[B]Boy seized by child welfare to make sure he gets chemotherapy[/B]
Child welfare officials have taken temporary custody of an 11-year-old Ontario boy to ensure he undergoes chemotherapy after his father decided to take him off treatment for his aggressive form of leukemia.
His father, who along with the boy can't be identified due to youth protection laws, told CBC News on Friday that the boy didn't want to continue with the treatments.
"I think about the first time around what it did to him and how it almost killed him and when he told me he doesn't want it anymore," said. "He doesn't want to die this way, he would rather die at home in a peaceful, comfortable way."
The dad, who lives in Hamilton, was briefly shackled by security when he arrived at McMaster Children's Hospital on Thursday with his son for what he believed was a routine appointment.
Local Children's Aid Society officials then took custody of the boy due to the father's refusal to admit the son for another round of chemotherapy.
The executive director of Hamilton's Children's Aid Society, Dominic Verticchio, said a court ruled the boy must be treated.
"It's been very emotionally draining for everyone," he said. "The fact of the matter is there is provincial legislation in place that states that children must receive the care and treatment they require."
The father says the boy is being treated "like a prisoner" at the hospital room where he is now staying, under the constant surveillance of hospital security and Children's Aid officials.
"He's very angry and very upset," the father said.
A compromise was reached Friday afternoon to allow the father and family members to visit the boy later in the evening.
But the father says the entire situation is disgusting. He said doctors told him that the boy has a 20 per cent chance of making it through his chemotherapy treatments, then a 50 per cent chance after that once he undergoes full body radiation and a bone marrow transplant.
He said the boy already has had a tough life - losing his mother to cancer at the age of four as well as suffering from psychotic episodes and fetal alcohol syndrome.
Last edited by CanadaSteve; 05-12-2008 at 09:48 AM.
Why is it that any time the far left or far right does something that majority of people probably won't agree with i see... "Can someone on the left/right justify this.." with the implication that this proves how evil the left/right is.
I think it's a little crazy, but also, I don't have a clue what the laws in Canada are pertaining to this. However, a 20% chance is pretty high (though, considering he only has a 50% of making it past that, the number is really like 10%), I'm a little surprised that the the family decided to give up
There's another article out there on the subject which talks about other cases similar to this one
([B]As it turns out, there is a religious element to this, as per the following quote [/B].
[QUOTE]"There is only one person -- The Creator -- who decides who lives or dies," says dad. "It's not you or me or McMaster Hospital or the CAS -- it's The Creator."[/QUOTE]
The question becomes, if the child had a 90-95% chance for survival, do you think the Dr's should have stepped in?
I don't know anything about the rules on identifying judges in Canada. But I'm having trouble figuring out where this case was decided (I'm guessing Ontario Provincial Court), let along who the presiding judge is.
I don't really see how this is a liberal/conservative issue.
Last edited by Batmans A Scientist; 05-12-2008 at 10:04 AM.
Reason: added quote from newspaper
[QUOTE]WESTON, Wisconsin (AP) -- Two parents who prayed as their 11-year-old daughter died of untreated diabetes were charged Monday with second-degree reckless homicide.
Family and friends had urged Dale and Leilani Neumann to get help for their daughter, but the father considered the illness "a test of faith" and the mother never considered taking the girl to the doctor because she thought her daughter was under a "spiritual attack," the criminal complaint said.
According to court documents, Leilani Neumann said in a written statement to police that she never considered taking the girl, who was being home-schooled, to a doctor.
"We just thought it was a spiritual attack and we prayed for her. My husband Dale was crying and mentioned taking Kara to the doctor and I said, 'The Lord's going to heal her,' and we continued to pray," she wrote.
The father told investigators he noticed his daughter was weak and slower for about two weeks but he attributed it to symptoms of the girl reaching puberty, the complaint said.
A day before Madeline died, according to the criminal complaint, the father wrote an e-mail with the headline, "Help our daughter needs emergency prayer!!!!." It said his daughter was "very weak and pale at the moment with hardly any strength."
The girl's grandmother, Evalani Gordon, told police that she learned her granddaughter could not walk or talk on March 22 and advised Leilani Neumann to take the girl to a doctor.
Gordon eventually contacted a daughter-in-law in California who called police on a non-emergency line to report the girl was in a coma and needed medical help. An ambulance was dispatched shortly before some friends in the home called 911 to report the girl had stopped breathing, authorities said.
One relative told police that the girl's mother believed she "died because the devil is trying to stop Leilani from starting her own ministry," the complaint said.[/QUOTE]
[B]He doesn't believe he will die.[/B]
[B]It's that simple.[/B]
[B]The cancer will not kill him. It won't get him the way it got his mom, he says. God will protect him.[/B] He does not want chemotherapy. It makes him sick.
