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

*puts a little more butter  on his popcorn as he watches*

Quote:

Both girls sought treatment at an American alternative health centre that is registered as a massage establishment and run by a nutrition counsellor. It promotes a positive attitude, eating a raw-plant-based organic diet and ridding your life of contaminants to heal cancer.

Sault went to the Hippocrates Health Institute in West Palm Beach, Florida, which believes in curing cancer with a positive attitude as well as eating a raw plant-based organic diet and clearing your life of contaminants. The other girl refusing chemotherapy — the subject of Friday’s ruling — sought similar treatment.

The institute’s co-director, Brian Clement, has come to Ontario — including the Six Nations reserve — at least twice in the past six months. A talk he gave in October was on the nutritional benefits of eating raw food, and the one in May was titled “All About Cancer and Conquering Disease with Living Foods.”

“Eat a raw plant-based organic diet,” Clement tells cancer patients in a promotional video for the institute. “This is how we’ve seen thousands and thousands of people reverse stage-four ‘catastrophic’ cancer.”

He also tells patients: “Change your lifestyle first with your attitude. Be positive.” In addition, patients are advised to make sure they don’t do things that “contaminate you and pollute you.”

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/11/14/ontario_girl_can_rely_on_trad...

http://rabble.ca/comment/1468200#comment-1468200

This was upthread, #80.  Perhaps you should re-read.  If, indeed, you read it in the first place.

There was also mention of cold laser therapy and foot baths.  These are the "modalities" they're using, FYI.  I highly doubt they brought about the current remission.

And yes, the assumption that you've taken the time to read the thread so that you know what you're talking about is probably misguided.  I will henceforth not assume that you know what you're on about at any point in the future.  You have my word on that.

Bacchus wrote:

*puts a little more butter  on his popcorn as he watches*

May I have some of that popcorn please?

TeeHee

Quote:

This is our history, this is colonialism, this is racism, once it was residential schools, now it is chemotherapy.   This insistence on being right is the rot at the root of our misery and until people such as yourself can accept that it is not for you to say, moving ahead is challenging. 

Fortunately, the First Nations are moving ahead and there are some, such as the judge who made this ruling, who respect that it is not our right to impose our views.  Sadly, many individuals like yourself who undoubtedly do not view themselves as racist are blind to the violence they do and the racism they perpetuate.

I just want to see the kid live.

The big difference between residential schools and chemotherapy is this:  Residential schools were meant to eradicate the First Nations.  Chemotherapy is meant to keep sick kids alive to grow up.  It doesn't have to eradicate their culture or infringe on their personhood. 

But hey, better dead than a victim of colonial medicine, amirite?  Moving forward is paramount, even if a few kids have to die to make the point. 

When ideology becomes more important than the life of your child, you need to give your head a shake.  Not that I think that's what's going on in this case, exactly.  I think the parents were afraid and taken advantage of, just like parents of a variety of racial backgrounds are when they have a desperately ill child.  But I do think that grand anti-colonial statements on the backs of this family takes further advantage of them.

<\3

Timebandit]</p> <p>[quote wrote:

.....

I just want to see the kid live.

The big difference between residential schools and chemotherapy is this:  Residential schools were meant to eradicate the First Nations.  Chemotherapy is meant to keep sick kids alive to grow up.  It doesn't have to eradicate their culture or infringe on their personhood. 

But hey, better dead than a victim of colonial medicine, amirite?  Moving forward is paramount, even if a few kids have to die to make the point. 

When ideology becomes more important than the life of your child, you need to give your head a shake.  Not that I think that's what's going on in this case, exactly.  I think the parents were afraid and taken advantage of, just like parents of a variety of racial backgrounds are when they have a desperately ill child.  But I do think that grand anti-colonial statements on the backs of this family takes further advantage of them.

Do you think being a First Nations person is some kind of ideology?

rhubarb wrote:

Do you think being a First Nations person is some kind of ideology?

Of course not.  However, FN people have their idealogues, just as we have ours.  Anybody claiming this strikes a blow for the validation of FN people's culture is using a sick child for political points and that's kind of sick, don't you think?

Timebandit wrote:

rhubarb wrote:

Do you think being a First Nations person is some kind of ideology?

Of course not.  However, FN people have their idealogues, just as we have ours.  Anybody claiming this strikes a blow for the validation of FN people's culture is using a sick child for political points and that's kind of sick, don't you think?

You said, "When ideology becomes more important than the life of your child, you need to give your head a shake".

This statement directly attacks the family by inferring that they put ideology before the health of their child.  That is insulting and abusive and entirely consistent with a racist and colonialist view.

This family trusted the medical system and as a consequence Makayla received chemotherapy, chemotherapy they say that damaged her heart and organs and resulted in the stroke that killed her.  I cannot help but think that the parents of the other child are grateful that their daughter received only two weeks of chemotherapy.

