1 2 3
bearmtnmartin
bearmtnmartin Dork
11/14/14 2:24 p.m.

It's kind of long but ultimately the judge ruled that they can treat their little girls cancer with traditional medicine. Poor little girl.

Judge rejects application to take aboriginal girl from family for chemo

An Ontario judge has dismissed an application to take an aboriginal girl from her family for chemotherapy.

The judge was deciding whether the Children’s Aid Society should intervene in the case of an aboriginal girl whose family removed her from chemotherapy at a Hamilton hospital in favour of traditional medicine. The girl has been undergoing treatment for leukemia in Florida.

Judge Gethin Edward has presided over the complicated and potentially precedent-setting Brantford, Ont., court case since it began on Sept. 25.

McMaster wants aboriginal child taken from family for chemotherapy First Nations girl's family rejects chemo McMaster Hospital defends court action to treat aboriginal girl “I cannot find that J.J. is a child in need of protection when her substitute decision-maker has chosen to exercise her constitutionally protected right to pursue their traditional medicine over the Applicant's stated course of treatment of chemotherapy," Edward said, as he read his ruling aloud.

Edward, citing the testimony of two McMaster Children’s Hospital doctors, agreed the child wasn't capable of making her own medical decisions. But he found it was the mother’s aboriginal rights — which he called “integral” to the family’s way of life — allow her to choose traditional medicine for her daughter.

"In applying the foregoing reasons to the Applicant's section 40(4) application, I cannot find that J.J. is a child in need of protection when her substitute decision-maker has chosen to exercise her constitutionally protected right to pursue their traditional medicine over the Applicant's stated course of treatment of chemotherapy."

"The application is dismissed. This is not an appropriate case to consider cost."

"I wish to thank all counsel for their efforts in this very difficult case."

— Judge Gethin Edward

Hamilton Health Sciences doctors asked for the Children’s Aid Society to separate the girl from her family so she could resume chemotherapy. The girl’s doctors said she has a 90-95 per cent chance of survival on chemotherapy, but that they didn’t know of anyone who had survived Acute Lyphoblastic Leukemia (ALL) without the treatment.

Neither the girl nor her mother can be identified due to a publication ban.

The decision was met with applause from many in the courtroom, including members of the girl’s family.

“It is dismissed. It is dismissed … aboriginal rights are upheld,” said a family friend, in tears, as she called the girl’s mother from inside the courtroom.

The girl’s mother was expected to make a statement on Saturday.

Outside the court, Six Nations Chief Ava Hill and New Credit First Nations Chief Bryan Laforme welcomed the ruling, saying it has broader effects across Canada.

'This is monumental'

"This not only affects the two young ladies that we were talking about here today in court, but this -- this has broader effects across the country.

“This is monumental,” said Laforme. “It reaffirms our right to be Indian and to practise our medicines in the traditional way.”

Officials from the Brant County Children’s Aid Society also welcomed Edward’s ruling, saying it prevents the “trauma” of taking the girl away from her family while she was being treated.

Judge Edward reiterated that no one, including the doctors from McMaster Children’s Hospital who have called for legal intervention, has suggested that the girl's mother is negligent.

Brant County CAS director Andrew Koster testified during the proceedings that the case should never have come before his agency. Officials from Hamilton Health Sciences, however, told court they were disappointed the Children's Aid Society hasn’t acted faster to protect the child.

Doctors at McMaster Children’s Hospital, where the girl was being treated, said they were confident they had a very good chance to save the girl with chemotherapy.

Supporters of the aboriginal side in the case that was being heard by Judge Gethin Edward hold up signs outside the Brantford, Ont., court. (John Lesavage/CBC) Choosing treatment

"We know we can save this child’s life. We can’t give up on this child," hospital president Peter Fitzgerald told CBC Hamilton.

Hamilton Health Sciences officials won’t make a comment immediately after Friday’s ruling, a spokeswoman said, but will issue a statement later in the day.

The girl and her family have not been present in court throughout the proceedings. Neither the patient nor her family can be identified because of a publication ban in the court case.

The girl’s mother has defended her decision to seek alternative cancer treatment at the Hippocrates Health Institute in Florida, a centre that focuses on nutrition and naturopathic therapy.

In a letter to CBC News, she wrote, "I will not have my daughter treated with poison .… I have chosen treatment that will not compromise her well-being and quality of life."

Precedent setting

The family paid the institute $18,000 for the treatment. In a video obtained by CBC News, institute director Brian Clement says his institute teaches people to "heal themselves" from cancer by eating raw, organic vegetables and having a positive attitude.

"We've had more people reverse cancer than any institute in the history of health care," he says.

