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
bagkitty bagkitty's picture

RevolutionPlease wrote:

bagkitty wrote:

jas wrote:

I'm merely trying to get posters like Timebandit and Sineed to understand what they can validly claim (success rates of chemotherapy in these kinds of cancers) and what they can't validly claim ("no other therapies work"). This will help clean up our discussion immensely, and would probably lead most of us to the conclusion that we shouldn't even be posting on this topic.

What you are suggesting is the creation of a control group who are to be deprived of access to a demonstrably effective treatment (chemotherapy) in order to prove that the other therapies they would turn to are less effective (or entirely ineffective). That should clear up the argment immensely, of course, given the preponderance of existing evidence, this is likely to prove detrimental to those individuals who are part of the control group. How do you suggest they are selected... should we ask for volunteers, or select them on the basis of certain observable characteristics?

 

How should we set up the control groups unless you're suggesting we accept Western based coloonialim above all?

RP, I actually do not believe there is a need to provide the level of proof that Jas appears to be demanding in order to "clean up the discussion". I was, sarcastically, trying to point out that, given the preponderance of evidence already in place, a "control group" would have to be sacrificed in order to satisfy that absolute level of proof that Jas has been repeatedly demanding. My questions as to how the members of such a control group were to be selected was an attempt to get Jas to focus on the implications of playing rhetorical games about "proof" on real lives. Sarcasm might not have been the best route to go, but that was the route I took. Frankly, even with the sacrifice of a control group it could still be argued that the proof was not "absolute"... since it would not necessarily rule out the intervention of someone's invisible sky friend.

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

jas wrote:

Quote:
As to evidence of surviving cancer pre-chemo, why don't you find the evidence for us, since you're the only one here making the claim that such evidence must exist? Because I haven't seen anything except some late 19th century accounts of (brutal and horrific) early mastectomies that resulted in an excision of breast cancers. Certainly nothing to do with herbal remedies. However, you provide some evidence, I for one am willing to look at it.

I wouldn't do it for this thread because it's off topic. It also requires some heavy duty research. I would do it for a larger project. I think it's ridiculous you would assume that there was zero survival of cancer prior to western medicine, and I feel confident making the assumption that you are utterly incorrect. If cancer survival occurs today without modern medical treatments, it likely occurred at other times as well. That's simple logic. Why would you try to dispute this?

If you can't be arsed to back up your suppositions, don't expect others to do it for you and definitely don't expect anyone to take them seriously.

As you said upthread: Source, please.

abnormal

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I agree with you that the distinction about western medicine (and for that matter Native healing, despite the judge's use of that term) is irrelevant.

True - but the "treatment" (and I use the term extremely loosely) the parents have chosen has nothing to do with "native healing".  It's a treatment based on a diploma mill facility that has nothing to do with aboriginal medicine.

Fact is, that the only reason that this obscenity has gone forward is because the parents could claim that they were exempt from laws protecting their children was because they (the parents) had protected status.  

jas

Timebandit wrote:

If you can't be arsed to back up your suppositions, don't expect others to do it for you and definitely don't expect anyone to take them seriously.

That's a nice way to get out of explaining the incomprehensible references you've made, as well addressing the claims made by the anonymous blogger whose opinions you've been defending.

jas

bagkitty wrote:
RP, I actually do not believe there is a need to provide the level of proof that Jas appears to be demanding in order to "clean up the discussion". I was, sarcastically, trying to point out that, given the preponderance of evidence already in place, a "control group" would have to be sacrificed in order to satisfy that absolute level of proof that Jas has been repeatedly demanding. My questions as to how the members of such a control group were to be selected was an attempt to get Jas to focus on the implications of playing rhetorical games about "proof" on real lives. Sarcasm might not have been the best route to go, but that was the route I took. Frankly, even with the sacrifice of a control group it could still be argued that the proof was not "absolute"... since it would not necessarily rule out the intervention of someone's invisible sky friend.

As is evident in the very post of mine that you are referring to, I am pointing out the invalidity of making claims about traditional or alternative treatments or approaches to cancer that one knows next to nothing about, largely due to an absence of data and/or research. The only valid claim one can attempt to make is what treatments have been proven to work, and under what conditions. That point has been amply made here.

