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.

The death of Canadian Institutions

The Canadian government has, for the last two decades, consistently under supported various public institutions most notable the CBC and to a lesser extent the postal system. While to the casual outsider observer such cuts may look like reasonable economic policy, they are in fact ideologically driven and could cause significant harm to Canadian's perceptions of themselves and their place within their country and the world.

In the mid 1920s there was some concern in Canada that the more powerful American radio stations were both buying Canadian station and transmitting their programs across the Canadian border. There was a sense amongst the politicians and some of the Canadian broadcasters that there needed to be an alternative to this influence. People were acutely conscious of the potential influences of the United States and were determined to keep Canada different. Politicians and the general public still remembered with pride the building of the national railroad and the decision to make it an all Canadian route as opposed to taking the shorter route through the U.S.

In 1929, the Aird Commission (appointed by MacKenzie King)  prepared a report for the Canadian government. That report stated:  "In a country of the vast geographical dimensions of Canada, broadcasting will undoubtedly become a great force in fostering a national spirit and interpreting national citizenship." http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/massey/h5-409-e.html#24   The report further argued that a national broadcasting company capable of  those two things needed to be created.  

For the past two decades in typical neo-liberal fashion, various governments (both Liberal and Conservative) have reduced the funding of the CBC and have argued at the same time that because CBC offers so little service they really do not serve a purpose. Politicians and others who subscribe to this view argue that private corporations can offer as good as service as does a nationally owned broadcasting system, and that they do it a no cost to the taxpayer. Both statements need to be investigated. To assist in this investigation two types of programs will be discussed; sports and documentaries. That is programs that entertain us and programs that we can learn from.

There is no doubt that Rogers Broadcasting can and will deliver Hockey Night in Canada as well as CBC does now. In fact they may deliver it more effectively. But is it at less cost to the consumer? Hockey in a few years time will only be available to those who have purchased a cable or satellite subscription; in areas where such services are not available or the when the cost is prohibitive, people will not have access to watching what is called our national game. It is worthwhile noting that the Canadian Football league has not been available for a few years except for those who have cable or satellite.  Even people such as myself who are not TV sports fans are inclined to watch at least part of the games leading up to the final game if for no other reason than it allows us to be part of the conversation around the water cooler. Unless I invest in cable - I will no longer be part of that quintessential Canadian experience. So Rogers will not be doing it at no cost to the consumer, they will just be collecting the money differently. The neo-liberal argument that the consumer should decide what they spend money on is somewhat specious. We pay taxes so that there is a reasonable level of healthcare, education, a road system and parks for us to play in. I may not use all of those services all of the time, but we need them to be there for those who do use them. We need a strong and available national broadcaster for exactly the same reason

Of far more importance is the quality and the content of the programming that would be available if the CBC no longer existed. There is already a significant reduction in the availability of educational programming. As long as go as 2001 the New York Times reported that there were fewer and fewer documentaries  being produced for television (New York Times). More recently the Documentary Organization of Canada (DOC) released an alarming report on the state of Canadian productions. Simply put - we are producing and therefore seeing fewer documentaries on television (https://docorg.ca/en/getting-real-5-foreword) then we use to. Already the airways are flooded with "reality" programs being shown almost continuously only being interrupted by mundane sitcoms and "dramas" that are both more explicit than ever before and all too frequently, unimaginative in their plots. There is absolutely no proof that the private broadcasters have any desire to provide a level of programming equal to our potential collective intelligence.

In an editorial in the June edition of the Walrus (http://thewalrus.ca/) the argument is made that CBC should not be competing with private broadcasters in terms of either sports or the run of the mill slop (my words not theirs) that passes for programming. That in fact what they should produce are shows that are relevant to Canadians and that share information and perspectives that we need to know. The Walrus also goes on to say that it is not a matter of how many people actually watch the program but rather that the program is available to watch if we wish. I agree - except I also think that we also need to have a national broadcast system that allows us as Canadians to know each other and to feel as if we belong.

But that I fear is not going to happen. The CBCs budget will be continued to be reduced budget after budget. They will be forced to either purchase or produce time filling, intellectually dulling  programming. We will be seduced by the easy to watch and mindless pap of our American neighbours and be diminished by it - just as Aird and his fellow committee members feared 65 years ago.

And we won't even have the CBC to tell us it is happening

Birthdays

It was my 65th birthday yesterday. I am reasonably sure that there are millions and millions of people around the world who share that same birth date. I would as well guess that there were hundreds and hundreds of  thousands of people born on that date in 1949. So my birth and my still being alive 65 years later is a very miniscule event in terms of world history. And so when I woke up yesterday morning I thought  about those facts, realized that my birth day was not really that important and got on with my day. The sun was shining; I had wool to work with, some other projects that needed completing and I knew that at some point I would probably get a call from my daughter and my son. It would have been enough.

But  my day was so much better than that. I did get to talk to my daughter and two grand kids for half an hour; but I also got invited out for a two hour walk through the woods at a provincial park and my son and I talked for just over a 100 minutes later in the day (he and I talk far less frequently than do my daughter and I and therefore we have so much more to catch up on). I got two birthday cards the old fashioned way - through the mail and a "pile" of best wishes via the internet. It was a full and delightful day. It was so much more that "just enough".

Later in the evening as I was sorting and hand teasing some wool, I reflected on the day. In spite of my sometimes frequent complaints about the state of the world (and in particular Canadian politics) I truly have a blessed life. While I quietly acknowledge that fact every night before I go to sleep, I don't do it nearly often enough out loud so that others can hear. And I should - so I am.

Thanks world and all who live in it