Nicholas Bala, a professor of family law at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ont., said that regardless of the judge’s decision, this case will be precedent setting.

"It`s going to set a precedent on the rights of parents and also on the question of which piece of legislation governs, the Child and Family Services Act or legislation governing the health capacity and consent board.”

With files from Connie Walker

Share this story

Mobile ServicesContact UsHelp Terms of UsePrivacy Copyright © CBC 2014

foxtrapper
foxtrapper UltimaDork
11/14/14 2:49 p.m.

It's all in how you look at it.

Johnboyjjb
Johnboyjjb Reader
11/14/14 2:53 p.m.

Fantastic. The state doesn't have the right to force a medical treatment contrary to the beliefs of the individual. There are enough oncologists out there who don't believe in chemo being beneficial I don't feel too bad about this one.

Poster child example: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/07/us/weary-of-chemotherapy-teen-ager-with-cancer-runs-away.html

1988RedT2
1988RedT2 PowerDork
11/14/14 3:11 p.m.

It's a sad day when the business of medicine (and let us not forget that it IS a business) can convince government to force patients to use their services against their will--to be butchered, poisoned, and billed an exorbitant amount. It sounds as if the correct decision was made in this case.

Dr. Hess
Dr. Hess MegaDork
11/14/14 3:26 p.m.

There's a lot of treatments where a "good" outcome is the patient dies in 65 days instead of 40 days. Would you go on chemo to maybe get an extra 15 days (on average)? I wouldn't, but I would respect the patient's decision.

Now this case is tough. ALL is treatable. But, it's the patient's choice, really. And this patient can't make her own decisions, so it's her parent's choice. They chose to let her die. Note that a "cure" for her might have given her 10 years, maybe 20, but still not a "normal" 70 more years.

Jehovah's Witnesses won't take blood transfusions/products, even to save their (or their family member's) life. It's their belief/religion. When you have one of them in your ICU, their church puts an embeded member in the room with them, 24/7. They say it's "to pray" or whatever. I personally think it is to make sure no one slips them any blood products. Right? Wrong? They happened to get it right on the AIDS thing. A lot of people were killed by AIDS by getting a transfusion in the hospital. Far as I know, no Jehovah's Witnesses. I've also seen a JH patient that had a hematocrit so low everyone thought she was done for. I mean like a 'crit of 3 (40-ish normal) Embedded "pray-er" to keep an eye on things. She actually got better.

Will
Will SuperDork
11/14/14 5:04 p.m.

Allowing government to make personal medical decisions for me is a power I don't want to give them, and it's a very slippery slope.

RX Reven'
RX Reven' Dork
11/14/14 5:19 p.m.

^ agreed but I’m pretty sure we’re already living in a post slippery slope epoch.

Lof8
Lof8 Reader
11/14/14 5:23 p.m.

Yep, correct decision was made.

oldtin
oldtin UberDork
11/14/14 5:29 p.m.

I see folks making the choice to treat or not treat every day. The interesting ones are the Jehovah Witnesses who want surgery - but no blood products. Outcomes for pediatric ALL can be decent. To Dr. Hess' point perhaps not a super long life, but enough to graduate, find a partner, maybe have a family. It's a patient's right to decide (or the adults in this case). It does suck when the traditional medicine doesn't work, cancer progresses then they decide to head for the hospital for heroic measures (usually too late to make much of a difference in the quantity of life).

OTOH, people get torqued up at the prospect of your government making healthcare choices for you - more likely, your insurance company is making treatment choices for you. You just don't know about it.

bearmtnmartin
bearmtnmartin Dork
11/14/14 5:31 p.m.

If your an adult then fill your boots. No adult should have the power of life or death over a little girl. They are now reportedly sending her to a naturopathic clinic in the US but for most of this battle the parents have wanted her treated by a local native traditional healer.
If I or my family God forbid should be stricken with cancer we will take every advantage of our modern medical system and I won't ever consider they are butchering or poisening me.

I will update the thread upon news of her sad and inevitable death. She is 11 by the way.

Toyman01
Toyman01 MegaDork
11/14/14 5:55 p.m.
bearmtnmartin wrote: No adult should have the power of life or death over a little girl.

But the government should? Not in my world, thanks anyways. The correct decision was made.

Edit: Freedom is worth more than the life of any person, child or adult.

1988RedT2
1988RedT2 PowerDork
11/14/14 6:02 p.m.
Johnboyjjb wrote: Fantastic. The state doesn't have the right to force a medical treatment contrary to the beliefs of the individual. There are enough oncologists out there who don't believe in chemo being beneficial I don't feel too bad about this one. Poster child example: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/07/us/weary-of-chemotherapy-teen-ager-with-cancer-runs-away.html

Thanks for posting that! I learned a little as a result.

http://www.naturalnews.com/026329_daniel_hauser_billy_best.html

Will
Will SuperDork
11/14/14 6:02 p.m.
bearmtnmartin wrote: No adult should have the power of life or death over a little girl.