I'm not claiming that alternative treatment (or no treatment) is going to provide better outcomes in this situation. I wouldn't know that. I'm merely supporting the idea of the right to choose. How far that right extends, and to whom, I agree is a justifiably contentious point.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

jas wrote:

Timebandit wrote:

If you can't be arsed to back up your suppositions, don't expect others to do it for you and definitely don't expect anyone to take them seriously.

That's a nice way to get out of explaining the incomprehensible references you've made, as well addressing the claims made by the anonymous blogger whose opinions you've been defending.

Not getting out of anything.  You asked me to back something up, I provided link and quote.  Your level of reading ability is not my problem.

ETA:  That has little to do with your inability to come up with anything to back your claim that it's remotely possible for herbal remedies to cure leukemia - unlike chemotherapy, which has plenty of evidence behind it.  Too much work?  *snerk*  Sure, that's it...

Sineed

swallow wrote:
Western or not, Sineed, my reading of your posts is an uncritical defence of the Enlightenment project. Scientists know there is still more to discover, surely. You may well not mean that and my reading of your posts may be unfair, but that's how they read to me.

I get that interpretation. For me, knowlege and science are ultimately acultural. The practice of science and the sharing of knowlege may be (and often is) cultural in all sorts of ways, but we are all subject to the same physical reality that transcends where we are and who we are and where we come from.

(More later maybe; I gotta go somewhere.)

jas

Timebandit wrote:
Not getting out of anything.  You asked me to back something up, I provided link and quote.  

Okey dokey then.

 

Quote:
ETA:  That has little to do with your inability to come up with anything to back your claim that it's remotely possible for herbal remedies to cure leukemia -

Right. Please remind me where I made this claim. I must have forgotten.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Dec. 1, 4:34, jas writes:

Quote:
I would like to see some evidence that indigenous medicine has been shown over and over that it doesn't cure or improve cancer outcomes. If you can't provide this evidence, you have no authority passing judgment on indigenous traditions of therapy. Period.
Quoting the above for the base line of what you expect from other posters.
Quote:
I actually probably could prove that survivors of cancer existed prior to the dawn of western medicine. If I did the research. I think I can probably prove that many survivals of untreated or alternatively treated cancer today are also documented. Again, if I did the research. We also know that western approaches have been far from being able to provide certainty of survival.
Can you, really? There's the proposition, but no source, no backup.
Quote:
First of all, I'm sure there is some documentation somewhere of cancer survivals prior to modern medicine. Moreover, it would be silly to assume that there were none, given that we have modern day cancer suvivals without modern treatment.
. No, not silly at all. If you're so sure, let's see it. Until I do, I'll regard your position as wishful thinking.

swallow swallow's picture

Sineed wrote:
For me, knowlege and science are ultimately acultural.

Yes, I see that is the case for you. But what do you do when people say your science is inherently colonialist? We once measured skull sizs and called it science. We once "knew" things that we now know are inaccurate. I don't imagine many scientists would claim we are at the end of all new knowledge discovery, would they? But maybe this, too, is another thread for another forum. 

jas

Timebandit wrote:
Dec. 1, 4:34, jas writes:
Quote:
I would like to see some evidence that indigenous medicine has been shown over and over that it doesn't cure or improve cancer outcomes. If you can't provide this evidence, you have no authority passing judgment on indigenous traditions of therapy. Period.
Quoting the above for the base line of what you expect from other posters.

You apparently didn't understand this as showing why you can't make silly declarations based on zero research and a high and unjustified degree of arrogance.

Timebandit wrote:
  No, not silly at all. If you're so sure, let's see it. Until I do, I'll regard your position as wishful thinking.

Yes, sorry. Very silly, since it defies simple logic, right off the bat. The necessary research would merely shred your silly notion beyond recognition. It is beyond the scope of this little thread on Babble. But I will definitely pursue it at some future point. Until then, you can regard my position any way you want.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

I think it's pretty logical to conclude that a proposition based on no evidence, and where the counter has demonstrable evidence behind it, is false. Logic, in any case, is not immune to silliness. You can have a perfectly sound logical structure that is untrue regardless of the structure of the argument. Until you provide backup sources for your proposition that herbal medicine can cure leukaemia, I will regard that proposition as so much hot air.

