Remember Tyrell Dueck? The 13-year-old Saskatoon boy suffered from bone cancer, and he made national headlines in 1999 when he refused to undergo conventional cancer treatment that included amputating his leg.
As very publicly demonstrated in the case of Terry Fox, an amputation is no certainty of a cure. So his parents began to seek non-traditional treatments that included holistic medicine and prayer. It didn’t matter that the Duecks were actively pursuing alternative treatments; as soon as they asked God to enter the healing process, they were whisked off to court and forced to participate in a widely watched legal battle over medical decision-making on behalf of minors.
The legal proceedings dragged on so long that pursuing other options became fruitless attempts to find healing. Tyrell eventually died.
It became clear this past week that this battle is far from over. The right of parents to make medical decisions for their children can still be usurped by the state if that decision dares to go against conventional wisdom.
In this case, an 11-year-old Hamilton boy, suffering from acute lymphoblastic leukemia, refused to undergo additional chemotherapy to treat a re-emergence of his cancer. He was diagnosed with cancer four years ago, and has apparently spent much of his time since then in hospitals and undergoing treatments.
So when the doctors told him that his cancer was back and he needed more chemotherapy, he was devastated. He’d already endured mouth sores, hair falling out, the indignity of having to wear diapers, weakness and weariness. Enduring all that suffering had put his cancer into remission for just one year and there are no certainties for this next round of treatment.
When his parents stated they would seek alternative natural treatments, it was the cue for Hamilton’s Children’s Aid Society to sweep in and initiate the legal action that took away the parents’ right to make medical decisions for their child, took away their right to pursue alternative treatments and took away their son. When in state custody, he was forced to undergo chemotherapy.
All of this seems a bit heavy-handed since the boy wasn’t neglected or abused. In fact, the family had obviously come to a decision that respected his wishes and had his best interests at heart. But the state didn’t agree.
There is a trend for the courts to increasingly consider the will of the child in making decisions about living arrangements after divorce and even in making medical decisions. However, in this particular case, there were some unusual factors that, admittedly, may have forced the court’s hand.
The boy has fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS). While he is biologically aged 11, he only has the developmental age of eight. His older sister also has FAS, while his father has long battled addictions and sickness, and is now on disability.
So the father isn’t exactly the educated “superparent” that one might assume.
These facts don’t question the father’s love, his desire to do what is best for his son or even his decision to uphold his son’s refusal of care. But they do raise questions about the father’s judgment in past decisions and, perhaps, in current ones.
But beyond this is the undisputed fact that he has previously undergone extensive treatments and chemotherapy, so he and his family know what he’s getting into — regardless of his mental prowess and the father’s past mistakes.
For that reason, the court’s decision to assume custody and forcibly impose chemotherapy on the child is repugnant. The latest ruling has restored custody to the parents, provided they too force him to continue medical treatments.
It’s somewhat frightening to see how little it takes to justify a court-ordered intervention into an apparently happy family.
If the parents and the state disagree on the best course of action for a child, then it should be presumed that the parent is right — and it should be up to the state to prove otherwise.
I’m not convinced that standard of proof was met here.
We have an ethical obligation to make choices that preserve the life and well-being of our minor children. But that doesn’t mean subjecting them to all procedures in the desperate hope of a cure.
We give adults the right to say when “enough is enough.” Sometimes, in the interests of preserving happiness and quality of life, we should be prepared to grant that same freedom to children.
The saddest part of this case is the father’s statement that his son’s “spirit had been broken” and he no longer has the will to fight his leukemia.
It’s hard for a parent to know when to keep urging a child along the hardest path; and harder still for a parent to know when it’s time to stop and let nature take its course. But — either way — that decision belongs to the parent, not the state.
- Defender to defendant - Saturday January 29, 2011 at 9:16 am
- Grief or glamour? - Saturday January 22, 2011 at 8:24 am
- Forget blame game - Saturday January 15, 2011 at 7:48 am
