Ontario girl can rely on traditional medicine to treat cancer, court rules

This is a very uncomfortable ruling. So the rights of the parents and their belief in aboriginal healing outweigh the rights of the child to have a future:

Hospital president Dr. Peter Fitzgerald says there are no plans to appeal the ruling at this time.

“My main concern is for this child’s life,” he said. “Without treatment this child has no chance of survival. We really want to keep our doors open to the family and reach out as much as possible.”

The judge sided with McMaster on all other issues. He ruled the girl was not capable of making her own medical decisions. He affirmed that a court is the place to decide these cases, not Ontario’s Consent and Capacity Board. He agrees she requires medical treatment that her “caring loving” parent is not providing.

The hospital told court that before she withdrew from treatment in August, the girl had a 90 to 95 per cent chance of being cured by chemotherapy done in phases. However, in the end, it came down to Edward’s conclusion that the mother’s choice to pursue traditional medicine “is her aboriginal right.”

“This is not an eleventh hour epiphany employed to take her daughter out of the rigours of chemotherapy,” the judge wrote in his decision. “Rather it is a decision made by a mother, on behalf of a daughter she truly loves, steeped in a practice that has been rooted in their culture from its beginnings.”

“It is this Court’s conclusion therefore, that the mother’s decision to pursue traditional medicine for her daughter is her aboriginal right. Further, such a right cannot be qualified as a right only if it is proven to work by employing the western medical paradigm. To do so would be to leave open the opportunity to perpetually erode aboriginal rights.”

Noteworthy that the other aboriginal child in a similar situation, Makayla Sault, has relapsed, given her parents’ choice for alternative therapy.

Sad.

Ontario girl can rely on traditional medicine to treat cancer, court rules | Toronto Star.

Commentary by Arthur Schafer on the medical ethics involved:

Respect for the autonomy of children is important, especially when, as in cases involving chemotherapy, the proposed treatment is highly aggressive and distressing. These days, even quite young children are encouraged to participate. That’s good medicine as well as good ethics.

The question that should always be asked is whether this particular child is competent to make the difficult medical decisions on which the child’s life may depend. If a child appears to be dominated by the scientifically eccentric beliefs of her parents, then it may be the duty of a judge to rule that the child requires protection.

If the odds of survival were reversed, if chemo treatment had only a five to 10 per cent (instead of a 90 to 95 per cent) likelihood of saving the child’s life, then it would be reasonable for the family to make its own decision, without interference from doctors or courts. But when the scientific evidence strongly favours treatment then, whatever the family’s culture or religion, courts generally see it as necessary to override family autonomy in favour of child protection.

Canadian society has an ugly record of riding roughshod over the wishes of First Nations families. We should never forget the shameful legacy of the residential schools. Respect for First Nations cultural values is undeniably important.

When the crunch comes, however, and the life of a child hangs in the balance, then even if the parents and child favour traditional healing or alternative medicine our courts should take the child’s best interest as the deciding criterion. In this case, that didn’t happen.

First Nations children not well served by chemotherapy ruling: Arthur Schafer