Sineed

swallow wrote:
But what do you do when people say your science is inherently colonialist?

It's not "my" science. It belongs to everybody.

6079_Smith_W

Sineed wrote:

swallow wrote:
But what do you do when people say your science is inherently colonialist?

It's not "my" science. It belongs to everybody.

Wellllll.... again, even though I lean toward your position on the science when it comes to this issue, and I do see chemo as the only option likely to work, Sineed, that ain't strictly true in the broader sense, and never has been.

That's not to say that most medicine doesn't work the same on most people. It usually does, even though it ain't perfect, considering that a lot of it is based on men and whites, and medicines that get studied and developed are usually those that are likely to generate a lot of money, not necessarily those that work best.

The science MAY work fairly evenly across the board, I agree with you there. But the practical application, the control, and the attitudes around it? Entirely colonialist; plenty of crystal clear examples of that.

jas

Timebandit wrote:
  Until you provide backup sources for your proposition that herbal medicine can cure leukaemia, I will regard that proposition as so much hot air.

What proposition? Why do you keep making this false claim? It's as if you haven't read any of my posts.

Anyway, I'm enjoying the conversation between swallow, Sineed and 6079_Smith.

swallow swallow's picture

The "you" was intended as a general you -- I'd say "one" but it's pretty pretentious..... And I'm only willing to be pretentious up to a point. ;)

Did science belong to everyone when eugenics was widely supported? Generally accepted science was wrong. Are we completely 100% certain that science is always right now and can learn nothign from, for instance, indigenous knowledge of rain forest plants in the Amazon with medicinal value? 

I've seen the documents on the Canadian government's decision to overthrow the Six Nations Council in 1924 and take over policing on the territory. (Six Nations chiefs called that a military invasion and appealed to the global community to prevent miltiary aggrression by Canada, without success.) All of them assumed as a certainty that education was best in a residential school not on-reserve; that health would be improved by changes to Six Nations tradition; that the traditional system's high value on women's particiaption in decision-making proved that Six Nations governance was "backwards" and so on. These were social science rather than natural science assumptions, but they were held to be unchallengeable facts, and bolstered with the opinion of some "loyalist" (their word, loyal to Canada and the Crown) and "progressive" (pro-Western social science) Mohawks and others of the Six Nations. 

But the assumptions held as certain then were, we now know, completely wrong. 

Isn't it at least possible that "fact" based science may be in error on some points, or may still be able to learn? Can we really say that the science is settled and is in no way implicated in a project of dominance? 

MegB

RP chill, okay?

rhubarb

Here we are in the aboriginal issues and culture forum and several of the posters demonstrate NO respect for aboriginal issues and culture without any intervention and then R.P. posts and gets a "chill".  WOW!  I thought the comments made by Revolution Please contributed something vital to the discussion.

Thanks Revolution Please.

MegB

rhubarb wrote:

Here we are in the aboriginal issues and culture forum and several of the posters demonstrate NO respect for aboriginal issues and culture without any intervention and then R.P. posts and gets a "chill".  WOW!  I thought the comments made by Revolution Please contributed something vital to the discussion.

Thanks Revolution Please.

It's not the perspective, it's the over-the-top personal attack. Not cool on babble.

Pondering

swallow wrote:
Are we completely 100% certain that science is always right now and can learn nothign from, for instance, indigenous knowledge of rain forest plants in the Amazon with medicinal value?

Of course not but that has nothing to do with this situation. Indigenous medicine isn't involved. A choice between a western medicine and a western snake oil salesman is being made.

Indigenous medicine does exist and is based on informal (by western standards) rather than formal science. While their medicine trials may not have been official they learned what worked the same way we do; trying out and combining various substances and developing better ways to deliver the healing benefits.

I cannot prove that skiddles doesn't cure cancer but that doesn't make it a viable proposition. Indigenous medicine is not unproven just because it doesn't meet western testing standards but neither is it plucked out of thin air. There is historical knowledge of it within the communities.

There is a separate argument based on indigenous autonomy but it is an insult to mix this up with actual indigenous medicine.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Pondering wrote:

There is a separate argument based on indigenous autonomy but it is an insult to mix this up with actual indigenous medicine.

???

