Alternative treatments - Who Decides?

The CBC (CBC ) reported this morning that an Aboriginal family are supporting their 10 year old daughter's (who has leukemia) wish to withdraw from chemotherapy  and to use traditional healing practices. The case has been referred to the local CAS (Children's Aid Society). It appears as if the child's community are prepared to physically defend her right to choose an alternative method of healing. The question at hand is: does the family have the right to withdraw a child from a treatment regime that according to the hospital has a 75% success rate? 

There are countless examples in Canada of the state intervening in a child's care when it appears that the family is not following culturally accepted practices in maintaining the life and well being of a child. For example children whose families belong to the Jehovah Witness faith are apprehended if the family will not allow blood transfusions to save a child's life. Within the last week there was a case reported of an 11 year old boy who was apprended because his family didn't want him to undergo a second round of chemotherapy ( CBC ). For much of this spring there have been regular reports from both Quebec and Ontario as to the Lev Tahor Jewish community, their practices of child education etc. and the need for the state to intervene ( Global News ) In each of the above cases the provincial community at large accepted without significant debate the right for the state to intervene. In fact we demand that they do. When such a decision is made, while we acknowledge the legitimate frustration and anger of the parents at the decision, we expect the parents to honour it.  If, for example, the Lev Tahor community had bared their doors and had been prepared to fight the investigators or the workers who apprehended the children we would all have been shocked and outraged.

However, it is my sense that because of the past miscarriages of justice and the blatant cultural genocide that has been practiced upon the First Nations communities for the past 175 years by the Canadian government, we will all tip toe around this issue. The First Nations have already raised the issue of the state taking their children in the "adoption scoop" of the 1940s and 50s and saying that it will not happen again. There are times when we need to be sensitive to the past and to take those mistakes into our considerations of what to do for the future. I do not think that this is one of those times. It would seem to me that in this case, it is not about cultural suppression but rather what is best for the child and perhaps equally as important how do we decide that.

There is however, another question that needs to be discussed. At what age and under what conditions can a person decide that they do not want treatment. The law is fairly clear. An adult can make a decision about a medical treatment if that person has the capacity to understand the consequences of that decision AND the consequences of not making a decision. There is also the assumption that the person has not been under the influence (coerced) of another person. While the former condition is possible depending upon the maturity of the child, I am less convinced that a ten year is outside of the influence of her family. But I do think it is time that we at least listen to the kids and give their opinions about what they want some value.