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

504 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Mon, 2014-11-17 16:42

rhubarb

Pondering wrote:

....

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.

There are First Nations Child Care Agencies. Check out the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, do a search for leukemia and discover that toxic waste may be connected to a number of First Nations children with leukemia. Discover that they do have views on this matter.

You said you supported sovereignty now you say you don't see sovereignty as an issue, it appears to me that you will say anything at all to argue your point of view and that you will ignore pertinent information if it doesn't support your point of view. I won't participate further.

Mon, 2014-11-17 17:33

#153

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

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?

Two separate arguments.

1) The family court and child protective services have failed in their duty just as they also do in non-aboriginal cases. The only solution is appeal along with having another look at what it means to respect aboriginal sovereignty as opposed to parental sovereignty and the rights of the child which exist separate to that of parents and communities.

2) Respecting FN sovereignty doesn't mean simply withdrawing existing supports and saying "your problem". There has to be a transition of power to avoid a vacuum. If our family services and courts should never interfere based on sovereign rights then we shouldn't be hearing cases at all. In that case FN needs their own framework for dealing with such situations.

Mon, 2014-11-17 17:42

#154

Pondering

rhubarb wrote:
There are First Nations Child Care Agencies.

They obviously don't have any jurisdiction over this case or they would be involved.

rhubarb wrote:
You said you supported sovereignty now you say you don't see sovereignty as an issue,....

I don't see sovereignty as the issue in this case. I see parental rights as the issue.

The argument is not that the courts don't have jurisdiction. If that were true they wouldn't have heard the case at all. This would set a precedent and no more child welfare cases would be heard by the court. Deciding either way is an infringement of sovereignty.

The sovereignty argument is concealing the argument of absolute parental rights over their children.

Mon, 2014-11-17 18:48

#155

Sineed

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 agree about not picking apart terminology - that drives me nuts.

Though I take issue with your statement that FN people don't have access to the same level of health care. They have the same access as anybody else, and in fact it could be argued their access is better because the FN status card also gives them access to a generous pharmacare program.

And the two girls being discussed in this thread were both being treated at one of the top centres in the country before their parents pulled them out of treatment. As someone who has worked in healthcare x nearly 30 years, I see some FN people who are heavy users of health care services. They suffer from a high rate of type II diabetes and have no trouble receiving care for that. For instance, in the north, there are pharmacists whose job is, in part, ordering in large quantities of medications for people going out on trap lines for months.

FN people get all sorts of health care. I really don't get what you mean about a lack of access for them.

Mon, 2014-11-17 19:21

#156

6079_Smith_W

Unless some triage nurse mistakes your symptoms for drunkenness:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/08/29/brian-sinclair-winnipeg_n_383700...

Something I have read about more than just in this case where the gentleman wound up dying after sitting 36 hours in the waiting room.

(edit)

As for more basic questions of access, like a clinic you don't have to take a cab to get to, there were plans to have one of those on the west side here - with the support of the city and university hospital - until the Sask Party killed it.

Mon, 2014-11-17 19:21

#157

Unionist

Yeah, exactly, Smith - and I linked to the Brian Sinclair case in [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/aboriginal-issues-and-culture/judge-says-forcing... post above[/url].

But I really don't want to debate with Sineed about whether it's easier for (say) me or for a First Nations resident of a reserve or of Winnipeg's north end to get the health care I need when I need it. It's a much bigger topic than the one here, and I'm sure she's far more familiar with the field. But I think access to health care has to include looking at health results - no?

Mon, 2014-11-17 19:31

#158

abnormal

Pondering wrote:
The sovereignty argument is concealing the argument of absolute parental rights over their children.

If parental rights were absolute we would never have seen the courts ordering blood transfusions for the children of Jehovahs Witnesses.

Mon, 2014-11-17 19:52

#159

jas

Sineed wrote:

FN people get all sorts of health care. I really don't get what you mean about a lack of access for them.

I would think he is in part referring to where FN people live - in the north, on reserves or both. Northern residents of all backgrounds do not have the same access to health care as urbans do, and access also involves extra costs which will dissuade some from seeking timely care.

