Judge says forcing aboriginal girl to stay in chemo is to ‘impose our world view on First Nation culture’

504 posts / 0 new
Last post
rhubarb

Pondering wrote:

I am sorry but I am having a hard time with this. I support aboriginal rights but .....

In what ways do you support aboriginal rights? 

Pondering

rhubarb wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I am sorry but I am having a hard time with this. I support aboriginal rights but .....

In what ways do you support aboriginal rights? 

I support their right to more than equal per capita funding for education and control over their education system. I support their right to protect their traditional lands from environmental degradation or any develoment they don't want. I support their using their own justice system for many crimes and policing their own land. I support their use of aboriginal medicine in all cases for adults and in most cases for children. I support our funding aboriginal medical centres that specialize in traditional treatments (and western if they so choose).

Now that I think about it, funding an aboriginal state of the art world class medical center focused on studying the health concerns of aboriginal peoples would be a good way of paying a small part of the restitution we owe them for the residencial schools debacle.

Respecting sovereignty is not an excuse for abdicating responsibility to protect the child's rights, that is if you agree all children in Canada have a personal right to available life-saving medical treatment just as adults do.

Aside from stepping in for this child, maybe we need to fund an aboriginal child welfare court giving them the authority to over-rule parental decisions that threaten a child's life. Right now the only authority with the right to do that is the Canadian courts which means they also have the responsibility.

This particular treatment choice is a sham which takes advantage of the desperation of people with terminal illnesses to believe in fairy dust. When someone has been given a death sentence maybe believing in expensive fairy dust isn't so bad even if you are being exploited, but when there is a chance at life it is criminal.

They paid $19,000 dollars for this raw food cure.

Sineed

Interesting article on Neurologica about this case. The physician who wrote the article points out that the chemotherapy was stopped at the urging of the Florida quack:

Quote:

The con involves giving parents in that terrible situation an apparent escape-hatch. The mother of the sick girl lays it out more plainly than I have ever seen before:

“He had the tone of voice where he was so confident,” she says.

“By him saying, ‘Oh yes no problem we can help her,’ that’s the day I stopped the chemo.”

Of course he was confident – that’s why they call them “confidence men.”

The “he” in this story is Brian Clement, director of a Florida health resort, Hippocrates Health Institute, a licensed “massage establishment.” He calls himself “Dr.” and claims to have a naturopathic degree, but even that appears to be from a diploma mill. In any case, he is not licensed to treat cancer.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-seduction-of-cancer-qua...

Quote:
If any treatment were half as effective as he is claiming, it would be an simple matter to demonstrate the effectiveness in a clinical trial. Even a small trial would probably show an effect, enough of one to gain attention. If this guy were reversing stage four cancer where mainstream medicine had failed, he could easily prove it.

Quote:

The Canadian government is also failing this poor girl. They have a duty to protect the innocent, and I can’t think of a more clear case where the government should simply step in and do what is right to save a sick child, regardless of how politically difficult it might be. Saying that her right to health care and life are mitigated by the fact that she was born into an indigenous culture is absurd, in my opinion, and is condescending.This child needs responsible adults, not politics, not ideology.

Apparently this quack Clement is currently touring Canada, promoting his quackery. I'm not sure if there's any body to which we can complain.

 

6079_Smith_W

Pondering wrote:

Aside from stepping in for this child, maybe we need to fund an aboriginal child welfare court giving them the authority to over-rule parental decisions that threaten a child's life. Right now the only authority with the right to do that is the Canadian courts which means they also have the responsibility.

That would be Brant Family and Children's services, no? The administrative authority whose decision the hospital did not like, which is why they took them to court.

For that matter, another court - with some authority - has since ruled on the matter.

If we want to set up a court that is going to always do what we think is best, that's something else again.

 

 

 

 

jas

Bacchus wrote:

Actually we do, about all times in history. SImply by analysis of remains and garbage heaps and tools and drawings etc etc etc

Yes, you know about the people who died. You don't know about the people who survived.