So much for your insistence that chemotherapy would save her.  Are you incapable, even now, of admitting that perhaps you were wrong, perhaps the doctors were wrong?

rhubarb wrote:

Timebandit wrote:

rhubarb wrote:

Do you think being a First Nations person is some kind of ideology?

Of course not.  However, FN people have their idealogues, just as we have ours.  Anybody claiming this strikes a blow for the validation of FN people's culture is using a sick child for political points and that's kind of sick, don't you think?

You said, "When ideology becomes more important than the life of your child, you need to give your head a shake".

This statement directly attacks the family by inferring that they put ideology before the health of their child.  That is insulting and abusive and entirely consistent with a racist and colonialist view.

Actually, the entirety of what I said was this:

"When ideology becomes more important than the life of your child, you need to give your head a shake.  Not that I think that's what's going on in this case, exactly.  I think the parents were afraid and taken advantage of, just like parents of a variety of racial backgrounds are when they have a desperately ill child.  But I do think that grand anti-colonial statements on the backs of this family takes further advantage of them."

So no, the inference only works if you take out the context.  Nice try, though.

Quote:

This family trusted the medical system and as a consequence Makayla received chemotherapy, chemotherapy they say that damaged her heart and organs and resulted in the stroke that killed her.  I cannot help but think that the parents of the other child are grateful that their daughter received only two weeks of chemotherapy.

So much for your insistence that chemotherapy would save her.  Are you incapable, even now, of admitting that perhaps you were wrong, perhaps the doctors were wrong?

We don't know for sure if that's the case.  Her parents may believe that, but they are dealing with something I wouldn't want to be wrestling with.  My heart breaks for them, but I don't necessarily accept their version as entirely conclusive.

Published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal the same day as Makayla's death:

Caring for aboriginal patients requires trust and respect, not courtrooms

http://www.cmaj.ca/content/early/2015/01/19/cmaj.141613

Quote:

Media coverage has fueled a narrative of polarized paradigms that is unhelpful and misleading, implying false choices. Medical science poses no inherent conflict with Aboriginal ways of thinking. Medical science is not specific to a single culture, but is shared by Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people alike. Most Aboriginal people seek care from health professionals — but nearly half also use traditional medicines. Aboriginal healing traditions are deeply valued ancestral practices that emphasize plant-based medicines, culture and ceremony, multiple dimensions of health (physical, mental, emotional and spiritual), and relationships between healer, patient, community and environment. These beliefs create expectations that Aboriginal patients bring to their health care encounters; these must be respected. Doing so is not political correctness — it is patient-centred care.

To make medical treatment acceptable to our Aboriginal patients, the health care system must earn their trust by delivering respect. We must ensure that our Aboriginal patients, their families and communities feel welcome, are comfortable self-identifying as Aboriginal and do not fear judgment based on stereotypes. They must feel safe sharing their wishes to perform ceremonies or pursue traditional healing practices in conjunction with treatment, and these wishes should be accommodated as readily as we would spiritual counselling from a chaplain. All health professionals must know about the ongoing health inequities affecting Aboriginal people and strive to address their collective repercussions. Evaluating quality of care must include the experiences and relationships of our Aboriginal patients with the health care system in addition to disease outcomes.

Sineed wrote:

She stopped chemo months ago, so no; the chemo wasn't likely to have caused her stroke.

A brief perusal of some of the literature online suggests stroke and heart disease are a known risk during, after, and long after chemotherapy, including for leukemia, so I'm not sure how you could state this with any confidence.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

It's very unfortunate that Makayla has died, and condolences to the family. I would think that this is a horrible thing to go through and that the argument between "chemo works/no it doesn't" is not only a moot point, but I actually think it's in pretty bad taste under the circumstances.

Word

Sineed wrote:

jas wrote:

Sineed wrote:

She stopped chemo months ago, so no; the chemo wasn't likely to have caused her stroke.

A brief perusal of some of the literature online suggests stroke and heart disease are a known risk during, after, and long after chemotherapy, including for leukemia, so I'm not sure how you could state this with any confidence.

It's a matter of what is most probable. Chemotherapy has many long-term risks, but it is less likely to have caused the stroke compared with leukemia itself. And I consulted with an oncologist before making this statement.

As for this discussion being in "bad taste," I certainly would think so if talking to family members, who deserve nothing but sympathy and support. But their message, that chemotherapy ultimately killed their child, must be vigorously opposed, for the sake of those children who are still alive.

I find it fascinating that you have an oncologist in your back pocket.

Oppose away, the First Nations are not here, they do not care what is said here and nothing you say, which is just more of the same, will have any impact on their lives, so tout the virtues of chemotherapy all you want, deny Makayla's experience that the chemotherapy was killing her.

