Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Globe editorial

A child can't weigh life and death

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 6:16 PM EDT 14/05/08

Adult would have right to choose natural remedies over chemotherapy, but children dying of cancer do not, and should not, have right to reject potentially life-saving medical care ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: Any parent choosing "natural remedies" for their child when he has a disease as serious as cancer is unfit for parenthood. Simple as that. Fine, go visit the herbologist or the naturopathic sorcerer when the kid has a cold. But for krissakes, when he's got cancer, let the experts treat him.
  2. J Hare from Saskatoon, Canada writes: This all leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. I understand the logic of the argument but it is a bitter pill to encrouch on free choice in this matter.

    James Hare
  3. raine turner from Canada writes: I understand the pain this child is going through- the will to live has to be strong as the work to get better is hard and harrowing. What this child needs is positive role models to stand beside him,give him strength, honour and the knowledge that his life is indeed worth living for. Life is not always easy, some start off with more 'trials' than others- but it is these 'trials' that shape and form the person. This little boy needs to know that folks are backing him, giving him peace and security while he goes through this so he can live, grow strong and then offer the world his wisdom and strength as he grows older. I do not want to sound frivolous - but each life does have a meaning- and when you start off with challenges as a child life can indeed seem not worth living or fighting for- but life is a learning experience- and the life lessons we learn should have the opportunity to take us into adulthood where we can share them. This child's father also seems to of had a tough time- he needs strength and support to help him get through 'one more trial' so he can find support and guidance to help him through -yet one more life struggle. My blessings and positive energy go to this boy and his family- may they all find the strength and resources to fight this battle and come out of the other end of the dark tunnel- stronger, wiser and more full of love and compassion. My grandfather used to tell me "fruit grows in the valleys', (you have to go the 'valleys' in life to gather that which you need to learn and then thrive). Blessings
  4. Shawn Bull from Canada writes: This group took away this families right to choose whatever medical procedure they choose. The CAS stepped way over the line to force this family to do something they clearly did not want done.

    A poster said, "Any parent choosing "natural remedies" for their child when he has a disease as serious as cancer is unfit for parenthood", which I find to be a pathetic comment. Nobody knows this family, their situation or the remedies they seek.

    All I know is this family is living with a terrible situation made worse by a very bad decision to take this child away from the people he needs to close to most.

    The CAS and court failed this family with this poor decision.
  5. Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: Sorry Shaun, but denying a child life-saving treatment is child abuse, if not reckless endangerment. Play games with your own life. When your kid is sick, do what's best for him. You may have the choice between 3 or 4 legitmate treatment options, and that is fine. But choosing faith-healing or herbs and spices from the local quack just ain't on, not when you're dealing with your child's life.
  6. Shawn Bull from Canada writes: Alistair McLaughlin: I understand what you are saying. I have four kids of my own and would never want to face what this family is facing. I would do whatever it takes.

    However, we do not know this families full story. I know the child lost his hair and was vomiting frequently. He also lost continuity and could not get out of bed most days. I also understand that the child suffers from fetal-alchol syndrome that may complicate the matter.

    Maybe not the strongest of retorts but I guess that shows the difficulty and sensitivity of this situation.
  7. Danny Haszard from Bangor Maine, United States writes: Jehovah's Witnesses transfusion confusion

    Simple fact-The Bible does not prohibit Blood transfusions.If you are bleeding to death it is more dangerous to refuse a blood transfusions than to take one.
    Bloodless surgeries are great if they can be elective.1/3rd of all trauma deaths are from blood loss.

    The Watchtower society (Jehovah's Witnesses) promotes and praises bloodless elective surgeries,this is a great advancement indeed.BUT it's no good to me if I am bleeding to death from a car crash and lose half my blood volume and need EMERGENCY blood transfusion.

    http://www.towertotruth.net/Articles/blood_transfusions.htm Will you die for a lie?
  8. Luke R from Toronto, Canada writes: Once again Shawn Bull takes the stupidest comment award. Parents should not have the right to choose everything for their children. Sometimes the state has to step in to correct a bad decision made on behalf of a child.
  9. Shawn Bull from Canada writes: Luke R from Toronto, Canada writes: Once again Shawn Bull takes the stupidest comment award. Parents should not have the right to choose everything for their children.
    -----------------------
    You don't have children do you Luke?

    Let's recap that statement in bold so no poster will miss that:

    "PARENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE EVERYTHING FOR THEIR CHILDREN".