Bacchus wrote:
And as many havepointed out, there is no 'traditional FN' treatment in this story, just a typical western 'faith'healer scam. I'd have more comfort if they were actually using real traditional FN treatments, whatever they may be for whatever tribe is involved. Its prob way better than the scam clinic they are going to

If you don't know what traditional FN healing involves, how do you know whether these treatments fit into it or not?

6079_Smith_W

@ Sineed

Aside from challenging him openly - which is much needed - I am not sure either. He isn't practicing here, after all.

jas

Pondering wrote:

As sure as night follows day this little girl is going to die within a year or two if not sooner if she doesn't get western medicine.

The prognosis is much shorter, as I understand.

Pondering wrote:
When her daughter dies, her mother will not be grateful to us for having defended her aboriginal rights to condemn her daughter to death. Even the delay may have already sealed her fate.

The mother will have to live with whatever consequences result. She will have no cause for complaint against any potential intervenors as the matter already went to court and was decided on.

Pondering wrote:
"Another First Nations girl, Makayla Sault, was also treated at Hippocrates Health Institute in West Palm Beach and is now critically ill after a relapse of her leukemia."

Some people are calling it a relapse. Others were calling it an infection which took hold due to the chemo.

 

jas

Sineed wrote:

Apparently this quack Clement is currently touring Canada, promoting his quackery. I'm not sure if there's any body to which we can complain.

Maybe the same body we can complain to when a person makes a choice to do chemo and dies anyway.

Sineed

jas wrote:

Pondering wrote:

"Another First Nations girl, Makayla Sault, was also treated at Hippocrates Health Institute in West Palm Beach and is now critically ill after a relapse of her leukemia."

Some people are calling it a relapse. Others were calling it an infection which took hold due to the chemo.

Makayla's dad is telling the media it's an infection caused by the chemo weakening her immune system. She had the chemo ten months previously, so that's nonsense. If it is an infection that she has, it would likely have come from a relapse of the leukemia, where healthy immune system cells along with other essential cells in the blood are crowded out by non-functional malignant immature cells.

jas

Sineed wrote:

where healthy immune system cells along with other essential cells in the blood are crowded out by non-functional malignant immature cells.

Let's not be disingenuous here. I'm sure you're aware you could say the exact same thing about chemotherapy. Healthy cells are killed alongside the unhealthy. It's a chemical Shock and Awe campaign on the body and immune system.  While I think it's entirely plausible that the Dad is looking for some way to shift the blame here, in reality, either scenario could fit.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Aside from stepping in for this child, maybe we need to fund an aboriginal child welfare court giving them the authority to over-rule parental decisions that threaten a child's life. Right now the only authority with the right to do that is the Canadian courts which means they also have the responsibility.

That would be Brant Family and Children's services, no? The administrative authority whose decision the hospital did not like, which is why they took them to court.

For that matter, another court - with some authority - has since ruled on the matter.

If we want to set up a court that is going to always do what we think is best, that's something else again.

Brant Family and Children's services is not an Aboriginal organization.

Yes, a western court did rule, they ruled wrongly. The explanation of the decision suggests the judge did not bother checking the basis for the treatment chosen. It seems "it's aboriginal" was good enough for him. I doubt the judge even understands the difference between naturopathic versus homeopathic medicine. Since when has a court passing judgement meant justice was done?

Yes traditional aboriginal medicine exists. It is Donnacona who cured Cartier's men of scurvy not the other way around. I know of no aboriginal healers in North America claiming the ability to treat leukemia with tree bark or any other formulation.

This is no more an aboriginal cure than astrological zodiac predictions or holy oil mixed with the tears of weeping statues.

We have done indescribable damage to the First Nations of North America. We do not repair that damage by allowing a western snake oil salesman to hoodwink an aboriginal mother whose daughter is dying from leukemia.

We created the conditions that make her distrust western medicine. We created the conditions under which the snake oil salesman thrives. We created the monetary system through which she handed that man 19,000 dollars. We probably created the poisonous conditions under which her daughter was stricken with leukemia.

We can't rely on an aboriginal rights argument to absolve ourselves of responsibility.

I think sometimes we have to start with what we know is morally right, saving the life of an 11 year old girl, then do it in the most respectful manner that we can.

