FN chemo case amended to include child's well being
ShepherdsDog @ Fri Apr 24, 2015 3:54 pm
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/ ... -1.3048223
$1:
A clarification of a controversial court ruling that allowed the mother of an 11-year-old First Nations girl to pull her out of chemotherapy says the best interests of the child are "paramount," but traditional medicine must be respected.
It is a "significant qualification" of Ontario Court Justice Gethin Edward's November 2014 ruling, according to one legal expert, which means the child's well-being has to be balanced against rights to traditional medicine.
It is a "significant qualification" of Ontario Court Justice Gethin Edward's November 2014 ruling, according to one legal expert, which means the child's well-being has to be balanced against rights to traditional medicine.
So is it OK for the courts to interfere with the JWs and their transfusion transplant refusals when it comes to their children?
Strutz @ Fri Apr 24, 2015 5:08 pm
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/ruling-in-first-nations-chemo-case-amended-to-include-child-s-well-being-1.3048223
So is it OK for the courts to interfere with the JWs and their transfusion transplant refusals when it comes to their children?
$1:
A clarification of a controversial court ruling that allowed the mother of an 11-year-old First Nations girl to pull her out of chemotherapy says the best interests of the child are "paramount," but traditional medicine must be respected.
It is a "significant qualification" of Ontario Court Justice Gethin Edward's November 2014 ruling, according to one legal expert, which means the child's well-being has to be balanced against rights to traditional medicine.
It is a "significant qualification" of Ontario Court Justice Gethin Edward's November 2014 ruling, according to one legal expert, which means the child's well-being has to be balanced against rights to traditional medicine.
So is it OK for the courts to interfere with the JWs and their transfusion transplant refusals when it comes to their children?
I doubt that the court would see it the same way as with a case involving a First Nations child.
saturn_656 @ Sat Apr 25, 2015 7:06 am
The "treatment centre" they took this kid to after pulling them out of chemo (with the blessing of our courts), Hippocrates Health Institute, does not practice indigenous (FN) medicine. Or any kind of medicine for that matter. It's more like a health spa. 
raydan @ Sat Apr 25, 2015 7:44 am
Doesn't seem to change much as a lot of people will still have an "out" to use traditional medicine. I also think that the JWs will use their religion to get around this too.
People have to realize that even though you may have given life to your children, you do not own them.
If we can remove children from their parents for letting them live "free-range", I don't see why we can't remove them from parents who seem to have no problem in putting them in "mortal danger".
HyperionTheEvil @ Sat Apr 25, 2015 8:36 am
$1:
Indigenous (FN) medicine
What you mean beads , rattles and woodsmoke?
bjolly @ Mon Oct 17, 2022 3:30 am
Can't forget - where did these parents learn stupid? interesting outcome since it must conflict with child protection act - somewhere.