    This from the person who says my comment was stupid.
  10. B H from Toronto, Canada writes: I don't get much of a sense that this parent actually believes the natural remedies will extend the child's life much. It seems more that he believes the suffering caused by the cancer treatment is just too severe to be humane, and doesn't really have faith it could do much more than slightly extend the boy's life anyway (the first time around they went with the chemo, and it sounds like it got him 3 years of torture for one year of really living - this cancer may have a high cure rate overall, but I think the stats plummet once it comes back a second time). I very much get the 'slippery slope' argument of giving the parents the right to allow the child to make this choice, and it is one of the things that keeps me from totally agreeing with them. But it seems wrong somehow that if it was, e.g., a dog people would probably readily agree that medical treatment might conceivably be unjustifiably cruel and inhumane, and would support bringing them home to play and enjoy the rest of their life. I have read about the side effects of these treatments and if anything I'd feel much less inclined to accept inflicting them on a child than on an adult, and less likely to accept it the younger the child - why is the default to say that all treatments, no matter how horrendous the suffering they cause, can and even MUST be done? Are there no things that we can agree are just too horrendous to inflict on another human being, least of all a child, for any reason?
  11. Gail C from Toronto, Canada writes: Here is a family of Mik'maq ancestry, with the spiritual resources of this ancient culture, who wish to turn to naturopathic remedies after four years of painful chemotherapy treatments have failed to arrest their child's leukemia. Opposing them is an all-powerful medical monopoly, relying on drugs and surgery, backed by the coercive power of the state, who have taken their child away from them to subject him to more painful and possibly futile treatments. Truly a tragic story.

    My thoughts and prayers are with this family. I hope they will be successful in having their child returned to them, so he can be surrounded by the love needed to heal him.
  12. Marian Olson from Canada writes: Sorry to contradict your editorial writer, but unfortunately Canada is one democracy that rarely hesitates to interfere in the personal lives of its citizens. The nanny state rules! Wish they were, indeed, loath to interfere! That said, if the decision to enforce treatment is a requirement of the legislation, perhaps a review is in order. Except that with the short attention span of just about everyone this is unlilely to happen. Can an 11 year old appreciate the consequences of refusing treatment - an almost certain death? A 4 year old could not, of course, but this isn't rocket science. Many adults aren't capable of making rational decisions regarding such vital matters, but because of their age we assume competence. I personally don't want the nanny state looking over my shoulder. The chosen treatment, "natural remedies" and diet, is marginally better than nothing, but it does serve a purpose. Too bad we can't leave this family alone.
  13. Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: Gail C, exactly what would Mik'maq "spiritual resources" do for this kid. The doctors still believe they can treat this kid. If you think they're doing this for profit or self-interest, that's a pretty nasty accusation to make.
  14. B L from Canada writes: The patient or his legal guardian has the right to choose whether to accept any type of medical treatment.

    Here are some examples -
    Let's say that a woman becomes pregnant. During the 1st trimester, she develops a serious medical condition that will almost surely kill her unless she has an abortion. Do we force an abortion upon her?

    A Jehovah's Witness believes that he will not be accepted into heaven if he accepts a life-saving organ transplant. Do we force that transplant upon him?

    A devout Muslim believes that pig-flesh is unclean. He refuses a life saving procedure of an artificial heart valve made from cultivated pig cells. Do we force him, too?

    Perhaps the parents should be checked out to ensure that they are of sound mind, or whether there's a history of abuse in the family, but when it comes down to it - this is a free country. We all have the right to obtain - or refuse - medical treatment.

    I doubt very much that any medical ethicists would agree with the author.
  15. Gail C from Toronto, Canada writes: Alistair: There are many ways to treat illness. The allopathic approach, which relies heavily on surgical procedures and the use of drugs, is just one. Homeopathy, which works through strengthening the immune system, is another and is practised widely in Europe. (I've read that the Queen is apparently still treated by her personal homeopathic physician at Buckingham Palace.) Chinese herbal treatments and acupuncture are another. Since time beyond memory, Indigenous peoples have had their own herbal preparations and ceremonies for treating illnesses, and their methods are being explored today by medical researchers and scientists. No one approach necessarily works for all of us.

    I make no "accusations", so do not put words into my mouth. And by the way, are you aware that there are hundred of drugs in the medical pharmacopoeia today originally developed by the Indigenous healers of the Americas?
  16. Michele K from Ottawa, Canada writes: BL - your answers:

    (1) mother's choice - she's a competent adult entitled to make her own decision re: herself AND the fetus which depends upon her body.

    (2) if the Jehovah's Witness is a competent adult, he can deny any treatment he likes.

    (3) if the devout Muslim is a competent adult, he too, can deny any treatment he likes.