Actually, the case is primarily about autonomy. The degree to which the judge might have based the decision on a specific kind of medicine might be causing a bit of confusion here. Ditto for some non-native people's assumptions about what is and isn't Native.

But again, read those opinions from Six Nations residents in that article if you want to see the significance it has for them.

You think it is an insult? That is unfortunate.

 

 

 

 

 

onlinediscountanvils

Pondering wrote:

Of course not but that has nothing to do with this situation. Indigenous medicine isn't involved. A choice between a western medicine and a western snake oil salesman is being made.

 

Are you being deliberately obtuse? It's been pointed out a number of times that, YES, INDIGENOUS MEDICINE IS ONE OF THE TREATMENTS BEING USED.

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

I guess I'll just repeat what I posted in #94 until in sinks in.

The girl's mother says they're using First Nations medicine in addition to whatever "treatment" the Florida quack is using on her.

The girl and her family decided to discontinue chemotherapy. Instead, they opted for treatment at the Hippocrates Health Institute [HHI] in West Palm Beach, Fla. The mother says it's complimentary to the First Nations medicine her daughter takes daily.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/aboriginal/first-nations-children-not-well-served...

Pondering

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Of course not but that has nothing to do with this situation. Indigenous medicine isn't involved. A choice between a western medicine and a western snake oil salesman is being made.

 

Are you being deliberately obtuse? It's been pointed out a number of times that, YES, INDIGENOUS MEDICINE IS ONE OF THE TREATMENTS BEING USED.

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

I guess I'll just repeat what I posted in #94 until in sinks in.

The girl's mother says they're using First Nations medicine in addition to whatever "treatment" the Florida quack is using on her.

The girl and her family decided to discontinue chemotherapy. Instead, they opted for treatment at the Hippocrates Health Institute [HHI] in West Palm Beach, Fla. The mother says it's complimentary to the First Nations medicine her daughter takes daily.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/aboriginal/first-nations-children-not-well-served...

Yes, but she does not expect the indigeneous part to cure her daughter of cancer. The Florida treatment is cure her daughter of cancer.

mark_alfred

Hmm.  Tough topic. It's reminiscient of Jehovah's Witness cases where they've argued that their religious beliefs give them the right to decline an MD's advice (like a blood transfusion, for instance).  In these cases, I generally don't have huge sympathy for the viewpoint of the Jehovah's Witness.  But I'm more hesitant in the case of a FN declining an MD's advice on cultural grounds.  In both cases I personally feel that declining an MD's advice is foolish, yet somehow the FN argument of having the right to decline holds more sway with me than in cases where there is a religious argument (IE, Jehovah's Witness).

jas

rhubarb wrote:

Here we are in the aboriginal issues and culture forum and several of the posters demonstrate NO respect for aboriginal issues and culture without any intervention and then R.P. posts and gets a "chill".  WOW!  I thought the comments made by Revolution Please contributed something vital to the discussion.

Thanks Revolution Please.

I agree. I don't think RP's posts were all that over the top compared to some of the other offensive posts here, which have also been reported. His was a natural response to the ignorance and tone of dismissal being communicated with impunity here, in the aboriginal issues forum.

6079_Smith_W

@ mark_alfred

And in the case of Jehovah's Witnesses, we also recognize that it is a choice, even if it is one based on non-rational values.

We also don't make assumptions that they are uneducated, that if they understood things better (that is to say, like we do) they would act differently, and that it is our duty to save them. Nor do we go rooting through their personal lives to see if we can bust them for somehow not being really JW, since obviously we know more about being members of that church than they do.

.

 

mark_alfred

Good of you to be consistent, 6079_Smith_W.

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And in the case of Jehovah's Witnesses, we also recognize that it is a choice, even if it is one based on non-rational values.

Parents who refuse blood transfusions for their children because of Jesus or Jehovah or whatever other nightmare should have their children confiscated by the state and told to stay nice and quiet.

And I believe the courts have agreed with me on this.

If they refuse blood transfusions for themselves, that of course is their God-given right. Saves precious resources for the more deserving, too.

