comes to situations of higher import, it is not unreasonable to look at things on a case by case basis. No special magic happens when someone turns one day older and becomes 18. If someone that is 18 is allowed this right, what is the scientific basis for denying it to someone that is 17 years and 364 days old? It is a social distinction, not a scientific one. In cases where a life is at stake and the resources are available to consider the situation individually, we should not go by arbitrary social conventions but by the details of the case.

Boges · January 30, 2015

I don't want anyone else deciding for me what medical treatments I MUST undergo. I especially don't want the government deciding what kind of medical treatments I must undergo.

I'm making the assumption you're an adult though. A child shouldn't be afforded those rights because they can be convinced a MT in Florida could provide comparable treatment or that Jesus will make her alright.

I can't imagine dying from a stroke is all that pleasant either BTW. Is there not pain management treatment that makes Chemo "not so bad"?

Boges · January 30, 2015

I don't think it's so clear cut. The legal definition of a child is overly arbitrary. While it works fine for general things in society to make an arbitrary cutoff at 18 for things like contracts, when it comes to situations of higher import, it is not unreasonable to look at things on a case by case basis. No special magic happens when someone turns one day older and becomes 18. If someone that is 18 is allowed this right, what is the scientific basis for denying it to someone that is 17 years and 364 days old? It is a social distinction, not a scientific one. In cases where a life is at stake and the resources are available to consider the situation individually, we should not go by arbitrary social conventions but by the details of the case.

Perhaps when talking about a teenager. Has an 11-year-old ever been charged as an adult for a violent crime?

Bonam · January 30, 2015

Perhaps when talking about a teenager. Has an 11-year-old ever been charged as an adult for a violent crime?

Yes:

http://www.criminaljusticedegreesguide.com/features/10-youngest-murderers-in-history.html

Most recently, Jordan Brown, who committed murder at the age of 11 in 2009, was charged as an adult, although there was considerable controversy with the trial.

Edited January 30, 2015 by Bonam

Black Dog · January 30, 2015

Get back to me when you want to have a conversation without insulting me by calling my arguments absurd. I didn't say your points were absurd or ignorant or stupid. I said you were making a strawman because the thing you were arguing against, I too would argue against. It's not the thing that I was arguing at all. Therefore, it's a strawman.

It's your logic. Your exact words, in fact. Again, you said:

If they're mature enough to understand the consequences of their choices, then let them die the way they choose.

Defending the right of someone to choose to die, but denying them the right to be agents of their own death is profoundly contradictory.

I wasn't arguing about people having the "unassailable right to choose the time and manner of their death." I said people have a right to choose what medical procedures are done to them.

Again: whether one is an active or passive participant in their own death is irrelevant to the principle of bodily autonomy that is the entire basis of your argument.

Your and many other people are arguing that children are incapable of deciding for themselves and parents don't actually have a choice in the matter.

I'm not arguing it: I'm stating it as a fact of law and custom.

Parents who make the "wrong" choice are to have their children taken from them and the state is to impose medical procedures on that child against the child and family's will (in this case anyway). It explicitly states that the government must force medical treatments on people. I know you're a smart person and know exactly what that has meant throughout our history. I'm sure you also know those procedures stemmed from progressive values that were meant to make society better and to "help" people.

Yes forcing a child to undergo lifesaving treatment is the same as forced sterilization and institutionalization.

It's difficult to understand why you keep boiling down my argument into something so overly simplistic as this. I said it must be taken on a case-by-case basis and hinge on the child's ability to fully comprehend the situation and the ramifications. It depends on the child's maturity. Never once did I say anything about "children" so generally as you're saying it here.

OK, then you should probably be against blanket age-based restrictions on operating motor vehicles, drinking, engaging in sexual activity, voting and the like. Each should come down to a case-by-case assessment of the individual child's maturity.

Edited January 30, 2015 by Black Dog

Mighty AC · January 30, 2015

It's not a decision I would make, but it's a rational one and one that was not up to me to decide. I don't want anyone else deciding for me what medical treatments I MUST undergo. I especially don't want the government deciding what kind of medical treatments I must undergo.

Are you consistently libertarian on medical choices then? Should parents be able to prevent their child from receiving a blood transfusion because of their religious beliefs? Is an exorcism a viable option? If it results in death, as surgeries and medical procedures often do, should there be any repercussions?

I'm not trying to insinuate a support for woo on your part. I know that doctors avoid chemo more than the general population. I'm just interested in the conversation about where to draw the line.

cybercoma · January 30, 2015

Children aren't capable of fully understanding the situation. That's the point. That's why we make legal distinctions between "children" and "adults."

Or the arbitrary age of 16, which has no foundation in psychology or anything. Meanwhile the age to vote or serve in the military is 18. You can drive at 16, but only with major restrictions these days. You could get your full license before. You get to operate farming equipment at 12 years old in most provinces though. Same with snowmobiles and ATVs.

The age is arbitrary. Children don't mature at the same pace. Children are also people, which means they have varying degrees of intelligence and understanding.

You're still completely dismissing how I've been saying it needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis.

There's very good reasons adults should not be allowed to make these kinds of decisions for their children. For example: if the decision would result in injury or death for the child. That's why we have child welfare laws: to protect the vulnerable individuals from bad decisions by adults.

Sports can cause injury or death of the child too. We don't take custody of kids who're enrolled in hockey or football.

What if you had a good reason? Like, say, the child was horribly disabled and wouldn't be able to live a normal life? Seems rational to me.

And you continue to ignore the difference between euthanizing someone and refusing medical treatment. They're different things.

Black Dog · January 30, 2015

I don't think it's so clear cut. The legal definition of a child is overly arbitrary. While it works fine for general things in society to make an arbitrary cutoff at 18 for things like contracts, when it comes to situations of higher import, it is not unreasonable to look at things on a case by case basis. No special magic happens when someone turns one day older and becomes 18. If someone that is 18 is allowed this right, what is the scientific basis for denying it to someone that is 17 years and 364 days old? It is a social distinction, not a scientific one. In cases where a life is at stake and the resources are available to consider the situation individually, we should not go by arbitrary social conventions but by the details of the case.

Let's say that's true. The fact this kid was 11 (not 17 and 364 days), combined with the obvious influence of her parents' crackpot beliefs had on an impressionable child seem like significant details to me.

cybercoma · January 30, 2015

I'm making the assumption you're an adult though. A child shouldn't be afforded those rights because they can be convinced a MT in Florida could provide comparable treatment or that Jesus will make her alright.

What about adults who can be convinced of that? What about adults who are convinced of pseudoscientific treatments every single day? What about those who get their advice from Facebook and Dr. Oz? Why don't we take away medical decisions from people entirely and just allow doctors to do whatever they want?