Mon, 2014-11-17 19:53

#160

Pondering

abnormal wrote:

Pondering wrote:
The sovereignty argument is concealing the argument of absolute parental rights over their children.

If parental rights were absolute we would never have seen the courts ordering blood transfusions for the children of Jehovahs Witnesses.

I agree, so aboriginal sovereignty shouldn't be absolute either. As in, if an aboriginal girl converts to Jehovah Witness they shouldn't be able to refuse a blood transfusion for her based on being aboriginal.

Mon, 2014-11-17 20:05

#161

Sineed

unionist wrote:
But I think access to health care has to include looking at health results - no?

Yeah, it's part of it, though when looking at the health of communities, access to medical care is just a piece of the puzzle. The healthiest, longest-lived people in the world live on islands with few services; namely, Okinawa, and Sardinia (home of casu marzu, the Sardinian maggot cheese - but I digress).

I have followed the Brian Sinclair case since the beginning. I don't know whether racism played a role in his fate, but having worked in busy health care settings, I can see how a barely-verbal guy sitting quietly in a wheelchair surrounded by the usual noisy chaos of an emergency room could get overlooked. His family might have trouble proving racism, considering that while he sat there dying, many other FN people were getting seen.

Mon, 2014-11-17 20:21

#162

Aristotleded24

Sineed wrote:
I have followed the Brian Sinclair case since the beginning. I don't know whether racism played a role in his fate, but having worked in busy health care settings,

I live in Manitoba. I can assure you that racism was absolutely a factor in Sinclair's death.

Mon, 2014-11-17 23:02

#163

swallow

Pondering wrote:

rhubarb wrote:
There are First Nations Child Care Agencies.

They obviously don't have any jurisdiction over this case or they would be involved.

Doesn't follow - the court case was a hospital suing Brant Family Services because it would not force treatment.

Do you know for a fact that [url=http://www.sixnations.ca/cfsBandRep.htm]Six Nations Child and Family Services[/url] was not consulted by Brant Family Services?

Quote:
rhubarb wrote:
You said you supported sovereignty now you say you don't see sovereignty as an issue,....

I don't see sovereignty as the issue in this case. I see parental rights as the issue.

The argument is not that the courts don't have jurisdiction. If that were true they wouldn't have heard the case at all. This would set a precedent and no more child welfare cases would be heard by the court. Deciding either way is an infringement of sovereignty.

The sovereignty argument is concealing the argument of absolute parental rights over their children.

The Six Nations band council chief was on the radio soeaking about this as an issue of community defending itself and its children, not as one of parental rights. For her, it was about sovereignty.

The band council's press release states:

Quote:
Forcing a First Nations child to undergo unwanted, mainstream medical treatment is an affront to the dignity and autonomy of the child, our cultures, and our nations. Had our children beenforced into treatment, it would have had a disastrous effect on their emotional, psychological,and spiritual well‐being. Instead of being proud of their own traditions, they would learn thatthe laws, governance, teachings and medicines of the Haudenosaunee and Anishinabe cultureswere wrong and even dangerous. This is simply not true.

[url=http://www.sixnations.ca/pressrelease_JointRulingonTraditionalMedicine.p... Nations band council press release 14 nov 2014 (pdf)[/url]

Tue, 2014-11-18 12:02

#164

Sineed

Quote:
Forcing a First Nations child to undergo unwanted mainstream medical treatment is an affront to the dignity and autonomy of the child, our cultures, and our nations. Had our children been forced into treatment, it would have had a disastrous effect on their emotional, psychological,and spiritual well‐being. Instead of being proud of their own traditions, they would learn that the laws, governance, teachings and medicines of the Haudenosaunee and Anishinabe cultures were wrong and even dangerous.

This press release reveals the bad communication that is at the heart of this story, the false dichotomy that has been played up in the media. The kids could have had both FN medicines and the evidence-based treatments without compromising either. FN healers come into the institution where I work, and none of them ever suggests that people refuse mainstream medical treatments and use FN medicines instead.

Tue, 2014-11-18 15:20

#165

jas

Yeah, weird how even when we grant FN people their nice little corner of complementary health care, they snub it. The nerve!