    Do you get the point here, BL - we're talking about COMPETENT persons making decisions for themselves, v. a frightened child, perhaps unduly influenced by well-meaning, but mis-informed adults.

    If you want to talk about the real issue here, you should at least understand what it is.
  17. John S from Montreal, Canada writes: B H - to address your question of expected survival after first relapse for acute lymphoblastic leukemia - his relapse-free survival is estimated at between 30-50% depending on the studies you look at (the Children's Oncology Group trial CCG-1952, and the German BFM - 87 trial) . There are a variety of features which may affect this statistic though. This child did have at least 1 year of complete remission, which is a relatively good prognostic feature. The pediatric oncolgists are not unjustified in believing that they can either beat the leukemia back, even permanently, in this case.

    It would be very different if the exepcted outcome was treatment failure in > 90 percent of cases. Then the position of the father would be much more reasonable.
  18. B L from Canada writes: This article fails to mention that WITH chemo - this kid only has a 50/50% chance of recovery.

    Also - while the child has weighed in - it is the responsibility for the parents to make this decision. The child doesn't have the legal right to make this decision. It's up to the parents by ALL legal precedents.

    But then, I guess Luke R wouldn't mind if his kids were taken away to government run institutions. They'd probably turn out smarter that way.
  19. Gail C from Toronto, Canada writes: It is my firm belief that no-one understands a child more or is a better judge of what is best for him or her than a competent and loving parent. Remember, this boy has already been subjected to four years of painful chemotherapy, and the illness has returned. Why would the family not look to alternatives? Why is the medical establishment, backed by the state, preventing them from doing so? Why is the family being treated like criminals, as the father has protested?

    This amounts to a human rights issue and any of us, at any time, could be caught up in such a situation.
  20. John S from Montreal, Canada writes: B L - the issue is "What is in the best interests of the child?" (whatever "best" means) and the corolloary question - "Who should decide what is in the best interests of the child when there are conflicting viewpoints?" From a basic point of view "best" respects 1. autonomy - (but in this case the child is assumed to lack full autonomy because of his age, his developmental delay and his behavioural issues) 2. beneficience - doing the most benefit - i.e. prolonging this child's life, keeping him leukemia-free and reducing his symptoms 3. non-maleficence - doing the least harm - do the doctor's believe that with auxilliary treatment that they can minimize the adverse impact chemotherapy may have on him? Do these adverse effects outweigh the expected benefits of the treatment? 4. justice - do we respect the rights of the patient, his father and the values of society and the laws of the state. In this setting the child has a good chance of major benefit (second remission, prolonged survival - possibly long-term) for undergoing the chemotherapy and its side effects. Moreover - our society generally is one which errs on the side of life when there is a judgement to be made. I feel that most medical ethicists would concurr with the court in this setting and mandate the chemotherapy.
  21. Shawn Bull from Canada writes: John S from Montreal, Canada writes: I feel that most medical ethicists would concurr with the court in this setting and mandate the chemotherapy.
    ----------
    The medical ethicists have already weighed on this...and all so far have taken the side of the father. Not one that I have read have taken the side of CAS and the doctor's.
  22. Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: Gail C, we're talking about a boy at risk of dying of leukemia here. While using things like homeopathy and allopathy is generally harmless when you're treating sniffles and rashes and the like, when it comes to deadly diseases, we have no choice but to trust modern science and technology. And no, there are not "hundreds of drugs in the medical pharmacopoeia today originally developed by the Indigenous healers of the Americas." There are a handful. A SMALL handful. Where on earth do you get the "hundreds" figure from? Humans did not even have a proper understanding of molecular science and chemistry until less than 100 years ago. How on earth would they come up with "hundreds" of effective medicines? They had a few medicines which may have worked, based on thousands of years of trial and error. They also had many that were totally ineffective, and based on primitive superstions and legends. I'm not picking on aboriginals here. Europeans have had (and still have) more than their fair share of snake oil salesmen and alchemist sorcerers.
  23. Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: B.L. with chemo, the kid has a 50/50 chance. Without? Zero. Therefore, refusing treatment is guaranteeing his death. If we can force parents to buckle up their kids in car seats, we can surely force them to accept live-saving treatment for their kids.
  24. John S from Montreal, Canada writes: Shawn Bulll

    But in fulfilling our obligations as a society to protect this child, we should err on the side of giving him the best chance at life. - Margaret Somerville, Medical Ethicist, On the G&M Website today.

    The point is, and again Dr. Somerville and others make this, is that these decisions are not taken lightly at all. They are very difficult, and I agree that this case is near the tipping point for risk/benefit.