Sineed

jas wrote:
While I think it's entirely plausible that the Dad is looking for some way to shift the blame here, in reality, either scenario could fit.

Uh no, that's not how it works. The chemo put her disease into remission, and she was healthy for months. There is long-term damage done by chemo, and that's an increased risk of cancer down the road, years later. Chemo causes a transitory weakened immune system in the form of neutropenia, a reduction in the number of neutrophils, which are front line warriers in our immune system. But the recovery from this occurs in a matter of weeks. It wouldn't return months later, with a period of good health in between.

jas

Pondering wrote:

what we know is morally right

Oh, okay. That settles it then.Frown

Bacchus

jas wrote:

Bacchus wrote:

Actually we do, about all times in history. SImply by analysis of remains and garbage heaps and tools and drawings etc etc etc

Yes, you know about the people who died. You don't know about the people who survived.

Um yes *puzzled look* Everyone dies so analyzing remains tells us everything about dying ill, and dying other ways.

jas

Bacchus wrote:

Um yes *puzzled look* Everyone dies so analyzing remains tells us everything about dying ill, and dying other ways.

And today's results would show... omg, what:

  • Many people who had the benefit of modern medical technology nevertheless died of cancer.
  • Some of them died of chemotherapy.
  • Some people died of causes we can't determine.
  • Everyone died eventually, though. Of disease or of natural causes.
  • Same as in premodern societies.

This clearly (shows/does not show at all) the (superiority/inferiority) of modern technological health care.

rhubarb

Pondering wrote:

 

Respecting sovereignty is not an excuse for abdicating responsibility to protect the child's rights, that is if you agree all children in Canada have a personal right to available life-saving medical treatment just as adults do.

...

Thank you for responding.

It seems we disagree on what supporting sovereignty means, from my perspective it means my opinion, unless sought, is irrelevent. 

As an aside, forty years ago I took a year of Native Studies, that year a curtain was drawn back and I saw the power of colonialism, not only as it affected the first peoples of this land but how my ancestors had been shaped by it and perhaps crushed by it.   I see it manifest as a mono-mind.

Pondering

rhubarb wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Respecting sovereignty is not an excuse for abdicating responsibility to protect the child's rights, that is if you agree all children in Canada have a personal right to available life-saving medical treatment just as adults do....

Thank you for responding.

It seems we disagree on what supporting sovereignty means, from my perspective it means my opinion, unless sought, is irrelevent. 

As an aside, forty years ago I took a year of Native Studies, that year a curtain was drawn back and I saw the power of colonialism, not only as it affected the first peoples of this land but how my ancestors had been shaped by it and perhaps crushed by it.   I see it manifest as a mono-mind.

First Nations do not have the legal power to over-rule the mother's decision so that leaves no one with the legal right.

Academic theories led to colonialism and residential schools in the first place. Academic interpretations of historical events and theorizing are lens through which we try to understand the world, they don't define it, they don't represent absolute truths.

If we are going to withdraw the systems we have in place to defend children's rights because the children are aboriginal then we need to support the development of an aboriginal system with the power to do that on behalf of aboriginal children.

Respecting sovereignty itself is a determination of what we believe to be morally correct. To determine that an aboriginal child is not entitled to the same protection as a non-aboriginal child is making a moral judgement.

 

Bacchus

jas wrote:

Bacchus wrote:

Um yes *puzzled look* Everyone dies so analyzing remains tells us everything about dying ill, and dying other ways.

And today's results would show... omg, what:

  • Many people who had the benefit of modern medical technology nevertheless died of cancer.
  • Some of them died of chemotherapy.
  • Some people died of causes we can't determine.
  • Everyone died eventually, though. Of disease or of natural causes.
  • Same as in premodern societies.

This clearly (shows/does not show at all) the (superiority/inferiority) of modern technological health care.