 

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

bagkitty wrote:

RevolutionPlease wrote:

bagkitty wrote:

jas wrote:

I'm merely trying to get posters like Timebandit and Sineed to understand what they can validly claim (success rates of chemotherapy in these kinds of cancers) and what they can't validly claim ("no other therapies work"). This will help clean up our discussion immensely, and would probably lead most of us to the conclusion that we shouldn't even be posting on this topic.

What you are suggesting is the creation of a control group who are to be deprived of access to a demonstrably effective treatment (chemotherapy) in order to prove that the other therapies they would turn to are less effective (or entirely ineffective). That should clear up the argment immensely, of course, given the preponderance of existing evidence, this is likely to prove detrimental to those individuals who are part of the control group. How do you suggest they are selected... should we ask for volunteers, or select them on the basis of certain observable characteristics?

 

How should we set up the control groups unless you're suggesting we accept Western based coloonialim above all?

RP, I actually do not believe there is a need to provide the level of proof that Jas appears to be demanding in order to "clean up the discussion". I was, sarcastically, trying to point out that, given the preponderance of evidence already in place, a "control group" would have to be sacrificed in order to satisfy that absolute level of proof that Jas has been repeatedly demanding. My questions as to how the members of such a control group were to be selected was an attempt to get Jas to focus on the implications of playing rhetorical games about "proof" on real lives. Sarcasm might not have been the best route to go, but that was the route I took. Frankly, even with the sacrifice of a control group it could still be argued that the proof was not "absolute"... since it would not necessarily rule out the intervention of someone's invisible sky friend.

 

 

And I have a hard time thinking linear, like I should, to fit in. Would your control group allow for controlled environments to allow First Nations medicine to align with First Nations traditional living?

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

I guess I'm questioning how we accept Science that is extremely flawed and ignores copious amounts of observations from external influences.

 

This chemo thing seems to be the best alternative here. But that's just a statistical measure. And what's the saying about statistics?

 

Are we so rote in our thinking that we can't imagine others?

 

Perhaps this alternative worked quite well for the symptoms before we introduced all these external influences (i.e chemical changes)

 

Is the mandate of this forum not to discuss the fact First Nations are sovereign? You can't take over a people, apologize, talk like you want to do better and continue to ignore their sovereignty.

 

I don't want nobody to die either but we'd do far better to have such an active conversation on why so many more First Nations die so much quicker than the rest of us despite all the "supposed" good intentions of "Western advice" for them dominating this thread.

 

So, excuse me, sorry for being emotional. Not supposed to do that on the interwebs. Such a civil place, if you know how to skirt the rules.

Unionist

I think First Nations are sovereign.

Parents? No.

 

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Unionist wrote:

I think First Nations are sovereign.

Parents? No.

 

 

Sets up another question doesn't it? So, you'll only allow First Nations their autonomy in adulthood? Or their sovereignty on limited grounds?

 

Limit me preface your typical response of that's not what I said.

 

That is what you're saying, their sovereignty excludes your control over their children?

 

I know you didn't say it but really, how else do I read that?

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

It's like there's a mental block in here where science doesn't have flaws.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

MegB wrote:

rhubarb wrote:

Here we are in the aboriginal issues and culture forum and several of the posters demonstrate NO respect for aboriginal issues and culture without any intervention and then R.P. posts and gets a "chill".  WOW!  I thought the comments made by Revolution Please contributed something vital to the discussion.

Thanks Revolution Please.

It's not the perspective, it's the over-the-top personal attack. Not cool on babble.

 

Timebandit telling people they have reading comprehension problems, Sineed using "obscenities" and other over-the-top language.

 

As long as we couch their words. I get it. But hey, don't bother with an aboriginal forum if it ain't fucking worth it.

 

Chill RP, I don't think so.

6079_Smith_W

@ Unionist

I think you are missing my point a bit.

 I know about courts stepping in for the good of the child, and I agree with that principle, as I think every reasonable person should.In fact, the court in this case has that power, and chose to not exercise it. And this never was just about a family. You know that from following this.

You should probably see that there is a good deal here I agree with you on, including some ambivalence about the court decision in this case, And that is not saying I think the judge made the WRONG decision.

I'm aware of the thorny legal and moral question here. I thought it was clear I was talking about something completely separate from that.

To put it bluntly, there are a lot of non-Native people, religious and otherwise, who also make questionable decisions for their children. The difference is, we generally see those cases as bad choices.