But does it matter what he believes? What he wants?
The law says 'no.'
[B]He is 11 years old. He has fetal alcohol syndrome and is in special education classes[/B] and has acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
Two of the country's top child cancer specialists say he will die without treatment.
A judge has ruled the boy cannot make an informed decision. That he is not capable of thoroughly understanding what it means to refuse chemo. That his father and stepmother -- who are backing his decision -- are not doing what is in the child's best interest.
So . . . the parents are letting an 11 year old special ed kid turn down treatment because it makes him feel bad and because God will protect him without treatment - and you think its wrong for the court to step in :huh:
Theres alot of questions that are unanswered here. For starters, what kind of leukemia does the boy have? Is this the initial treatment, if not how many treatments has he had and was remission ever achieved? What are his cytogenetics(this has an important role in his prognosis.)Secondly the article states the boy suffers from fetal alcohol syndrome, so id like to know more about the fathers psychosocial make up. Clearly mom was a poor decision maker as she was drinking during pregnancy, so what about dad. Id also like to know more about this childs handiacap situation. Is he retarded? To what degree? What is his support situation like.
Denying someone, especially a child, potential [B]CURATIVE[/B] treatment (note i highlight curative not treatable) because "hes already been through enough" is not a very good excuse. And sorry, but waiting for God to cure his leukemia is a joke. Childhood leukemias are highly curable and the statistics quoted above are nothing out of the ordinary (although a 20% chance of dying from induction chemo maybe slightly overstated).
[quote=kennyo7;2534000]Theres alot of questions that are unanswered here. For starters, what kind of leukemia does the boy have? Is this the initial treatment, if not how many treatments has he had and was remission ever achieved? What are his cytogenetics(this has an important role in his prognosis.)Secondly the article states the boy suffers from fetal alcohol syndrome, so id like to know more about the fathers psychosocial make up. Clearly mom was a poor decision maker as she was drinking during pregnancy, so what about dad. Id also like to know more about this childs handiacap situation. Is he retarded? To what degree? What is his support situation like.
Denying someone, especially a child, potential [B]CURATIVE[/B] treatment (note i highlight curative not treatable) because "hes already been through enough" is not a very good excuse. Childhood leukemias are highly curable and the statistics quoted above are nothing out of the ordinary (although a 20% chance of dying from induction chemo maybe slightly overstated).[/quote]
The kid was diagnosed at age 7, went through Chemo once before, and the cancer was put in remission. It came back after a year. Read the article Batman put up.
We simply don't know enough about the case and the details of the treatment options to offer an opinion. Healthcare proxy or parental decision-making is normally ignored if it requires health providers to offer substandard care, care that hasn't been shown to medically effective, or is inconsistent with the law. If the oncologists (who spend day-in-day-out treating these cases) believe it is worthwhile to proceed and feel they can save this boy's life, my best guess is that they have good reason to do so. Sadly, there are all too many children who are deemed to be truly terminal and are simply comforted as they approach death, without recourse to aggressive and costly treatment.
I would be far more angry if this child had a chance for survival and his healthcare didn't pay for it. That would be hard to stomach.
[QUOTE=doggin94it;2534002]The kid was diagnosed at age 7, went through Chemo once before, and the cancer was put in remission. It came back after a year. Read the article Batman put up.[/QUOTE]
Doesnt give me specifics as to how long the kid was in remission for. Regardless, the fact that his disease was put into remission means it is chemosensitive which gives the kid a decent shot at putting it into remission again and getting transplanted . Additionally according to the article he has ALL. Childhood ALL is highly curable. Denying him treatment is a crime. Comparing childhood ALL to "brain cancer" which his mom had and is not curable in anyway is silly.
Can CanadaSteve or anyone else who has knowledge of Canadian Judicial courts explain why certain things are missing.
1) Who was the judge that made this ruling?
Is there some sort of Canadian law that keeps this out of the media, or is it just something Canadian media decides isn't as important
2) What court was this decision made?
Can it be overturned by a higher court. What's the appeals process for this
3) How are judges selected in Canada? Is it like the US where they are on the ticket and people generally vote along party lines because realistically, voters don't follow judges races too closely.
4) What are the rules relating to euthanasia?
5) Does precedent rule choices in Canadian judicial system?
Based on the article I found there are some examples of the courts deciding to pull the child from the family when the courts felt the decision was in the best interest of the child.
If the Canadian courts were similar to US (precedent generally precedes personal belief. I don't see how the judge had a choice but to rule in favor of the CAS)
Last edited by Batmans A Scientist; 05-12-2008 at 11:15 AM.
Reason: personal not personally