I fail to see how a government that loves her less than her own parents and will use her for political capital makes better use of that same power.

bearmtnmartin
bearmtnmartin Dork
11/14/14 6:02 p.m.
Toyman01 wrote:
bearmtnmartin wrote: No adult should have the power of life or death over a little girl.
But the government should? Not in my world, thanks anyways. The correct decision was made. Edit: Freedom is worth more than the life of any person, child or adult.

Not in my world. YOUR freedom may be worth that to you and good for you. You have no right to make that decision for another person, and certainly not an 11 year old.

Toyman01
Toyman01 MegaDork
11/14/14 6:48 p.m.

In reply to bearmtnmartin:

Freedom from tyranny is the most precious thing in the world, the life of a 11 year old girl isn't even a distant second.

Trans_Maro
Trans_Maro UberDork
11/14/14 7:39 p.m.

Right.

And I'm sure eating roots and berries instead of chemo and radiation would have given me the extra 20 years I've had from my mom.

Why listen to those doctors with all their fancy learning?

If the kid doesn't make it, will the parents then be charged with failing to provide the necessities of life?

bearmtnmartin
bearmtnmartin Dork
11/14/14 8:52 p.m.

First world medical care is tyranny?

moparman76_69
moparman76_69 SuperDork
11/14/14 9:11 p.m.

In reply to bearmtnmartin:

Do you get a Flu shot every year? Be honest.

Brett_Murphy
Brett_Murphy UberDork
11/14/14 9:36 p.m.

Speaking as a parent who would do almost anything to keep my kids healthy, the correct choice was made. It might seem irrational from the view of an outsider, but that isn't what was on trial here.

Toyman01
Toyman01 MegaDork
11/14/14 10:20 p.m.
bearmtnmartin wrote: First world medical care is tyranny?

First world medical care isn't what was on trial. What was on trial is how much the citizens of your country want the government to be able to run and interfere in their private lives and trample their religious/ethnic beliefs. Less is always better in these cases, even if it costs a girl her life. I may not agree with the parents, but I absolutely agree that this is a decision the parents need to make and the rest of the world needs to mind their own business.

Any time the government wants to take more power from the citizens, my default answer is a loud and emphatic NO.

HiTempguy
HiTempguy UberDork
11/14/14 10:22 p.m.
Datsun1500 wrote:
bearmtnmartin wrote: No adult should have the power of life or death over a little girl.
But the people making the decision for the government are adults. What you're really saying is different adults (not the parents) should hold that power. Why is that better?

No, science should make the decision, and science has. This girl has a 95% likelihood of dieing now. Before, she had a 95% chance of survival.

Interesting as to how this is somehow different than the man who gassed his daughter in a vehicle (she suffered from cerebral palsy or some other horrendous disease, was in constant pain). He was convicted of murder. So one set of parents (under some bullE36 M3 "rights" claim) sentence their daughter to death and the courts grant them that. On the other hand, another man takes the life of his daughter to stop her suffering and is a murderer.

I'm not even going to comment on some of the comments made in this thread

Zomby Woof
Zomby Woof PowerDork
11/14/14 10:37 p.m.

I suspect bearmtnmartin didn't get the response he anticipated, but this is predominantly an American forum, and American's thoughts about government in their lives is a lot different than ours.

If I recall, ALL has a cure rate greater than 90%. My son was diagnosed with it when he was 18 months, and went through 2 years of chemo. It was brutal, but he'll be 26 years old next month. I bet if it was a non-native kid, she would be getting the chemo, but the government won't touch the natives. That family lives not 10 minutes from me.

Zomby Woof
Zomby Woof PowerDork
11/14/14 10:51 p.m.

I bet if you asked a bunch of Canadians, the vast majority would want (and expect) the government to step in.

Toyman01
Toyman01 UltimaDork
11/14/14 11:07 p.m.

In reply to Zomby Woof:

You're probably right. It's a different culture, especially where government is concerned. I think all that ice and snow gets to you after a while.

Trans_Maro
Trans_Maro UberDork
11/14/14 11:09 p.m.

It's the good old Canadian double-standard getting in the way again.

1 2 3

You'll need to log in to post.

Our Preferred Partners
1VvpFAkQZKUCHCQnJfENojar02jHneXUlJ5t5yv7j1XeLVDz8iILuNy8nQjQC8Nk