Tue, 2014-11-18 15:22

#166

Bacchus

More the stupidity, not nerve in this case

Tue, 2014-11-18 15:37

#167

jas

Bacchus, I'm sure you'll want to edit that post.

In the meantime, would be great to get some anti-racism perspective here. Maysie? Anyone?

Tue, 2014-11-18 16:08

#168

abnormal

Sineed wrote:

Quote:
Forcing a First Nations child to undergo unwanted mainstream medical treatment is an affront to the dignity and autonomy of the child, our cultures, and our nations. Had our children been forced into treatment, it would have had a disastrous effect on their emotional, psychological,and spiritual well‐being. Instead of being proud of their own traditions, they would learn that the laws, governance, teachings and medicines of the Haudenosaunee and Anishinabe cultures were wrong and even dangerous.

This press release reveals the bad communication that is at the heart of this story, the false dichotomy that has been played up in the media. The kids could have had both FN medicines and the evidence-based treatments without compromising either. FN healers come into the institution where I work, and none of them ever suggests that people refuse mainstream medical treatments and use FN medicines instead.

Problem is that the treatment the parents want to embrace is not traditional First Nations medicine in any way shape or form. It's a modern western world holistic treatment and has nothing to do with aboriginal treatments.

Tue, 2014-11-18 16:12

#169

Bacchus

Exactly abnormal.

And no Jas, I have no desire to edit that in any form. Just because they are FN, doesnt mean they cant be stupid. FN does not equal freedom from stupidity

Tue, 2014-11-18 16:54

#170

6079_Smith_W

jas wrote:

Bacchus, I'm sure you'll want to edit that post.

In the meantime, would be great to get some anti-racism perspective here. Maysie? Anyone?

I'm no expert, but I have said all I can a few times already and gave up.

Though I'll try repeating one little thing.. this endless bit about insisting that Natives prove to us whites that they are Native enough before we recognize their right to make their own decisions for themselves.

What's next... insisting they wear buckskin? ride horses? Oh wait... that last bit is old world technology too.

Tue, 2014-11-18 17:38

#171

abnormal

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Though I'll try repeating one little thing.. this endless bit about insisting that Natives prove to us whites that they are Native enough before we recognize their right to make their own decisions for themselves.

In this case I'd settle for the parents (or the relevant tribal council) demonstrating that the treatment in question has anything to do with traditional Native medicine.

Otherwise all we have is a group of people who want to replace "real" medicine with a modern western quack cure that has nothing to do with the parents' so called "ancestral roots". The fact that they've just pronounce a death sentence on their child is a separate question.

Tue, 2014-11-18 17:44

#172

6079_Smith_W

You'd settle for that, eh? Very um, generous of you.

Tue, 2014-11-18 18:52

#173

onlinediscountanvils

abnormal wrote:

In this case I'd settle for the parents (or the relevant tribal council) demonstrating that the treatment in question has anything to do with traditional Native medicine.

Otherwise all we have is a group of people who want to replace "real" medicine with a modern western quack cure that has nothing to do with the parents' so called "ancestral roots".

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...

Tue, 2014-11-18 18:58

#174

abnormal

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

abnormal wrote:

In this case I'd settle for the parents (or the relevant tribal council) demonstrating that the treatment in question has anything to do with traditional Native medicine.

Otherwise all we have is a group of people who want to replace "real" medicine with a modern western quack cure that has nothing to do with the parents' so called "ancestral roots".

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...

In short, instead of real medicine we'll pretend to use some "ancestral" treatments (that we, or they, know nothing about) in conjunction with a totally fraudulent western snake oil treatment. But, in fairness, I've got some swampland in Florida that I'll happily donate for this kid's gravesite.

Tue, 2014-11-18 19:03

#175

swallow

The press release from the "relevant tribal council" is posted above.