    Consider though that the parent's right to refuse treatment is not absolute. Consider a child with diabetes who needs insulin, without it the child will die. Let us further suppose the child cries when receiving injections, indicating distress. The parents of the child cannot refuse to provide insulin on the grounds that it causes distress to the child. This would be clearly neglect of the child's best interests. I am NOT equating chemo with insulin here, but I am bringing this example to show that yes, sometimes the decisions of the parents are in conflict with the obligations of society to protect the child, and society must take precidence.
  25. B L from Canada writes: Michele K - I never said that the child is a competent adult. And as I said above - it the PARENTS are competent adults, then the medical decisions that they make for their child should be respected.

    Insert "the child of" into the examples that I made. Are you going to tell a parent that his child is now damned to eternal hell or is spiritually unclean?

    As a competent adult who has survived chemotherapy for a year, if I was facing my fourth year of chemo treatments with only a 30-50% chance of survival - I'd pick LIVING for one year instead of spending another 2 years slowly dying.
  26. Shawn Bull from Canada writes: John S from Montreal: You make very good points and this is a very sensitive issue. This may actually be an instance where there isn't a right or wrong answer. This is a real tough one.

    I think you and I do share the hopes that this boy becomes well with as little pain and discomffort as possible.
  27. Luke R from Toronto, Canada writes: Shawn Bull from Canada writes: Luke R from Toronto, Canada writes: Once again Shawn Bull takes the stupidest comment award. Parents should not have the right to choose everything for their children.
    -----------------------
    You don't have children do you Luke?

    Let's recap that statement in bold so no poster will miss that:

    "PARENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE EVERYTHING FOR THEIR CHILDREN".

    This from the person who says my comment was stupid.
    ********
    Nope! My comment still stands. Parents should not have to right to choose everything for their children. Just because you are a parent of the child doesn't give you the right to make decisions that are harmful towards them. Children are not your property and sometimes the state has to step in to protect them from the stupidity of their parents.
  28. B L from Canada writes: I agree with Shawn Bull.
  29. John S from Canada writes: B L - assuming this is a full on marrow relapse this child would likely die in a matter of weeks without treatment, not one year. And if he is in the "lucky" 50% whom respond well to treatment he could live seven years or many more (the studies I cited earlier stopped following patients around seven years of followup). I would also like to point out that although children's chemo protocols for ALL do go on for a while, most of them include a long phase (18 months or more) of relatively low-intensity chemotherapy called maintenance which is generally well tolerated with few side effects. It is usually the earlier phases (induction and intensification ) that cause the most problems. Although none of us on this board have all the facts, it is unlikely that the child has had years of painful side effects.
  30. Gail C from Toronto, Canada writes: Alistair: Regarding Native medicines, I suggest you read "American Indian Contributions to the World: 15,000 Years of Inventions and Innovations" by Emory Dean Keoke. Also "Indian Givers: How the Indians of the Americas Transformed the Word" as well as "Native Roots: How the Indians Enriched America", both by Jack Weatherford and available from Amazon or, if you're lucky, from your local library. There are scores of other scholarly works on the subject.

    For more about the medical monopoly over our healthcare, try "Murder by Injection: The Story of the Medical Conspiracy Against America", by Eustace Mullins, as well as books by Dr. Robert S. Mendelsohn, one of the few doctors who has dared to speak out against the medical establishment. While these authors take extreme positions, in my view, and I don't agree with them, we must surely accept that science and technology have not cured cancer despite the billions we have poured into drugs and research. To the contrary, are cancer rates not skyrocketing? Shouldn't we be looking at other approaches? And why can this beleaguered family not do so? What concerns me here is the COERCION.
  31. Gail C from Toronto, Canada writes: Luke R maintains that children are not the property of the parents. I counter that children are not the property of the state and can only be removed from the parents if the children are suffering from abuse or neglect. I would say further that a mother's right to her child is absolute and that the child can only be taken from the mother under the most extreme circumstances.

    Whatever the country, the state has the most appalling record of safeguarding the children under its care.
  32. Shawn Bull from Canada writes: Luke R from Toronto: You have a very scary viewpoint in regards to children, family and where the state enters the picture.