The assumptions I have read, here and elsewhere, about this case, are something completely different - white people who presume to lecture Native people on what it is to be and "act" Native (as if it is an excuse to tear up any recognition of sovereignty), who assume they are uneducated, backwards and incapable of thinking for or helping themselves.

So of course we gotta take care of them for their own good.

Did you read that article? In particular the words of that cancer survivor? Why do you think she would call this a victory, despite her personal experience, and concern about the family's decision? Is she uneducated, backwards, and incapable of seeing things straight too?

 

 

 

 

 

Unionist

My point is really distressingly simple. Parents don't own their children. They don't have the power of life and death over their children. That's my point. Simple, isn't it?

6079_Smith_W

Yeah I know that. I thought that was clear pages ago.

Sorry to break it to you, but that fact isn't going to solve this problem, which is far from simple. The court, which holds that very simple power, has ruled otherwise.

And it sure isn't going to do anything about the handwringing reactionary response, which is what I was actually talking about.

 

 

jas

Unionist wrote:

My point is really distressingly simple. Parents don't own their children. They don't have the power of life and death over their children. That's my point. Simple, isn't it?

They would have that decision-making power in other life and death medical choices. As would any next of kin. If you disagree with this situation, at least provide a viable alternative. Preferably one that doesn't insult the intelligence of the parties in question.

Oops, there's me being racist again.

Ripple

I'm thinking and learning a lot by this discussion. Unionist, would you reconsider your use of "confiscate" as it relates to children?

Caissa

The issue is what duty do parents owe to their children? Secondarily, is the answer to my first question, culturally or religiously bound?

If parents are not fulfilling their duty to their children, then what is the state's obligation to the child?

jas

jas wrote:

Oops, there's me being racist again.

Never mind. I figured this out. Whitesplainin' in the Aboriginal Issues forum.

Duh.

Unionist

Ripple wrote:
I'm thinking and learning a lot by this discussion. Unionist, would you reconsider your use of "confiscate" as it relates to children?

Of course I'd reconsider it. I was using it ironically (sorry if that didn't come across clearly enough).

You know, parents who view their children as property - or maybe as pets - not as full-fledged members of human society who happen to need more support and nurturing while they develop and mature. Parents who think society must not interfere with how the parents, alone, determine a child's health care, education, religion, romantic partners, ...

"Confiscation" seems to fit that mentality. It's obviously the opposite of how I view children.

 

6079_Smith_W

From way back in the spring, before the lawsuit brought by the hospital to try and overrule the decision of Children's Aid Society.:

http://www.theturtleislandnews.com/daily/mailer_stories/may212014/Makayl...

 

Sineed

Interesting new development:

Florida spa that treated First Nation girls with cancer faces lawsuits from ex-staff

Quote:

A Florida health spa, popular with many Canadians battling cancer and other serious illnesses, is being sued by former staff who allege the company’s president is operating “a scam under Florida law” and practising medicine without a licence.

Brian Clement runs the Hippocrates Health Institute in West Palm Beach where the families of two young First Nations girls from Ontario recently spent tens of thousands of dollars on treatments for their daughters’ leukemia.

<snip>

Both First Nations girls made headlines recently for halting chemotherapy in favour of traditional indigenous medicine.

But their parents also opted for some therapies championed by Clement, who twice gave talks in their Six Nations community near Caldeonia, Ontario. He’s listed online as having made 17 other appearances in Canadian towns and cities this year alone.

http://news.lokalee.com/florida-spa-that-treated-first-nation-girls-with...

The nurse suing the institute said that not only did the non-licenced Clement interpret lab tests and order treatments, but also he'd cancel medical care recommended by real doctors. Clement fired several medical staff members who stood up to him for his behaviour.

As I've mentioned previously, there is no conflict between traditional aboriginal medicine and modern medicine. Both can be, and frequently are, administered together, like in the facility where I work and all across Canada. But this Clement, who has been taking his travelling quackery road show across Canada, encourages people to make an "either-or" choice. I'm wondering how much of a role he played in trumping up this dispute, which needn't have happened at all in the first place. The mother of the second girl did specifically mention Clement as instrumental in helping her decide to stop the chemotherapy.