Tue, 2014-11-18 20:12

#176

Sineed

An oncologist weighs in:

Dr. David Gorski wrote:

The Song Remains the Same: Parental rights trump children’s rights to health care

All these cases that I’ve written about over the years here and elsewhere, a depressing number that includes children such as Katie Wernecke, Abraham Cherrix, Daniel Hauser, Jeremy Fraser, Jacob Stieler, Sarah Hershberger, or others, follow a very similar script. It’s a script that on many an occasion has led me to quote Elton John sadly, “I’ve seen that movie, too.” Here’s the basic script:

A child is diagnosed with a treatable, curable pediatric cancer. (Note that most pediatric cancers are among the most curable cancers there are. Pediatric leukemias and lymphomas, for example, have gone from a virtually-zero survival rate 50 years ago to survival rates that approach 90% or even more. Truly, if there is a triumph of science based medicine, it is in pediatric cancers.)

The child begins chemotherapy, going through part of the recommended protocol, and suffers the expected side effects.

The parents, who quite naturally have a hard time watching their child suffer, hear about some quackery or other that promises to treat their child without the side effects of chemotherapy. If they are prone to belief in “natural healing” or alternative medicine, there is a good chance that they will stop their child’s chemotherapy and opt for the promise of the “natural healing” that claims to be a cure without the pain.

Doctors, alarmed at the likelihood that the child will die, report the child to the child protective service authorities, who intervene.

There is a court case. If the court case goes against the parents, frequently they flee with the child, as Daniel Hauser’s mother did, as did the parents of Katie Wernecke, Abraham Cherrix, and Sarah Hershberger, among others.

At this point, one of two things happens. Either the parents are persuaded or ordered to treat their child properly (as in the case of Daniel Hauser); they come to some sort of compromise that allows the child to get some treatment plus “alternative healing” (as in the case of Abraham Cherrix); or, a depressingly common outcome, they win the “right” to let their child die through medical neglect, as has just happened with this First Nations girl with lymphoma.

Through it all, quacks leap on these stories as examples of “fascism,” and “gunpoint medicine” in order to promote their world view of “health freedom” (otherwise known to skeptics as the freedom from pesky laws and regulations outlawing fraud and quackery), as happened in virtually all these cases, but most notably recently for the case of Sarah Hershberger.

<snip>

This First Nations case adds a different spin on the subject, but the script remains more or less the same. This time around, the parents have won the right to let their daughter die a horrible death from cancer based on Aboriginal rights.

<snip>

This case is a complete failure on the part of the province of Ontario and of Canada itself to protect the lives of its most vulnerable members, children, particularly children of a minority group. Even worse, it is an indictment of the First Nations, which, rather than seeking to protect one of the most vulnerable members of its community, a girl with a treatable, potentially curable cancer, instead glommed onto this case as a vehicle to promote its rights vis-a-vis the Canadian government. I don’t think it was cynically done; no doubt the leaders of this particular First Nations community and Six Nations Chief Ava Hill believe in their Aboriginal natural healing. On the other hand, it’s hard not to think that there was some opportunism given that the parents appear not to have even chosen to use Aboriginal “natural healing” techniques.

Instead, they are using the rankest quackery, which has nothing to do with aboriginal natural medicine, administered by Brian Clement in a “massage establishment” in Florida.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ontario-fails-to-protect-the-life-of...

Dr. Gorski goes on to describe the quackery of Dr. Brian Clement, as already noted above. (NB: although onlinediscountanvils makes a valid point regarding the use of FN medicines in conjunction with the quackery, the story of this case has shown that the white western quack Brian Clement was instrumental in getting the girl's mother to withdraw her daughter from chemotherapy.)

Dr. Gorski is a breast cancer surgeon and an energetic online crusader against cancer quackery. This article is a good overview of all aspects of this case.

Tue, 2014-11-18 20:37

#177

jas

I think a big part of the problem here is that many see science as a culturally neutral activity and practice. They'll acknowledge problems with how it is expressed in a corporate capitalist system, but see the practice and institution of science as "universal" and therefore non-culturally specific or hegemonic.

There is plenty of literature on science as a cultural practice, but apparently this idea still has not made it far into political progressive discourse. I'm surprised, especially because it follows the exact same pathways as every friggin' other culturally hegemonic practice.

Your need for certainty in a secular world does not give you the right to colonize others who don't.

Tue, 2014-11-18 21:00

#178

Sineed

Some of the commenters on Dr. Gorski's article have also made the excellent point that if both these girls die, potentially FN autonomy will be put in jeopardy.