 

It will also show that no one is dying from he things they died of (in vast numbers) at anytime before the 1950s

 

Typhus, Yellow fever, smallpox, rickets, syphillis, cholera, etc., sepsis, gangrene, diabetes, epilepsy, leprosy etc etc etc not to mention just plain colds, pneumonia, flu etc which still kills about 40k a year in North America (as I recall the number, I could e wrong but its in the thoussands)

 

Some of these still exist in the world, generally where disaster has struck(cholera) but not as a matter of course in everyday life (as it was in victorian London for example)

Not to mention the average lifespans going from 20s/30s to 70s/90s

Bacchus

Mind you, I wont argue about chemotherapy, since Ive known people who have thrived with it and died with it

Its generally a last chance thing tho for a lot of cancers (discovered when you are stage 3 or 4) so you have to assume that it may have been too late for anything to work ala steve jobs

Sineed

Depends on the cancer, Bacchus.

Steven Jobs actually had a survivable cancer, but he delayed treatment for nine months, and in that time it became stage 4 by spreading to his liver. Stage 3 is considered to be still survivable.

In the case of childhood leukemias, the treatments are truly miraculous, changing a disease that no child survived into one that most children can survive.

For solid tumours, the primary treatment is removal of the tumour, and chemo may be given to mop up any stray cancer cells. Sometimes they give the chemo before surgery if the tumour is very large, to try and reduce the size of the tumour. Usually we can deduce, like in Rob Ford's case, that the cancer is more serious, the prognosis worse, when they give the chemo without removing the tumour first.

I highly recommend The Emperor of Maladies: A Biography of Cancer by Siddhartha Mukherjee. Dr. Mukherjee, an oncologist, describes the history of cancer and its treatment, giving examples of patients through history, and following one contemporary case, a woman diagnosed with ALL. It's fascinating and written for a lay audience, so not highly technical.

Glenl

I second the recommendation for The Emperor of Maladies.

Aristotleded24

Bacchus wrote:
Mind you, I wont argue about chemotherapy, since Ive known people who have thrived with it and died with it

Its generally a last chance thing tho for a lot of cancers (discovered when you are stage 3 or 4) so you have to assume that it may have been too late for anything to work ala steve jobs

And in some cases the cancer is far too advanced for chemo to do have any meaningful impact on curing the cancer or extending life, and people decide in those situations to stop treatment.

Bacchus

Thats what I meant in a way. Steve Jobs tried 'alternative methods' which ultimately doomed him since it led the cancer spread

Bacchus

I'll have to pick that book up, thanks Sineed

jas

Bacchus wrote:

It will also show that no one is dying from he things they died of (in vast numbers) at anytime before the 1950s

Yes, we're dying of different things.

Bacchus wrote:
Typhus, Yellow fever, smallpox, rickets, syphillis, cholera, etc., sepsis, gangrene, diabetes, epilepsy, leprosy etc etc etc not to mention just plain colds, pneumonia, flu etc which still kills about 40k a year in North America (as I recall the number, I could e wrong but its in the thoussands)

Some of these still exist in the world, generally where disaster has struck(cholera) but not as a matter of course in everyday life (as it was in victorian London for example)

To repeat, access to sanitation, clean water and nutrition have been the main factors in improving these outcomes than any specific medical technologies. And yes, your forensic archeology will not help you determine the success vs failure rates of premodern or indigenous approaches to cancer.

rhubarb

Pondering, you said....

"First Nations do not have the legal power to over-rule the mother's decision so that leaves no one with the legal right.

Academic theories led to colonialism and residential schools in the first place. Academic interpretations of historical events and theorizing are lens through which we try to understand the world, they don't define it, they don't represent absolute truths.

If we are going to withdraw the systems we have in place to defend children's rights because the children are aboriginal then we need to support the development of an aboriginal system with the power to do that on behalf of aboriginal children.

Respecting sovereignty itself is a determination of what we believe to be morally correct. To determine that an aboriginal child is not entitled to the same protection as a non-aboriginal child is making a moral judgement."

 

Do you really believe academic theories led to colonialism and residential schools?  

The rest of your comment is just goobledy gook to me, perhaps I am tired, perhaps I am stupid, but I cannot make sense of a comment like"Respecting soverneignty itself is a determination of what we believe to be morally correct."

But, I will say it again, in my view, respecting sovereignty means shutting up because when you have respect you do that.