    Luke, this will change when you have children. When you have a child it makes you realize what is important and where your priorities lie. I can say with one thousand percent certainty that your views in regards to family and state will change the second you see your child born.
  33. Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: Gail C, no. Cancer rates are not skyrocketing. And I never said western medicine had all the answers. It never will. But most of the snake oil that was believed to offer benefits in the past was even worse. I wouldn't let a faith healer or an alchemist within 100 feet of me if I were sick. I'd hate to think that some sick kid might die because his parents turned their back on modern medicine in favour of "local customs and traditional therapies." I doubt very much the Miq'maks even had a name for leukemia, let alone a treatment. And I mean no disrespect to the Miq'maks. It is doubtful ANYONE knew what leukemia was until about 150 years ago. American doctors were mistaking leukemia for chronic rheumatic fever until the the late 19th Century.
  34. Lori R from KITCHENER, Canada writes: Read the companion article to this piece:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Some parents want all possible treatments, including experimental ones, for their dying child. I have had extremely distressed nurses contact me about such cases, describing the treatment as "torturing the child." It is extremely difficult to accept that there is nothing that we can do to prevent a child dying. This can cause us to lose a proper perspective on the suffering/benefit ratio of the treatment given to the child - or even of that we choose not to give.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Like the case in Winnipeg where a family demanded life saving treatment when doctors pronounced a case hopeless, it seems to me that the gov't should judge carefully. Accepting death, accepting pain to live longer, all are valid choices (no matter how distasteful they may feel to those who disagree). As long as the parents are competent enough to understand the decisions they make, let them make it.
  35. Gail C from Toronto, Canada writes: Alistair: I think all treatments have value. It depends on what you believe, as proven by the "placebo effect". I also think religious faith or spirituality is an important part of any cure. In fact, it has been proven, scientifically, to be so. I'll leave the final word on this to Benjamin Franklin: "God heals and the doctor takes the fee."

    My prayers are with this family.
  36. B L from Canada writes: John S - Thank you for your enlightening comments. I hope that the father understands that as well. This is a decision that I wouldn't wish on any parent.

    That being said - I still believe that it is the parents right to refuse treatment on behalf of their child.
  37. B H from Toronto, Canada writes: "It would be very different if the exepcted outcome was treatment failure in > 90 percent of cases. Then the position of the father would be much more reasonable."

    Who gets to decide what is the cutoff, though? And also who gets to decide how much pain is too much, or what amount of possible future success it takes to justify what amount of present suffering? It just seems disturbing that if I have a dog who has a fatal disease that can only be treated by some incredibly torturous and long course of constant pain and suffering, many people (including myself) can imagine a treatment that we would say it was inhumane to go through with and that I was just being selfishly unable to let go, even if the chance of a complete CURE was >90%... I don't know if this particular boy's treatment is so bad or long as that, perhaps not, but I can at least in theory imagine things that it would be wrong to inflict on another person no matter what the benefit... A competent adult can understand what the pain is for and think forward to the possibility of freedom from future pain, and can make the choice to go out of their way to inflict the pain and misery on themselves (that they would not have by default, if they simply went on with their short lives) in full understanding of the possible future benefits of increased lifespan, and sustain themselves on that hope. It just seems like we never discuss the idea that basic 'well-being' is just about the most fundamental 'best interest' of all. It seems troubling that we sometimes don't seem to think ANYTHING is too much to do to someone 'for their own good'.
  38. John S from Montreal, Canada writes: B H asks what is the cutoff of the risk/benefit profile? This is a very good question, and one I wrestle with on a regular basis. This is where medicine goes beyond statistics and into being "art," and it is why the individual beliefs and motivations of the patient are central to the decision making process in the vast majority of cases.

    It is a really really tough call. And clearly the father and children's aid and docs differred in opinion about whether the child is capable of making this kind of decision. And in the long (really long) run this is why I am glad that the courts are there - to help arbitrate and adjudicate when there can be no consensus of opinion between two groups who really want what is best for this unfortunate child.
  39. colombina l from Canada writes: Alistair McLaughlin - just a point about medicine - the evolution of the species was also by "trial and error". Actually I believe that's a very valid method for finding cures for things, since it will tell you exactly what side effects a medicine has and whether it is effective. A lot of the scientific methods for researching drugs these days that are not empirical have blind spots that sometimes do not show up in the clinical trials, that's why you have so many drugs being pulled off the market all the time... in other words, don't dis the witch doctor.
  40. bj sutherland from Victoria, Canada writes: This case is really troubling. I have real qualms about the state being able to overrule parents' decisions on the welfare of their children if they are competent and non-abusive adults. It's the parents who have to see the day-to-day suffering of the child with likely few resourses when he or she is totally disabled from the treatment/sickness. If the child was in a coma and the outlook of improvement was the same percentage as this child's survival, wouldn't the parents be able to decide whether to discontinue life-support?
    It's also evident that Western medicine does not have all the answers. Alternative treatments and thousands of years of other medical traditions need to be given recognition and respect.
  41. Don Jenkins from Canada writes: Chemo doesn't work for all people, and there is some question as to its efficacy in MOST cancers. For instance, it was proven years ago that chemo does not help breast cancer, but it's still the main course of treatment prescribed.

