Yes, parents have the right to make medical decisions on behalf of their minor children. Are these decisions sometimes terrible decisions (in the opinion of others)? Yes. But some parents also physically and sexually abuse their children. And until they get caught and stopped, they continue to do so.
What's fascinating about this sad case is that Canadian settler judgement and the colonial ("We know what's best for you") mindset sure are selective when deciding what is and isn't a "horrible problem" in the Aboriginal community.
No potable water? Yawn.
High rates of suicide in remote communities? Whatevs.
Mouldy trailers for housing? Who gives a shit.
Schools and community centres in need of drastic repairs? Clearly they have mis-managed their community and need no intervention.
An individual family making a medical decision about their child? However much anyone inside or outside the community approves or disapproves? Oh My God, sound the alarm! Alert the media! Go to court! Crisis! Crisis!
In this case, having settlers, with their/our colonial mindsets, bicker over a single issue, a single example, is very typical, historical, hypocritical and pretty gross.
rhubarb, I posted Connie Walker's article because she's a FN woman who is also an investigative reporter, one who has been in direct contact with both JJ and her mother and with the quack who is killing her. In this article Connie employs a lot of her own perspective. There have been a lot of allegations about a lack of respect for aboriginal perspectives, so I've provided one that seems to be knowledgeable on all counts.
JJ had chemotherapy, therefore your scenario #2 is irrelevant to this discussion.
I don't have much to respond with to your rejection of evidence. All I can point to is that you've provided no evidence at any point in this very lengthy thread. You've emplyed hostile ad hominem arguments, claimed non-specific anecdotes, accused posters of racism and cultural insensitivity and howled about offense. You've spouted some of the favourite tropes of the worst kind of fraudster there is, the medical quack. But not one, single, documented case of alt med curing leukemia.
So before you demand I answer any more questions, how about you pony up some evidence more substantial than your feels and then we can compare and contrast. In the meantime, you've got nothing but hot air to add to the conversation.
Sorry, no propaganda to offer nor do I feel I need to, as to observations that colonialism equals racism that is just true, as to howling... LOL To anyone joining the thread, please take the time to read it, unless of course you are part of Time Bandit's multiplicity ....of fans.
I'm not sure what you mean by "multiplicity... of fans". Are you accusing me of making sock puppets?
I think that you're conflating colonialism with concerns over a child receiving appropriate medical care. I'm pretty sure Connie Walker, for instance, is not promoting colonialism.
I accuse you of supporting a view that offers no respect for the First Nations people.
I have posted to show my respect for the right of First Nations peoples to find their own way. For me, this this thread is not about who is right or who is wrong, it is about their right to choose what treatments they will pursue.
That has nothing to do with "multiplicity... of fans."
Balls you have. You've posted your support of quackery and alt med - a support so strong that it considers the death of a child perfectly okay as long as her mother is making choices that support your prejudices against science and medicine.
As Connie Walker points out, this was never about respecting indiginous practices - even if people have used the situation to make hay over the issue.
I will not defend myself to you, nor will I defend my point of view, you are the one who is making over the top accusations (see above), you are the one revealed to be a person without respect.
IOW: I got nuthin'.
Comic aside.
It took me a minute to figure that out. At first I thought it was Yoda-speak.
(edit)
More seriously, Yeah, I figured it would come to this once it turned into an alternative vs big medicine punch-up. Does it really matter what the results of the autopsy are?
If the cause of Makayla's death does matter, Smith, it's only because the alt-med believers are going to claim that refusing chemotherapy is justified by Makayla's death.
My concern from the beginning of the thread has been that JJ isn't being protected to the extent any other child of any other race in Canada is. Her mother loves her deeply, but is making bad decisions based on fear and ignorance. Regardless her FN status, isn't that where the child welfare system is supposed to kick into gear? Should the fact that this particular child is FN have any bearing on the matter?
FWIW, I think the answer to the first question is "yes", and to the second that it doesn't. I think JJ is being treated as expendable in making a point about FN autonomy, and I find that deeply disturbing.
As to Alt medicine...We live in a Capitalist society it seems to me that if any of it had efficacy someone would try to sell it to us. Just look at adverts for vitamin supplemented food. Further without inspection we have no way of knowing what is in anything... So explain to me why I should trust a health food store sppliement?
What I meant was that those who believe that the fix is in aren't likely to believe an autopsy result.
And while I agree with your concerns, I disagree with spinning this as FN children being less valuable because the federal government isn't forcing a decision on them. Sorry, but not only are the causes of this far more complex than one family allegedly making a bad decision based on ignorance, that kind of enforced solution never has solved the problem, only made it worse.
But we have been around this point a few times already in this thread.
I find it interesting, though, that Connie Walker asks the same question - Why is an aboriginal child not afforded the same protections as other Canadian children?
I know we've been around it numerous times, but I still think it speaks volumes that different levels of government are willing to let a child die over this particular hot potato.
Well it is a loaded question, and it is not the only reason why the two decisions were made - in particular the one by CFS. To spin it as that and that alone is not accurate.
I have pointed to a reference in another article a couple of times. Here it is again in The Star:
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/01/20/ontario-law-allows-children-t...
It wasn't the alleged ignorance of her family, nor her FN status.
But in JJ's case it was her mother's decision.
I also think that Ontario's law is ill considered. Children should have some input into, say, custody decisions, but life and death scenarios shouldn't be left to them.
Be that as it may, it is the law, and the basis of the first decision. Despite the words of the judge in the trial against CFS, we have no way of knowing that there might not have been the same outcome with a child who was not FN.
But the fact that she is FN gives a bitter irony to some of the public reaction, and the claims that her life would have been more "valued" by the use of brute force.
As if we haven't been using that brute force enough.
I guess the point is that the same "brute force"* would be applied to any other child, too. It's not a result of singling out an aboriginal child.
*I don't actually see it that way, and don't know why Koster felt it would have to amount to a removal from her home and family as other kids have undergone court-ordered chemo while remaining with their families. There are a number of ways this could have played out where JJ could have received medical treatment and the trauma to the family could have been minimized.
Or not. We don't know. But my point was that we don't know if the legal decisioncame down to singling out FN people, despite the judge's comments. A siimilar decision might have been reached based on the consent law.
But as I said, the irony is in contrasting that with our long history of forcing solutions on Native people, the fact that history is largely responsible for this mistrust, and the fact that it has never been a lasting solution.
Rhubarb, you have been warned, yet you continue to bait and attack. Welcome to your babble-free weekend.
100% yes.
Meg, do you feel the discussion here is in line with the aboriginal forum's mandate?
I was thinking about this, and something that was linked to something else brought up this link - Ontario doesn't seem to have trouble intervening with white parents espousing alt med:
[quoote]
An Ottawa father says he lost his parental decision-making rights Friday for refusing to allow doctors at CHEO to proceed with chemotherapy treatment for his 18-month-old son's leukemia.
The man can't be named because the case is being handled by Children's Aid.
He claims the hospital hasn't provided him with enough written evidence of his son's condition and isn't receptive to his desire for alternative treatment options -- namely cannabis oil.
http://www.ottawasun.com/2014/09/12/cannabis-not-chemo-for-son-with-leuk...
So if there isn't a religious or First Nations slant to it, Children's Aid absolutely will step in. I can't help feeling that this reinforces the idea that the reason Children's Aid is not intervening in J.J.'s case because she is First Nations.