In Canada, Aboriginal rights take precedence over the welfare of a child.

I'm going to repeat the following to myself over and over again:

"must-stay-out-of-internet-debate-over-complicated-issue."

Thousands of actual pages of anthropology/history/Native American studies/Law etc.. books/journals have been written about this kind of thing. to sum up: it's complicated, but legally the judge was right. People seem to forget that whatever you believe about 'ethnic rights' or alternative medicine or anything else you don't personally agree with, indigenous peoples in this country and many others have a unique legal position not held by other 'ethnic' groups due to a long and complicated history that would take literally thousands of pages to explain fully. Judges tend to care about legal stuff like that. It's kinda their thing, like their MAIN thing. If you disagree with that, write your lawmakers. Just know you will probably have people including anthropologists like me writing back arguing the opposite for many reasons, none of which include the effectiveness of western medicine vs. other weird stuff.

crap, I didn't stay out of it...

For the record, I don't get a flu shot. But my kid did as long as he was to young to decide for himself. He has had three open heart surgeries to repair a fatal congenital heart defect. I thank the lord regularly that modern medicine saved him and I don't think that chanting and eating a lot of carrots would have done the job.

And I knew of course the responses I would get but I wanted to express my disapointment and I also think it makes for a very interesting debate.

As long as it stays civil.

In reply to Rufledt:

It doesn't take may pages to say that we're back to the law not applying to everyone equally.

In reply to Trans_Maro:

It does, actually, because you need to contextualize it. as in WHY the law doesn't apply to everyone equally. Oversimplifying is what people get from media coverage, not actual research. Remove history or evidence from it's context, and you end up with shows like ancient aliens. This isn't "going back to when the law didn't apply to everyone equally", it has always been this way. People have just been convinced that natives didn't exist for a long time and now they are 'back' or something, and that them demanding special treatment is distasteful because they aren't real natives or they don't deserve unique treatment under 'fair' american values, but that isn't the case. They preserved certain rights for themselves in many of the treaties. They weren't given the 'extra' rights over others.

The simplest analogy I can make is this- American laws don't apply to Germans living in Germany. Why? because they aren't under the law. Federally recognized native american groups don't necessarily fall under United States federal law, because they are a semi-sovereign nation. The German analogy isn't so great because Germany is another place, while federally recognized tribes have land that people see as a subset of United States land, but if it were that simple I wouldn't need to use an analogy, I could just say the way it is.

In the case of this medical thing, I fully agree with you that 'carrots and chanting' won't cure cancer like chemo can, but forcing people to treat their children the way you would is saying that you don't think they have the capacity or right to behave the way they see fit. It's saying that they don't know what's best for them, WE do, so they have to obey. That's dangerous thinking, it has caused a lot of problems in the past.

Edit: for the record, all of my statements about "united states" are equally true if you substitute "canada". Though I guess you also have to substitute "native americans" with "first nations" to keep the terminology correct.

IMO the only half-decent reason to let this happen are the sovereignty issues Rufledt points out. Apart from that, I agree with HiTempGuy. This is almost elective assisted suicide.

Does it make a difference to any of you "force the child to get real treatment" folks if the child says she doesn't want the treatment?

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/aboriginal/first-nations-girl-s-family-rejects-chemo-hospital-goes-to-court-to-force-treatment-1.2782928

"The release also contained a letter from the child describing her experience during chemotherapy.

She wrote, “I don't want medicine they were giving me in the hospital. It made me really really sick. [It] hurt my belly for lots of days and my hair fell out. I know now that all those things happened to me because poison was being put in my body. Me and my mom cried a lot.”

bearmtnmartin wrote: For the record, I don't get a flu shot.

So if your government told you you were required to get a flu shot what would you do?

ThunderCougarFalconGoat wrote: Does it make a difference to any of you "force the child to get real treatment" folks if the child says she doesn't want the treatment?

That's just a silly question.