    ALL Canadians should have the right to choose for themselves and their family their course of treatment. How DARE this over-pharmaceuticalized present we live in deem their superiority over everyone! Remember when amputation was the "best" course. Remember when headaches were "treated" by doctors by boring a hole in the head and letting the evil spirits drain out.

    It's both ignorant AND arrogant to posit that we cannot choose how to live our lives. It's ignorant AND arrogant for the writer of this article to suggest an 11-yr-old who has literally shaken hands with death is less understanding of his own situation than the writer.

    Oh, we just LOVE to control everyone lately, don't we? Keep going guys, this country gets "freer" every day. Free from logic, free from compassion, free from freedom, free from responsibility, free from truth, free from humanity.
  42. Michele K from Ottawa, Canada writes: "It's the parents who have to see the day-to-day suffering of the child with likely few resourses when he or she is totally disabled from the treatment/sickness."

    With all due respect BJ Sutherland, there is no issue of lack of resources here, and please don't take this the wrong way, but this is NOT about the parents' suffering.

    Medical evidence supports chemotherapy for this poor child; that the parents must watch him go through it is simply not relevant.
  43. Fake Name from Canada writes: " B L from Canada writes: Here are some examples -
    Let's say that a woman becomes pregnant. During the 1st trimester, she develops a serious medical condition that will almost surely kill her unless she has an abortion. Do we force an abortion upon her?"

    False analogy, because as an adult, she's competent to choose for herself. The child in this case is not yet competent to do so, and the parents would rather rely on quackery than science (i.e. this choice proves they are not competent either ... but then if the above post that the child also suffers from fetal alcohol effects is correct, incompetent parenting shouldn't surprise us). They're free to kill themselves with their own stupidity if it ever comes to that, but ending their child's life because they have faith that nuts and berries will do better than drugs is not acceptable.

    And for Gail C, about her apparent trust for herbal remedies - a quote from David Colquhoun that I particularly like on this topic is "If alternative medicines actually worked, they wouldn't be called 'alternative' anymore".
  44. Ryan Stephens from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Parents do not have an absolute right to control their children's lives. You can't murder your kids, you can't sell them, you can't rape them. You also can't neglect them - if you can't be bothered to clothe or feed them they can and should be taken away. Denying a child life-saving medical treatment when they have cancer is as bad as denying them life-saving food when they are hungry.

    Kids deserve a fair chance. In this case, the odds are about 50/50. That's bad, but it's better than nothing, which is what "natural remedies" would give you. Evil corporations may make a lot of money from their drugs but they work, and we have the life expectancy to show for it. We've had herbal remedies and prayers since we invented the wheel, but it wasn't until modern medicine took off that we started routinely making it to adulthood without getting picked off by smallpox, diphtheria, typhoid, etc.

    Competent adults can make calls like this for themselves. He doesn't appear to be competent enough to toss his life away yet. They have either been colossally incompetent in trying to do it for him, or got suckered in by a charlatan promising magic cure-alls. I'm not really sure which is worse.
  45. Stand up for Social Justice The Canadian Way from Canada writes: If the emotional well being of the child is the important issue, I feel the the Drs and the CAS have failed miserably on this issue. The child is sick and hurting and the answer is to take the child away from his family, create a disgusting scene, supposedly for the benefit of the child and then try to place blame on the family and create a bias toward the family. While I do not wish to walk in their shoes, I feel that this is a tremedous weight on all their shoulders. Who is to say that the state always has the best interests of the child????
  46. brokeback mountain from Canada writes: chemo killed my mother, the parents did the right thing... chemo is a scam..keeping drug companies rich and doctors employed
  47. Bobby Dy from Canada writes: Gail C, the studies that I am aware of showed, unfortunately, that prayer has zero effect on cures. There may be anecdotal evidence but the empirical evidence is to the contrary.

    If you want to look for conspiracies, don't direct your attention to pharmaceutical companies (I have issues with Big Pharma but...). Look to the alternative health field. There is no greater rip-off than what people are being charged for alternative health remedies. Big Pharma, at least, has an extensive research component that must be supported by the 1% of drugs that make it into the clinic. Alternative health providers don't have that overhead to justify charging big dollars for pennies worth of herbs that, for the most part, don't work effectively or mix poisons with cures (thus the reason to purify drugs before taking them).

    A big problem with leaving these decisions in the hands of the parents is that parents are often not qualified to make an informed decision. They rely upon anecdotes (good news stories about individual cases) and anecdotes often fall apart upon empirical testing.