Tue, 2014-11-18 21:06

#179

Sineed

jas wrote:

I think a big part of the problem here is that many see science as a culturally neutral activity and practice. They'll acknowledge problems with how it is expressed in a corporate capitalist system, but see the practice and institution of science as "universal" and therefore non-culturally specific or hegemonic.

There is plenty of literature on science as a cultural practice, but apparently this idea still has not made it far into political progressive discourse. I'm surprised, especially because it follows the exact same pathways as every friggin' other culturally hegemonic practice.

Your need for certainty in a secular world does not give you the right to colonize others who don't.

The danger here is conflating the practice of science and all the cultural/political pressures to which it can be subject, with actual physical reality. The reality here is that we have a fatal disease that can be treated effectively, but these treatments are being withheld from vulnerable children for political reasons. It's morally reprehensible.

Tue, 2014-11-18 21:25

#180

Pondering

Sineed wrote:

Some of the commenters on Dr. Gorski's article have also made the excellent point that if both these girls die, potentially FN autonomy will be put in jeopardy.

Sadly, it's when they die unless their parents stop withholding treatment.

Tue, 2014-11-18 21:33

#181

Sineed

There is the possibility that Ava Hill and other FN leaders are quietly trying to persuade these families to get their children back into treatment for the reason I stated in post # 177.

Tue, 2014-11-18 21:37

#182

Sineed

Double post. I hate my ISP.

Tue, 2014-11-18 21:54

#183

6079_Smith_W

They might threaten FN autonomy?

Right... because it was being honoured by us so well until now, and if they blow it it will be all their fault.

One wonders what else are they responsible for because they are ignorant and won't listen to sense, and don't understand what is native and what isn't. Lord knows what they would do with out us.

Tue, 2014-11-18 22:04

#184

swallow

If "autonomy" is conditional on making the "right" choice, then it ain't autonomy. It's colonialism wearing a nice outfit.

Tue, 2014-11-18 22:17

#185

Sineed

...and if an 11 year old girl doesn't live to see 12 because of a decision made on the basis of the repression of her ancestors, she becomes one more victim of colonialism.

Wed, 2014-11-19 02:10

#186

onlinediscountanvils

abnormal wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

abnormal wrote:

In this case I'd settle for the parents (or the relevant tribal council) demonstrating that the treatment in question has anything to do with traditional Native medicine.

Otherwise all we have is a group of people who want to replace "real" medicine with a modern western quack cure that has nothing to do with the parents' so called "ancestral roots".

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...

In short, instead of real medicine we'll pretend to use some "ancestral" treatments (that we, or they, know nothing about)

I trust you're correct when you say that you know nothing about it, but what makes you so certain that "they" know nothing about the First Nations medicine she's been receiving? Why would you say that they're only "pretending"?

Wed, 2014-11-19 02:23

#187

onlinediscountanvils

jas wrote:

I think a big part of the problem here is that many see science as a culturally neutral activity and practice. They'll acknowledge problems with how it is expressed in a corporate capitalist system, but see the practice and institution of science as "universal" and therefore non-culturally specific or hegemonic.

There is plenty of literature on science as a cultural practice, but apparently this idea still has not made it far into political progressive discourse. I'm surprised, especially because it follows the exact same pathways as every friggin' other culturally hegemonic practice.

Your need for certainty in a secular world does not give you the right to colonize others who don't.

That's an important point.

[thread drift]

What you wrote reminded me of something I read yesterday on the subject of [url=http://the-toast.net/2014/11/17/cultural-appropriation-birthing-communit....

Parents of color often talk about how we are met with two common reactions when we do things that we have reclaimed as part of connecting with our own cultures. Either people tell us that we are “backwards” and that these things are “primitive,” they tell us that there is science (because what our ancestors did obviously was not based in any science) and new theory, etc. Or they exoticize us and our cultural practices wanting to hear all about it and, if we are open to sharing, they suddenly become “experts” on the subject and we shortly thereafter find them teaching or writing obnoxious articles such as the one linked here.

In this case, there's a lot of the former going on.