You and your ilk are irrelevent to these families.  Thankfully.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

It's very unfortunate that Makayla has died, and condolences to the family. I would think that this is a horrible thing to go through and that the argument between "chemo works/no it doesn't" is not only a moot point, but I actually think it's in pretty bad taste under the circumstances.

We could take the discussion out of the Aboriginal issues forum, then.  I must disagree that the medical issues ought no longer to be discussed.  This case will no doubt be used to fuel all kinds of narratives about medicine and the medical establishment.  

My mom went through a year of chemo, and for the following year once the treatments had ceased, she underwent regular heart and stroke related tests of an exploratory and preventative nature.  Apparently certain types of chemo drugs do increase the risks of heart attacks and strokes.

To me this debate has served to reinforce the suspicion that when it comes down to it, certain socially progressive points of view are not so far removed from totalitarian impluses after all, no matter what they might think they're trying to accomplish.  Health care, as benign an instrument of political power as some are led to believe, or would have others believe, is an arm of government and thus of the dominant society.  It doesn't matter which bureau of government one contemplates imposing upon others, as benevolent an intervention as it may seem.  The fact of the matter is that it needn't be limited to health care.  Similar justifications on behalf of the other departments of government become available in a variety of circumstances.  It's always for someone's own good or for the protection of the general public.  In this case the argument being stated is that the magnificence of our sciences trumps the rights of individual appeals to not be subjected to it.  It's from that type of seed that all kinds of nefarious schemes are derived, such as R2P, humanitarian interventions, the plight of women and children as the fig leaf for imperialism, etc.  Just because the case involves a situation in Canada and we're talking about the 'responsibility' of the health care system vs. the decision making of individuals and parents in particular, it doesn't mean broader implications have not been present all along in this debate.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I agree with you about that reading of motive . THing is, it can also  be directed at those whose mistrust means they automatically assume that a person was killed by chemo.

I believe that this and the religious/cultural aspect are not very pertinent to the issue of individual sovereignty.  Once the government states emphatically that in the area of health care, individual choice and parental consent are to be removed and taken on by government, then this would have broad implications, including circumcisions and assisted suicide - except in that case the government can favourably weigh in perhaps if the cost of continuing to sustain a terminal individual becomes a factor.  It's not just FN communities and individuals who are at risk of having certain decisions made for them.  And what if this were the order of things, that the court clears the way for health departments to impose treatments?  Obviously in the event of non-compliance with an order, other departments would have to be brought in to force the situation, such as community services, the police, the courts, etc.  One hand washing the other does not rinse away what kind of society this would be.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

But the government didn't do that, SJ. They did exactly the opposite, at the CFS level, and in the courts. And in the first case they based it on Ontario's laws around underage consent. It's a compelling narrative, I agree. But this case is not an example of it. 

No they didn't.  Apparently the wider ramifications of doing so based on the circumstances of one case couldn't have been more obvious.

I'm afraid you will have to spell out the connection for me, because as I understand it CFS decided there were not grounds to step in, and when the hospital tried to overrule that in the courts they lost.

(edit)

Though if you think states should never have the power to step in in cases of abuse, or inability to give informed consent, I disagree. Both CFS and the court had that power. That is a good thing, IMO.

pookie wrote:

Thank you.

Got the answer you wanted, did ya?

Timebandit wrote:

rhubarb wrote:

 

I find it fascinating that you have an oncologist in your back pocket.

I think your superpower must be hyperbole.

Dr David Gorski is a well-known blogger.  Anybody can email him via the two blogs he posts on.  You can also find him on twitter.  I don't think that constitutes Sineed having him in her back pocket.

"You think my superpower must be hyperbole."

Did I let my cape slip?  lol  

I did not address you, I addressed Sineed, is she not capable of responding for herself?  

What would make you happy?  Would you like me to go away?  Do you think sniping at me will succeed in pushing me off babble? Do you understand that your behavior reveals you as a person incapable of allowing another person to have a different point of view? 

I can only say that I am grateful to live in a world I experience as multi-dimensional, where I understand and appreciate that sometimes the treatment for cancer is most appropriately chemotherapy and radiation but that in other circumstances not appropriate at all.  You and Sineed have made this thread about chemotherapy as the only treatment, ignoring that the issue isn't whether it is or isn't but that the First Nations people will decide for themselves. Perhaps that is the real focus, perhaps it is all about framing the argument to supercede the rights of the First Nations and using a child who is ill is an easy way to stir up people's emotions and justify ignoring those rights.

As for Dr.Gorski, he freely acknowledges that chemotherapy can kill, how is that you can't?

pookie wrote:

Yes, from someone whose opinion I have come over many years to know as reasonable, and well-informed.

You said you were asking honestly, and I mentioned that much of the literature online recognizes heart disease and stroke as known risks for chemotherapy, but that didn't interest you? Okay.