    Most drugs are derived from natural sources so there is no inherent bias against this type of therapy in the medical establishment. Where there is bias is that something be shown empirically before it is accepted as a safe and effective therapy. This is because the story of individual patients is of no relevance to the treatment of populations of patients.

    Here's a good example, there are drugs that are metabolized through the P450 family of liver enzymes. St. John's wort induces these enzymes and reduces the effectiveness of these therapies by increasing the rate of clearance in the body. Failing to advise a physician that you are taking something like St. John's wort increases the risk that your therapy will fail. Unfortunately, even under the best circumstances, we still understand too little about the basic biology of cancer to cure it consistently.
  48. brokeback mountain from Canada writes: "Big Pharma, at least, has an extensive research component that must be supported by the 1% of drugs that make it into the clinic. Alternative health providers don't have that overhead to justify charging big dollars for pennies worth of herbs that, for the most part, don't work effectively or mix poisons with cures (thus the reason to purify drugs before taking them). "

    Really? maybe you should read some books on Chinese Medicine.. at times, even my family doctor could not deal with the sickness and told her to see a doctor who practices chinese medicine.. that's what UBC medical school is offering now.

    Chemo is nothing but poison being injected into the body
  49. Bobby Dy from Canada writes: brokeback mountain, "chemo is nothing but poison". That depends on the chemotherapy being offered. Traditional chemotherapy works on the principle of differential sensitivity. That is, the cancer cells are more sensitive to toxins than normal cells. Effectively that is chemotherapy. As for the legitimacy of traditional Chinese medicine, the topic is far too complex to discuss with limited space. Traditional medicines are the source of many modern medicines (e.g., ASA). Traditional medicines with validity are the sources for purifying drugs. The benefit of purification is, as I said, to remove the poisons that plants typically contain in order to preserve their species. Nonetheless, I think that it is interesting that the Chinese doctor that I know, whom is trained in both traditional Chinese medicine and Western medicine, refuses to administer traditional Chinese medicine because she doesn't believe that it has any legitimacy.
  50. Bobby Dy from Canada writes: Brokeback Mountain, the Boucher Institute has no apparent association with the Faculty of Medicine.
  51. Western Canadian from west of Winnipeg, Canada writes: Religious faith or spirituality is NOT important part of any cancer cure. Such study has been recently reported in medical journal .There is no difference in cure rates if you are spiritual person or not religious or not. So agnostics with the diagnosis of cancer should breathe easier these days.
    Cancer rates are not skyrocketing. Some cancer rates are decreasing ,some are stable and some increasing but not at at very dramatic rates.
    As the population ages death rates increase. We all have to die.It will be stroke,heart attack or cancer or complications of these.There is no escape.
    I find it hard to see kids dying from uncurable conditions and have them taken away from their parents but we will never have cure for every illness which aflicts us.
  52. Doris Wrench Eisler from St. Albert. AB, Canada writes: With all respect, how can this case be compared with Jehovah's Witnesses'
    prohibition against blood transfusions? Do these transfusions cause pain, acute and ongoing nausea? I know of adults who chose death over further treatments so debilitating as they were. This child already underwent an extensive round of treatments and was not permanently cured. further treatments in his weakened state are not likely to be successful. What a crime it would be if he were to die suddenly away from his family.
    I'll be more impressed with doctors' and CAS' opinions on the subject when, the next time 500,000 children die in a foreign country because of stupid sanctions, they rise up in arms, march in the streets, take out ads, etc.
  53. Ryan Stephens from Winnipeg, Canada writes: I see that technology has now elevated anyone with a functioning Internet connection to the status of expert on medicine, oncology and every pharmaceutical on the face of the Earth.

    Without chemo the kid is going to die, and we should not indulge an eleven-year-old with a death wish.
  54. Will Hoaccio from Toronto, Canada writes: For the love of god, this is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of. There is nothing noble condemning you're child for some pseudo scientific crap, it is nearly criminal. I get that a lot of people are religous, and that's fine. If these parents wanted to do 1000 hail marries or fold paper cranes to cure their cancer, all power to them. All I can say to that is Darwin in action.

    This isn't a religious statement, it is murder. Denying you're child the only possible medical treatment to a terminal illness is to condemn him to death. I don't care what the parents believe. I wouldn't support them praying for aliens to help their kid (at the expense of real treatment) and i don't support them praying to a hypothetical god in absence of treatment.