Caissa
Unionist

jas wrote:

Unionist wrote:

My point is really distressingly simple. Parents don't own their children. They don't have the power of life and death over their children. That's my point. Simple, isn't it?

They would have that decision-making power in other life and death medical choices. As would any next of kin. If you disagree with this situation, at least provide a viable alternative. Preferably one that doesn't insult the intelligence of the parties in question.

Ok. Here's what I wrote in post #30 in this thread:

Unionist, on October 24, 2014 wrote:

I don't believe parents should be allowed the power of life or death over their children, so I take parents' beliefs, faith, culture, scientific knowledge, whatever, with a grain of salt - as one piece in the puzzle.

A larger question for me is this: If society (as I believe) has a duty to protect its members, even if it's against their parents - which society is that? Canada? Humanity as a whole? The First Nation to which a child belongs? Or the "faith" community?

I'm still there. I can't provide a "viable solution". All I know so far, for sure, is what the solution is not.

How about my questions? They're not rhetorical. I don't know the answers.

 

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

How about my questions? They're not rhetorical. I don't know the answers.

What I wonder is, how do your questions relate, if at all, to this situation?

Has anyone said that parents should have complete control to treat their children like pets? Is the child in this case being treated like a pet, or is this all in accordance with Ontario law, as pointed out in the article I just posted?

The parents were not the ones being sued, and the ultimate power of governments to act in the interest of the child was never in question in this situation. In fact, we have had two levels of government (the second forced by the hospital) who decided to not exercise that power.

Again, while I share some of your concerns regarding some of the decisions made, I think your argument here is made of straw.

What is in question is not the right of government to act in the interest of the child so long as they make the decision we think they should.

 

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Unionist wrote:

How about my questions? They're not rhetorical. I don't know the answers.

What I wonder is, how do your questions relate, if at all, to this situation?

I don't presume to be able to pronounce on this one situation. I asked my question because I think it's important, and it relates to the competing or cooperating interface between the rights and obligations of parents, society, and the individual.

Quote:
Has anyone said that parents should have complete control to treat their children like pets? Is the child in this case being treated like a pet, or is this all in accordance with Ontario law, as pointed out in the article I just posted?

Um, sorry about the use of the word "pet". Consider it withdrawn. I said parents should not have the unilateral power to determine what medical treatment their children do or do not receive in life-threatening situations. I don't much know or care about Ontario law. What do you think of my statement about parents' rights and obligations?

Quote:
The parents were not the ones being sued, and the ultimate power of governments to act in the interest of the child was never in question in this situation.

That power is in question in this discussion thread. Scroll back and see. I'm participating in the discussion triggered by this and similar cases. I've expressed some opinions, and questions to which I don't know the answers.

Quote:
Again, while I share some of your concerns regarding some of the decisions made, I think your argument here is made of straw.

Which "argument" is that? How about quoting, verbatim, what I say so that I'll know which "argument" you're refuting.

 

6079_Smith_W

I'm talking about the argument you just repeated again. I have addressed it a couple of times in succession. Am I not being clear?:

Unionist wrote:

I said parents should not have the unilateral power to determine what medical treatment their children do or do not receive in life-threatening situations.

How is that in any way in question in this specific case?

Two levels of government have formally backed up the parent's decision; three, if you count the informal support of the First Nation. The argument of the hospital notwithstanding, NO government has formally used its power to try and override their decision.

And there is the Ontario law mentioned in the article which compelled the Children's Aid Society to take into account what Makayla's own wishes were.

Again, the power of government to act in the best interest of the child is still in place even if they don't use it in the way you and some others think they should. They have that power; they simply decided to not use it to override the family's decision, but the power is still in their hands.

And has the family ever made the argument that government should not step in, or should not have that power? Seeing as every government so far has backed them up, I'd be curious where such an argument would come from.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sineed

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Again, the power of government to act in the best interest of the child is still in place even if they don't use it in the way you and some others think they should. They have that power; they simply decided to not use it to override the family's decision, but the power is still in their hands.

You and U might be splitting hairs here; you both, like me, appear to agree that this situation failed the child. That failure was the inability of decision-makers to identify what was the most important, in this case, the right of the child to live and grow up. To privilege anything over the life of a child is morally repugnant.

Pages

Topic locked