[/drift]

Wed, 2014-11-19 07:58

#188

6079_Smith_W

jas wrote:

I think a big part of the problem here is that many see science as a culturally neutral activity and practice.

So far as the actual science goes, I don't think that is the case, at least not to a great degree here.

The arrogant attitudes and blind spots of some doctors and other professionals? Absolutely.

And even the fact that some treatments don't work the same on some groups of people as they might on test subjects is valid.

But in this specific case I do side with those who think chemotherapy is probably the only viable option for survival, and whatever other treatments the family might be taking, it seems pretty clear that fellow in Florida is a crook. But I also bear in mind there is probably a lot that went on between the family and the Child service agency that we aren't privy to.

I don't know if that was the intent of the comment, but I certainly wouldn't say the difference between the treatment options here is just cultural.

My main problem is how some here are reacting to this difficult situation by blaming, insulting, and talking as if we are the better-informed, but underappreciated victims of this family's decision. Not to mention how quickly we are willing to throw out recognition of sovreignty when it concerns something we disagree with.

Wed, 2014-11-19 08:16

#189

MegB

I'd like to remind everyone that it behooves the preponderance of white settler voices in this thread to recognize that you are in the Aboriginal Issues forum and that your language should always reflect an anti-oppression anti-colonial viewpoint. Thanks.

ETA: If you're a little vague on how language can be oppressive and imperialist, I'd suggest attending an anti-oppression anti-colonial workshop. If that seems like too much work, there are a number of search engines you'll find very helpful.

Wed, 2014-11-19 09:42

#190

jas

And thanks, MegB. But I'm actually still surprised some comments are allowed to remain unmoderated here, which would not happen in any other forum.

Wed, 2014-11-19 09:46

#191

jas

6079_Smith_W wrote:
But in this specific case I do side with those who think chemotherapy is probably the only viable option for survival, and whatever other treatments the family might be taking,

In this case, I agree that, according to what we call scientific knowledge, which is based on a culturally limited and hegemonic knowledge system, chemotherapy is the most proven treatment for survival. In this case, and in that opinion.

It's still none of our friggin business.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
My main problem is how some here are reacting to this difficult situation by blaming, insulting, and talking as if we are the better-informed,

This is actually more to my point. Being able to recognize that science is culturally determined, first. This is before we get into discussions about bias, profit, corporate interests, etc.

Wed, 2014-11-19 10:04

#192

jas

6079_Smith_W wrote:

My main problem is how some here are reacting to this difficult situation by blaming, insulting, and talking as if we are the better-informed,

And my second thought is how much this emotionally resembles 'Support Our Troops' rhetoric. I'm surprised no one has yet talked about their own experience losing a loved one to cancer and that somehow gives them the medical knowledge and moral right to bully others into treatment "for their own good".

Wed, 2014-11-19 10:45

#193

6079_Smith_W

jas wrote:

It's still none of our friggin business.

To a point. And on the core, I agree.

I think the principle that the good of the child trumps the will of the parents is our business. And I also think the outcome of this most recent court case is our business because it is precedent-setting and could have application elsewhere.

So I think it is fair that this should be of public interest. Not so fair that, like a lot of things, we always seem to get up in arms when we think THEY are doing it wrong and are presumably to blame. We don't seem to have quite the same moral outrage when it is a medical issue concerning clean water, housing, or having to eat mercury-tainted fish. Or we always seem to spin it in a way that Native people are somehow to blame.

As for our presumption that we can interfere and say what should and should not be done in this case, and who is going to regret what, yup. None of our friggin business.

Both a child services agency and a Canadian court have seen fit to back up the wishes of the family and the patient here. I expect they have a bit more information and awareness of what is at stake than we do. At the very least we should pull back from spinning this as an ignorant family and a broken system and a presumed lack of understanding of what is and itn't Native, and realize that this is a lot more complex.

Wed, 2014-11-19 11:51

#194

abnormal

Unionist 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.