Datsun1500 wrote: I have the right and responsibility to make decisions for my children. You do not have to agree with those decisions, as they are not yours to make. Would I choose different in this case? yes. Can I judge those parents for thier choices? no.

Actually (in Canada) you only do up until the point those nasty government bad guys decide you don't. And I am completely fine with that, knowing personally many kids (now adults) taken from their E36 M3 stain parents. Such a ruling does nothing for your freedom, but does sentence people to death for their parents misguided "beliefs".

Can you believe that? In this day and age, someone will die because of someone elses ignorance? And some of you are cool with that. Shameful all around.

As for the " letter" that girl wrote, yes, I am sure she decided to use the word "poison" in it herself, as any young child would (roll eyes here).

So maybe the Canadian government should take your future children from you if you decide to drive them around in an old car instead of the newest 10,000 airbag suv; since you are basically sentencing them to death for your "belief" that you like old cars better. It's for the children after all.

Since we're doing the "what if's".

It seems like this is being treated differently because it's cancer and there is some huge "thing" surrounding cancer for some reason.

If this were appendicitis, the kid would have already been fixed and playing happily. I'm sure her parents would have opted for the easy, modern, nearly 100% effective cure.

If they hadn't, the ministry would have taken their child into protective custody and had her treated for her own good.

We are 100% sure that appendicitis can be fixed and we are 100% sure that you will die from sepsis if you don't get it taken care of.

There's so much mumbo-jumbo and bullE36 M3 surrounding these alternate fixes for cancer that people can brainwash themselves into thinking that drinking filtered water or breathing deeply can make big-bad cancer go away without having to deal with the very horrible but effective treatment.

I hope her parents have explained that she might feel bad for a little while in order to be able to live a very long time.

Pretty much everyone in my family has fought cancer and every one of them has had many extra years because of the treatment.

My mom is on the 4th time around now and this time is really, really bad. I'm sure it's going to be the last time around and all I want is for her to have one more christmas with the family.

I realise that this may be skewing my take on the situation at the moment but I also feel that by now I've got a pretty good idea about the whole cancer situation.

I'm also very thankful that modern medicine has given me plenty of extra time with my grandmother, mom, dad, uncle and even my miserable mother-in-law.

BTW, my grandmother had breast cancer when she was in her 30's and lived to be 92.

Think about the long and rich life that poor kid could have if she put up with a little poison.

I'm going to bow out now because I've added all I can about the situation and I'm getting pretty pissed off with these people.

No one is debating that modern medicine is the only way for her to live a long healthy life.

The issue is if the treatment conflicts with your personal beliefs, how much say does the government have to force you to live that long and healthy life.

ThunderCougarFalconGoat wrote: No one is debating that modern medicine is the only way for her to live a long healthy life. The issue is if the treatment conflicts with your personal beliefs, how much say does the government have to force you to live that long and healthy life.

I have also said all I wanted to say but I will suggest again though that YOU can do what you want to and for YOURSELF. But when you make life threatening choices for children in your care, the medical community should be be able to step in and correct the situation. That is what this fight was about. It has nothing to do with trust or distrust of the government. Their only role was to appoint a judge who in my opinion chose to side with aboriginal rights over welfare of a child. That legal decision and the parents choices means the 11 year old will die and I think that is sad and disturbing.

So a child's spiritual well being has no say in the matter?

And the child herself said that she does not want the chemo. So if she makes the decision for herself, you should be ok with that, according to your post.

I don't personally like the ruling because it seems to suggest that it only affects aboriginal parents. All parents should have a say in how their children and themselves are treated.

Oh my, what a slippery slope. I don't want to see my child suffer through chemo, so I treat her with apricot pits in Mexico, or chanting, and she dies, or not.

I believe that God hates my daughters labia, so I have her circumsized, causing pain, possible infection and lifelong sexual disfunction.

My daughter decides to date someone outside my faith, so its only right that I kill her to prevent her dishonoring the family.

I'm gonna take a wild guess that two of those examples would have almost everybody supporting the child welfare people when they removed the child from that circumstance.