 

 

Pondering

rhubarb wrote:

Do you really believe academic theories led to colonialism and residential schools? 

I over-stated, the desire for wealth and power let to conlonialism, but assimilation still is an academic theory for immigrant children and during the time indigeneous children were being assimilated through residential schools academics absolutely believed it was best for the children to adapt to "civilized" society. 

Quote:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2390825/

The relationship between assimilation and the well-being of immigrant children has been the focus of debate in the recent sociological literature. Much of this work has questioned whether classical theories of immigrant adaptation, which assumed assimilation to be an integral part of the process of upward mobility for immigrants, are still applicable to today’s immigrant children. This study reevaluates the applicability of classical assimilation theory with a comprehensive empirical assessment of the relationship between assimilation and the well-being of Hispanic and Asian immigrant adolescents.....

Philosophy, sociology, political science etc. all contribute greatly to our understanding of ourselves and the world but they are not hard sciences. Ethics is particularly fraught with contradictions and competing interests.

I hope someday freedom of religion will be a quaint right kids read and wonder "What on earth were they thinking? How is that a human right?"

Business theory, modern financial systems, marketing theories, it all came from the academic world.

It is how we advance so it isn't all bad. I'm just saying that just because theories come from the academic world doesn't mean they are right. Even when academics accept that, some go overboard and worship lived experience to the exclusion of common sense. Academics have a tendency to get evangelical about new theories.

rhubarb wrote:
The rest of your comment is just goobledy gook to me, perhaps I am tired, perhaps I am stupid, but I cannot make sense of a comment like"Respecting soverneignty itself is a determination of what we believe to be morally correct."

But, I will say it again, respecting sovereignty means shutting the fuck up because when you have respect you do that.

And when you have respect for children's lives if you have it in your power to give a child lifesaving treatment it is immoral to withhold it. I think that's a highly defensible position.

You claim respecting sovereignty beats keeping a child alive. I think keeping a child alive beats sovereignty.

Children shouldn't die because their parents are ignorant. Making an exception for aboriginal children doesn't make sense.

Being genuinely respectful of sovereignty is not an excuse to abdicate our responsibility to serve the First Nations people. They don't have a separate health care system. Child welfare remains under our control. I agree we should work to transition it to native control but that can't happen overnight.

 

rhubarb

Pondering wrote:

.....

You claim respecting sovereignty beats keeping a child alive. I think keeping a child alive beats sovereignty.

Children shouldn't die because their parents are ignorant. Making an exception for aboriginal children doesn't make sense.

.....

I find your interpretation of my words offensive, but I thank you for making your lack of respect for sovereignty clear.

I am confident that the Jesuits stealing children were as certain as you are that they had the moral right to do so.  They used words like ignorant too. 

cassius

The state has a right to care for its children. The treatment works. We should not be hesitant because of the oppression Aboriginal Canadians have suffered at our hands. That puts emotion and guilt ahead of science. And while the parents may sincerely believe they are doing right here, what they sincerely believe in is superstition, nothing more. The only winner here is the undertaker.

Pondering

rhubarb wrote:

Pondering wrote:

.....

You claim respecting sovereignty beats keeping a child alive. I think keeping a child alive beats sovereignty.

Children shouldn't die because their parents are ignorant. Making an exception for aboriginal children doesn't make sense.

.....

I find your interpretation of my words offensive, but I thank you for making your lack of respect for sovereignty clear.

I am confident that the Jesuits stealing children were as certain as you are that they had the moral right to do so.  They used words like ignorant too. 

I'm sorry that you find it offensive but I find no other way of expressing competing moral imperatives. When I use the word ignorant I mean it in the purest sense. Everyone is ignorant about lots of things. It just means lack of knowledge.

The Jesuits taking children was ignorant. It wasn't done out of malice. The Mom choosing to withhold medical treatment from her daughter is ignorance not a choice to let her daughter die. If she were aware that is the choice she is making she wouldn't do it. She doesn't give a shit about sovereignty. She just wants her daughter to live.