Well put. I think most of us would argue that a religious sect that opts for [url=http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/idaho-christian-faith-healers-12-kids... over modern medicine[/url] is wrong - if for example the parents were Jehovahs Witnesses and the treatment in question was a blood transfusion there is no doubt that the courts would have ruled in favour of providing the treatment prescribed by modern medicine. From an ethical point of view I don't see any difference. However, since the parents are aboriginal they're effectively exempt from the law in this particular case - doesn't mean it's right. Just that the law is an ass.

Wed, 2014-11-19 19:50

#195

swallow

[url=http://www.thespec.com/news-story/5030437-six-nations-residents-weigh-in... views from Six Nations community[/url]

Fri, 2014-11-28 18:18

#196

Left Turn

Ricochet published the following column today from Kelle Oliver, an indigenous woman.

[url=https://ricochet.media/en/228/refusing-cancer-treatment-is-questionable-... cancer treatment is questionable medicine for Indigenous girls[/url]

Quote:
I smudge, I’ve participated in sweat lodges and other traditional ceremonies, I’ve ingested the occasional traditional herbal remedy, and I know many others who have done the same and more. Throughout my life as a Native person I have turned to my culture for guidance, support and strength, and I have prayed hard for certain results.

The emotional relief I have found through my faith has often comforted me. I readily admit, though, that this is half the battle and sadly must concede that it is not the cure. I have never seen anyone cured of anything beyond the healing of their minds and hearts.

As a result, I have a very hard time reconciling why the parents of two 11-year-old First Nations girls who have been diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia have refused medical treatment to instead pursue “traditional Aboriginal treatments.”

...

Quote:
That is why, as indigenous people living in a First World country with access to a universal health care system, we need to take advantage of these additional opportunities to heal ourselves, while supplementing our treatments with traditional methods.

We are fortunate to have the best of both worlds, which is ultimately what will give us everything we need to endure, so that we can be cured of our afflictions, so that we may survive and thrive.

Sun, 2014-11-30 12:04

#197

Sineed

Thoughts of a Six Nations medical practitioner who works at McMaster:

Quote:
To this day I still stand by my training and would consistently act "in the best interests of the child". Since in this case it is a simple matter of following the treatment with a proven track record, we do not even enter any sort of gray area. It is cut and dried and there is no need to be "culturally sensitive" about the primary regimen, although it would be entirely appropriate to encourage the parents and community to combine true "traditional healing" with what world wide modern medicine has to offer, which is precisely what the eminent much respected Six Nations scholar - physician Dr. Oronhyatekha (Peter Martin, 1841-1907), recommended in such matters. See here and here for his life story.

<snip>

Alas superstition reared its ugly head and reason and rationality goes out the window - even in 2014 - and two precious children will be adversely impacted by this predilection. Also just as apparent, there is a double standard in dealing with "aboriginal" and non - aboriginal children. The parents of the former get a free pass to do anything or nothing as they see fit to provide life saving therapy to their children. However the latter group would come under the CAS rules, the child would be apprehended, and the parental rights suspended until the child has finished the treatment required to save their lives. A 90 plus percent chance versus a zero percent chance. This should be a no brainer to everyone involved who has the vaguest understanding of statistics and probability. Sad, sad, sad.

http://deyoyonwatheh.blogspot.ca/2014/11/criminal-negligence-two-local-y...

Sun, 2014-11-30 12:53

#198

jas

Sineed wrote:
Thoughts of a Six Nations medical practitioner who works at McMaster:

<snip>

http://deyoyonwatheh.blogspot.ca/2014/11/criminal-negligence-two-local-y...

Funny how, as a medical practitioner, he has almost no other thoughts, as evidenced by his blog, on issues medical.

He does, however, seem to have a lot of thoughts on First Nations issues and the Six Nations community:

Is this really someone you wanting to be quoting on this issue, Sineed?

Sun, 2014-11-30 15:46

#199

Bacchus

I like Left Turn's quote by a First Nations person

Sun, 2014-11-30 15:56

#200

Unionist

Bacchus wrote:

I like Left Turn's quote by a First Nations person

Me too.

Sun, 2014-11-30 17:05

#201

jas

I like the link Swallow posted:

swallow wrote:

[url=http://www.thespec.com/news-story/5030437-six-nations-residents-weigh-in... views from Six Nations community[/url]

Pages

Topic locked