I, making a choice for myself, might make the decision to forgo treatment for myself. When making that decision for those in your care, we are obligated to choose what may be a long, painful, but ultimately successful treatment, resulting in a long and happy life. There may come a point where that is no longer a chance for recovery. Then you watch sunsets and cry...

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I grew up on a farm half a mile south of 4 Indian reserves. I went to high school with Indians, fought them at school dances, played baseball on the reserve team, had a knife thrown at me by a teammate in a hockey dressing room, and have spent a lifetime trying desperately to be aware of my personal prejudices, and societal bigotry. My opinion is formed from these personal experiences.

I say pull the kid from her family and treat her properly.

In reply to Datsun1500:

I don't. An agency I have entrusted with ensuring the welfare of those who cannot care for themselves has made the decision as my representative. I have selected them, and given them power hoping they are capable of making the correct choice. Depending on who is telling the story, great evil comes from lifting kids out of situations, or great evil comes from not lifting kids out of situations.

These stories are why I fix cars instead of people. You can always buy and crush a car if you berkeley it up.

So why is their choice wrong? Do they not get to have opinions? Or are they only allowed to have the same opinions as you?

ThunderCougarFalconGoat wrote: I don't personally like the ruling because it seems to suggest that it only affects aboriginal parents. All parents should have a say in how their children and themselves are treated.

The problem is, it does only apply because they are native.

The government in our country thinks that the PC fix for all the aboriginal problems is to give them a free pass when any difficult issue comes up because people start screaming racism. In reality, it's a hell of a lot more complicated than that.

If they were muslim, jewish, christian, buddhist or anything else, the government would be stepping in.

We crucified Robert Latimer for killing his daughter who was suffering from CP and in constant pain but we let these folks give their daughter a death sentence.

Child services will intervene when the JWs won't let their kids get a blood transfusion to save their lives, how is this any different?

Opinion is the key word. In my opinion, Germans builds a fragile, overpriced buckets. I would never buy one. I have been working on cars professionally for 35 years. In this particular case, I think my opinion has some merit. Others do not, and no one other than the holder is harmed by having that opinion. As a matter of fact, there are repair shops all over the world that become quite well-to-do because of that opinion.

In the opinion of highly trained medical professionals, a little girl will inevitably die, sooner, without treatment. In the opinion of other, untrained people, she has a tummyache and bad hair, which is apparently worse than potentially living an extra 80 years.

In reply to Trans_Maro:

This is kinda fascinating, from the Canadian/American point of view, isn't it? Peace, order and good government as opposed to truth, liberty and the American way.

Actually, I am finding all the different opinions very interesting.

That's what I love about this forum is that we can have a civil, well thought out discussion about things like this without too much chaos.

I will say that I don't have children myself and I cannot imagine the hell which this poor girls parents are going through with their decision.

I'm sure that they feel they are making the best decision for their child no matter what the outcome.

I hope she's happy and gets to enjoy being a kid as much as possible, no matter how long or short her life ends up being.

As for the difference in our two governments and way of life. Neither country has the best system going but they're a hell of a lot better than a lot of places on this earth.

Having the choice of whether we get treated or not is a pretty nice luxury to have when you get right down to it.

Shawn

I do agree with you there

Back to the flu shot, I am not sure what the point of the arguement is there. I as a healthy adult can choose whether to get it or not and suffer the consequences. But for my son, who was not old enough to make an informed decision we went with the best advice of the medical community and forced it on him. We don't anymore. He is strong and healthy and old enough to decide for himself. I don't know at what point he became mature enough and I am sure every child reaches that point at a different age. But I think that most people would agree that an 11 year old is too young to know what is in her best interests. If she was 13 or 15 I might have a completely different viewpoint.

Remember when the govt forced certain treatments for AIDS because thats what the FDA approved of? And all other form of treatment were illegal in the USA? But, you could've gone to Germany or Japan for alternative treatment that could work?