You speak of respecting sovereignty but we are forcing sovereignty on her too because any other child in Canada would have a right to medical treatment.

I'm pretty sure this man would be arrested as a con artist if he were in Canada so he wouldn't be able to take advantage of people's ignorance and desperation.

Do you also think aboriginals should be exempted from all Canadian laws as long as a non-aboriginal person or property is not involved?

onlinediscountanvils

cassius wrote:

The state has a right to care for its children.

I guess if corporations can be people, states can have children.

It's a hell of a burden being a white settler state.

rhubarb

cassius wrote:

The state has a right to care for its children. The treatment works. We should not be hesitant because of the oppression Aboriginal Canadians have suffered at our hands. That puts emotion and guilt ahead of science. And while the parents may sincerely believe they are doing right here, what they sincerely believe in is superstition, nothing more. The only winner here is the undertaker.

Interesting that you use the word right and not responsiblity.

If our government was concerned, or had ever been concerned, about the health of Aboriginal Canadians then there would be clean water, decent housing and access to nourishing food available on every reserve.  Genocide has always been the agenda and being Canadian that means killing the Indian inside or creating optimum situations for Indians to die. 

And the "we should not be hesitant" just what do you mean by that? 

 

 

 

Unionist

Instead of picking apart each other's terminology, I wonder if someone knowledgeable (not me) could comment on what seems to me a much bigger problem than the right of parents to refuse treatment for their children: the deplorable lack of access for indigenous people to the level of health care services available to non-indigenous folks.

I apologize for saying that lack of access to health care is a bigger problem than the right to refuse health care, if it offends anyone.

 

rhubarb

Pondering wrote:

.....

The Jesuits taking children was ignorant. It wasn't done out of malice. 

.... 

The Mom choosing to withhold medical treatment from her daughter is ignorance not a choice to let her daughter die. If she were aware that is the choice she is making she wouldn't do it. She doesn't give a shit about sovereignty. She just wants her daughter to live.

...

Do you also think aboriginals should be exempted from all Canadian laws as long as a non-aboriginal person or property is not involved?

Do you think the Jesuits not having malice ameliorates the harm done?  And what makes you think they weren't malicious?  They too were utterly convinced that they knew what was right and had no trouble imposing that on others. 

As for what you say about the mother, in my view it is racism wrapped up in sanctimony, justifed by your belief that you know what is right.

I think that the First Nations should have the rights and responsibility to set their own laws and enforce them on their lands.

 

 

rhubarb

Unionist wrote:

Instead of picking apart each other's terminology, I wonder if someone knowledgeable (not me) could comment on what seems to me a much bigger problem than the right of parents to refuse treatment for their children: the deplorable lack of access for indigenous people to the level of health care services available to non-indigenous folks.

I apologize for saying that lack of access to health care is a bigger problem than the right to refuse health care, if it offends anyone.

 

I see the lack of adequate health care on reserves, lack of water, electricity..... as all part of a strategy to force people off the reserves into the cities.

 

 

Unionist

rhubarb wrote:

I see the lack of adequate health care on reserves, lack of water, electricity..... as all part of a strategy to force people off the reserves into the cities.

Yes. That and flooding of land for hydro, theft of resources, no hope for jobs, other forms of economic ruin... it's been going on for decades.

And then, once in the cities - there's still no access to health care for indigenous people. [url=http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/manitoba-s-appeal-court-to-hear-case-of-man... really.[/url] Because racism and colonial domination and genocide follow them there.

Oh, sorry Asper family and Stephen Harper, I didn't really mean to call it [url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/canadian-museum-for-human-rights-.... Just exaggerating again.

To return to my theme: My only point in this thread is to suggest that children's life or death does not belong to their parents. Where it does belong is a more complex question, in a society where indigenous people are denied sovereignty and the basic necessities of life.

cassius

Dear Pondering:

The girl was being treated at McMaster Medical, one of the best child treatment facilities in Canada. She was offered the best treatment. 

jas

Unionist wrote:

To return to my theme: My only point in this thread is to suggest that children's life or death does not belong to their parents. Where it does belong is a more complex question, in a society where indigenous people are denied sovereignty and the basic necessities of life.