    God didn't give this kid cancer, a bunch of defective cells gave him cancer.
  55. Nick Beerman from Calgary, Canada writes: I'm not sure what the right answer is except to say that I have met some children that are far wiser than some people I have met who had degrees and certainly wiser than many of those in our governing legislatures. I do think that they, children, are entitled to be at least part of the process when making decissions about their own life and death. Since when does being a child equal being stupid.
  56. Nick Beerman from Calgary, Canada writes: I would add that, in my opinion, I would not allow any minister or priest to have any say what-so-ever in a life and death matter. I would leave it to the parents and child to work out on their own.
  57. Megan Ratcliffe from Toronto, Canada writes: The bottom line is, an 11 year old child, especially one that also has Fetal Alcohol Effects/syndrom, does NOT have the capability to decide what is best for them. Children that age are not mature enough to make this type of decision, nor should they have to. That's why they have parents!. In this case the state has made the parents decision for them but in my opinion not enforcing a possible life saving treatment because your child says no is tantamount to medical neglect. If a child was a diabetic and the parents refused to supply the child with the insulin, once again the state would have to intervene. It is the same continuum, because if left untreated diabetes is fatal, and without chemo this boy will die. He might die with it too but at least he would have a chance.
  58. Aaron Barlow from Victoria, Canada writes: Fake Name from Canada writes: " B L from Canada writes: Here are some examples - Let's say that a woman becomes pregnant. During the 1st trimester, she develops a serious medical condition that will almost surely kill her unless she has an abortion. Do we force an abortion upon her?" False analogy, because as an adult, she's competent to choose for herself. The child in this case is not yet competent to do so, and the parents would rather rely on quackery than science (i.e. this choice proves they are not competent either ... but then if the above post that the child also suffers from fetal alcohol effects is correct, incompetent parenting shouldn't surprise us). === There is nothing false about this analogy, unless you are saying that the ability to procreate magically turns people into adults. It is entirely possible for a girl as young as this boy to become pregnant. For the rest of it, my personal feeling is that all people have an inherent right and possession of their own life, and this implies that we also have an inherent right to extinguish that life at the time of our choosing. There is no reason for the state to *ever* intercede if someone expressly wishes not to choose treatment, even if the person's death is a likely result. And frankly, I don't think the choice here is so particularly clear-cut that even if you are willing to give the state authority over your own life that they should still make this decision. Is 6 months of torture, and then, more likely than not, death really better than 6 relatively painless months, and then almost certainly death thereafter? Does the length of one's life really outweigh the quality of it that much?
  59. J Hare from Saskatoon, Canada writes: I've read most of the posts on the fourm from different people. Its a nettle of a problem since so many factors intervene, parents vs. state, child vs. state, child vs. parents, doctors vs. parents vs. state. Ok, one thing to point out is FAS kids do have a much higher pain threshold then most children so if the treatment is hurts him to this extent, its really bad but they do also have diminished capacity for clear, clean thinking. Ontario is a weird place. Grew up there (21 years) and after moving to different places I must say it is a strange place looking back. The state, gov., people intrude increadably far into each others lives there. It is this intrusion, legaly mandated and socially supported that makes cases like this possible. In other places this may not have happened (I hesitate to say would not) since this type of intrusion is somewhat frowned upon. I guess I need to ask why the feirce desire to "save" life? Is there a life not worth living? Can such a thing be understood? I guess this is a conflict, in the larger sence, between the right to choose even if this means death, and well, I'm not sure what the other side is here. The need of others that you live? The need of others that you not choose contrary to their desires? The affirmation of life? As a said this is a nettle of a ploblem to be touched gingerly. James Hare
  60. Tony Mareschealle from mississauga, Canada writes: The ironic thing is that if the parents had denied him the treatment on the basis of religious freedom - as the Jehovah Witness' do, they would probably have been ok.

    What a lot of double standards exist - not that I agree with the position taken by the parents.
  61. Jump Much? from Toronto, Canada writes: Mr. Mareschealle, you seem to have forgotten forgotten that Canadian courts have consistently forced children who are Jehovah's witnesses to undergo blood transfusions against their (and their parents') religious objections. I don't see that there's a double standard at play here.

    In my mind, the court's doing the right thing. If an adult wants to refuse treatment, fine. If an eleven-year-old does, that's an entirely different story -- especially here, where the eleven-year-old in question is said to have a mental age of 8. I was forced into doing a lot of things I didn't like (school, figure skating, joining a softball team, etc.) when I was eight and I am, in retrospect, glad. Clearly, those sorts of things are not at all comparable to chemo, but I think the same principle applies -- an eight year old (or an eleven-year-old) is often just concerned with the immediate future and can't fully grasp the long-term effects of choosing a particular course of action.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.