In any other life and death health decisions with an incapacitated patient (the child in this case is considered not capable of making her own decision) those decisions fall to legal guardians and next of kin, do they not? I understand why you would make a distinction in this case, but how would you do it? And where else would you make those distinctions? You're introducing an impossible complexity without offering any solution.

swallow swallow's picture

cassius wrote:

The state has a right to care for its children. 

Which state - Canada, or the Six Nations? Both consider themselves sovereign. 

I sure put no faith in the Florida clinic, and I hope the child and her family amke a different choice, but the relevant bodies of the Canadian state have found that the hospital does not have the right to enforce treatment in this case. 

These are hard questions, but the call for coercion to be enforced, while clearely well-intentioned, is the same historic claim made for a lot of years now. Recommended reading: Mark Abley, Conversations with a Dead Man, which is a nuanced and dramatized account of the life and legacy of Duncan Campbell Scott, a prominent voice for assimilation and the respononsibility of the Canadian state to overcome "superstition" and so on among indigenous people. 

Bacchus

jas wrote:

Bacchus wrote:

It will also show that no one is dying from he things they died of (in vast numbers) at anytime before the 1950s

Yes, we're dying of different things.

Bacchus wrote:
Typhus, Yellow fever, smallpox, rickets, syphillis, cholera, etc., sepsis, gangrene, diabetes, epilepsy, leprosy etc etc etc not to mention just plain colds, pneumonia, flu etc which still kills about 40k a year in North America (as I recall the number, I could e wrong but its in the thoussands)

Some of these still exist in the world, generally where disaster has struck(cholera) but not as a matter of course in everyday life (as it was in victorian London for example)

To repeat, access to sanitation, clean water and nutrition have been the main factors in improving these outcomes than any specific medical technologies. And yes, your forensic archeology will not help you determine the success vs failure rates of premodern or indigenous approaches to cancer.

 

Actualy yeah it kinda will. Since they are examining remains that have cancer from ancient egypt as well as mummies from indigenous tribes in South and Central America

 

jas

Bacchus wrote:

Actualy yeah it kinda will. Since they are examining remains that have cancer from ancient egypt as well as mummies from indigenous tribes in South and Central America

And what will those remains tell you about the numbers who survived cancer?

They could theoretically examine remains of modern day folks who died of cancer too. What would the comparative data tell us?

Unionist

jas wrote:

Unionist wrote:

To return to my theme: My only point in this thread is to suggest that children's life or death does not belong to their parents. Where it does belong is a more complex question, in a society where indigenous people are denied sovereignty and the basic necessities of life.

In any other life and death health decisions with an incapacitated patient (the child in this case is considered not capable of making her own decision) those decisions fall to legal guardians and next of kin, do they not? I understand why you would make a distinction in this case, but how would you do it? And where else would you make those distinctions? You're introducing an impossible complexity without offering any solution.

I'm not introducing a complexity. Reality is. And I don't know the solution, as I said before, because it's not for me to define the overlap between Aboriginal sovereignty and Canadian society. I don't know.

What I do know is that parents must not have the unfettered right to sentence their children to death. Otherwise, we're stuck with the fanatics who claim "freedom of religion" when denying their child a blood transfusion after a traffic accident.

Yes, I support freedom of religion. No, I don't support that.

Yes, I support the right of indigenous people to sovereignty and much more. No, that doesn't mean that every decision of an Aboriginal parent about the fate of children is sacrosanct.

 

Pondering

cassius wrote:

Dear Pondering:

The girl was being treated at McMaster Medical, one of the best child treatment facilities in Canada. She was offered the best treatment. 

Yes I get that, but the treatment has been withdrawn from this child because she is aboriginal. That is being framed as a special right held by her parents based on aboriginal heritage.

Like Unionist I respect aboriginal heritage but not at the expense of a child's right to the medical care any other Canadian child is entitled to regardless of their parent's wishes.

I don't see this as a FN sovereignty issue as the FN didn't even attempt to make a decision in this case because they don't have any independent child welfare authorities or courts to make decisions on matters such as these. If Canada abdicates it's responsibility in this particular case there is no FN system to pick up the slack.

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

No, that doesn't mean that every decision of an Aboriginal parent about the fate of children is sacrosanct.

I agree, and that's already the law of the land. And so far these parents have already been supported in their decision by two governmental bodies which have that power, and decided to not use it.

This is a difficult situation, but there is nothing about it that threatens to throw those doors open to "freedom of religion" libertarianism. First Nations actually are answerable to governments (far more than we are, actually), and in this case there has been oversight, whether we agree with the decisions or not.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Unionist wrote:

No, that doesn't mean that every decision of an Aboriginal parent about the fate of children is sacrosanct.

I agree, and that's already the law of the land. And so far these parents have already been supported in their decision by two governmental bodies which have that power, and decided to not use it.

This is a difficult situation, but there is nothing about it that threatens to throw those doors open to "freedom of religion" libertarianism. First Nations actually are answerable to governments (far more than we are, actually), and in this case there has been oversight, whether we agree with the decisions or not.

As if child welfare authorities and the courts have never failed us before.

6079_Smith_W

So how is an argument that we need more courts going to solve that? If it is just a matter of it being the "right" court... that is, one that will do what you think it should, it is no court at all.

Either you respect the process or you do not.

 

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Unionist wrote:

No, that doesn't mean that every decision of an Aboriginal parent about the fate of children is sacrosanct.

I agree, and that's already the law of the land. And so far these parents have already been supported in their decision by two governmental bodies which have that power, and decided to not use it.

It's conceivable those bodies are wrong. We're entitled to look at the logic they used and assess it ourselves. I wasn't impressed by what I heard in the court's reasons. But that doesn't mean I know the right answer.

I do not believe this particular case is merely about "which society rules". I still want to hear whether people think that parents should have such power. Aboriginal parents only? Religious parents only? All parents? My preferred answer is "none of the above". I realize that doesn't provide a neat solution to: "If there is a conflict about treatment of a child between the Canadian state and an organization recognized by Aboriginal people, who decides?" I don't have that solution.

Quote:
This is a difficult situation, but there is nothing about it that threatens to throw those doors open to "freedom of religion" libertarianism. First Nations actually are answerable to governments (far more than we are, actually), and in this case there has been oversight, whether we agree with the decisions or not.

What's the difference between this situation and "freedom of religion"? In practical terms, why would a court decide differently? This is not a rhetorical question - I'd like to understand. Both are matters of constitutional right.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

I just said:

Parent DON'T have that power under Canadian law. The rule is the good of the child. The fact that those two bodies made the decision that we might not like doesn't mean that power isn't there. Both the Child and Family agency and the court had the power to decide otherwise. Neither did.

And I can't answer that last question because I am not privy to everything that went into the agency's decision. I wasn't in the room when interviews were done. But I don't think narrowing it down, or spinning it based on the points being focused on here is going to give an accurate picture of what was probably a much more broad and complex process.

 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
So how is an argument that we need more courts going to solve that? If it is just a matter of it being the "right" court... that is, one that will do what you think it should, it is no court at all.

Either you respect the process or you do not.

Years ago a judge decided a mitigating factor in the molestation of a 3 year old girl, in Canada, because she was seductive.

Another judge, in Canada, decided a mitigating factor in anal rape of his daughter was that the man had left her virginity intact which was important in their religious community.

Child welfare has placed aboriginal children in aboriginal relatives homes where they have died when doing a simple background check would have illustrated the relatives were unsuitable.

I don't recall arguing that we need more courts. I am arguing that the child welfare authorities and the courts are using aboriginal rights as a means of abdicating their own responsibility to protect this child.

6079_Smith_W

Pondering wrote:

I don't recall arguing that we need more courts. I am arguing that the child welfare authorities and the courts are using aboriginal rights as a means of abdicating their own responsibility to protect this child.

You have made the argument repeatedly, actually, that you think there is no Native system (which presumably would come up with a decision more to your liking; I'm not so sure). So if in this case you think the parents are ignorant and the courts are wrong how would making a different one change that?

 

Pages

Topic locked