Against the parent's wishes, a Perth Court has
ordered chemotherapy be given to the six year
old boy for a brain tumour.

Legal action was made against the parents -
Angels Kiszko and Adrian Strachan - by a doctor
from Princess Margaret Hospital after they denied
the treatment for their son, Oshin. The parents
want palliative care for Oshin so the family can
spend quality time together. Ms Kiszko believes
chemotherapy is "toxic hell" as she watched her
mother and stepmother die from cancer.

The Court heard that if Oshin who had surgery last
year does not get treatment he could die within
months. He's been given a 30 % chance of survival
for the next 5 years if he has the chemotherapy, and
if he combines that with radiotherapy that number
will go up to 50 %.

Family Court Chief Justice Stephen Thackeray said the
possibility of a long term cure -
"Is the matter that must heavily weigh in the decision."

Was the Chief Justice right in making this decision?
Or should it be left up to the parents?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-08/chemotherapy-ordered-for-oshin-kiszo-cancer-stricken-perth-boy/7310614

Also,

<In his judgment, Family Court chief justice Stephen Thackray acknowledged Oshin’s parents had his best interests at heart but “medical evidence” could not be ignored.

“One other matter that I think ought to be given weight is that the uncontested medical evidence is that the great majority of other parents faced with a similar decision would opt for the intervention that the hospital proposes,” he said.

The court was told Oshin would die within months without treatment but would have a 30 per cent change of surviving for five years by undergoing chemotherapy and a 50 per cent chance with both chemotherapy and radiotherapy>
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/parents-of-sixyearold-perth-boy-with-malignant-tumour-ordered-to-enrol-him-in-chemotherapy-treatment/news-story/76b8067cded0685183c499c5850a37b0

To put it another way, what argument is there for denying this young, strong patient a longer life and the likelihood of remission for many years, perhaps for life?

If he is to be denied treatment, what argument is there for providing cancer treatment to (say) the middle aged?

Foxy,

While I am all for locking up moronic parents that wish to deny their children treatment for a deadly disease because they believe in new age nonsense, this time I really feel for the parents and am not sure I wouldn't have made the same decision.

The parents have already tried, and seen their child suffer severe paralysis, and have been advised that it is "a condition from which most survivors suffer lifelong, radiation-induced brain damage – if they survive at all."

So the probability is that their child will die a prolonged agonizing death, or if the treatment "cures" the cancer, he will be severely brain damaged, and unable to care for himself. Either way in 5 years, what will be left will not be recognizable as their son.

SM, Foxy,

Yep...I purposely didn't pursue the detail of the story - thanks SM for summarising the dilemma for the parents.

"So the probability is that their child will die a prolonged agonizing death, or if the treatment "cures" the cancer, he will be severely brain damaged, and unable to care for himself. Either way in 5 years, what will be left will not be recognizable as their son."

It's because the child is so young that those who would force this treatment on him feel they are justified.

What dignity is there in falling apart...

My elderly Mum. after a couple of years of problems, has recently been diagnosed with late stage cancer. She's very weak and watching herself disintegrate - as are we. All trying to do our best to make her last days comfortable.

But she's 89...and is stoically accepting her fate. There's nothing medically that can be done except palliative care, kindness and keeping family and friends close and engaged.

She's presently awaiting a nursing home spot - and we've just heard that she will be able to go to the nursing facility attached to the unit where she lived. Small mercies - it has made her happy as she feels she's going home.

Prior to the last couple of weeks, it was doctors and people prodding her, confusion and constant explanations to professionals who would come to see her armed with half the details.

Lately though, it's been much calmer - and we're concentrating on her remaining days having "quality".

Dear Shadow Minister,

This is a decision that Thank God our
family has never had to make and I certainly feel
for the parents. In all honesty I don't know
what our decision would be under the same
circumstances. I feel though if there was a 50
percent chance of our child surviving with treatment -
I would probably take that chance. Don't forget that
in this particular case - it was a doctor at the
child's hospital in Perth who took the case to court.
Thereby indicating that they believed the child had
a chance of surviving with treatment.

OTB and Poirot,

This is a complicated case and none of us can really
say what we would do when faced with this sort of
situation. I think many of us would cling to life unless
the circumstances were such that it was a hopeless case.

Dear Poirot, I am so sorry for your family. May your
mother find peace and her last days be positive ones.

Daily there are drug abusers, especially alcoholics, recovered from the gutter by ambulances who are given treatment aimed at restoring them to the complete health and wellbeing.

With very rare exceptions (and medical people may struggle to list an exception), despite the expensive, unrelenting efforts of medical and other professionals and helping organisations, the drug-addicted return to their previous choices and lifestyle regardless.

While we are on the ethics of refusing treatment for the child minor with cancer, what should be the flow-on to health policy?

Hi Foxy, I believe the doctors made the right decision for this boy. A 50% chance of survival is pretty good odds, and who knows what other treatments may become available in a few years time if the boy is still alive then?

I would suggest that the vast majority of parents would make the decision to give their child every chance at life, and if the doctors felt so strongly about going to court to get an order to force the parents to allow their child to have treatment, then they obviously thought there was a reasonable chance of survival, and a reasonable life.

Most paediatric and oncology doctors wouldn't go through the extreme trauma of taking on the parents in court over something as awful as this if they weren't feeling fairly confident they were doing the right thing.

Adults can make their own decisions that we may not always agree with, but kids need extra protection at times. I remember being very angry and upset with a Jehovah's Witness family years ago, who were willing to sit and watch their young daughter die from blood loss after a terrible car accident , rather than allowing her to have a blood transfusion. All the medical staff had to really control their own emotions when dealing with this family, even after the daughter was made a ward of the State while she was given the blood transfusion.

The family were then certain this little girl would be going to hell for having this lifesaving transfusion. I was certain that if there was a hell, then only the parents would be going there!
It was very difficult at the time, but we were so pleased the Government stepped in and made the correct decision.

P&F,

I lost my father a while ago through emphysema (from smoking) which took a decade slowly whittling away his quality of life, and even though in your head you know that at the end death is a merciful release, nothing prepares you for the loss you feel at the time.

P,

Despite our robust discussions, I wish you peace through what I know will be painful and heart breaking, but hopefully with moments of of love and memories.

I have two adult children now, but I still remember them as babies, and waking up terrified that something could happen to them. I had to cure my terrors with a fix of holding them before I could sleep again, so I also know that one's love of a child has even greater depths.

I don't know enough to be able to judge the parents' decision, but I know that it must soul destroying, and while I understand the doctor's duty to protect life, I believe the hippocratic oath should include the respect for the quality of life.

Dear Suse, Shadow Minister, and OTB,

I agree with you both. I think many parents would opt
for life - if it was an available option. However
the quality of life as Shadow Minister states should
also be a consideration. Apparently the doctor at the
Perth hospital felt strongly about the matter to take
a court action against the parents.

Very difficult to judge this case though.

I've just learned that this case will be aired on
"Sixty Minutes," on Channel 9, this Sunday (10th April 2016)
at 8.15pm.

Should be worth watching.

Pity no outrage about the 1000's murderer unborn babies. Very selective rage.

Dear runner,

Kindly provide us with evidence to substantiate
your claim of "thousands murdered unborns,"
better still, start your own discussion on your
topic. Do not divert mine. You seem to be the
selective one here.

I believe this is a case where the state has to protect the child, who would have had no say in the matter; and, thankfully, our society is not going to allow a child to die without trying to save him or her. Many children have had chemotherapy and been cured; a little grand nephew of my is one of them. So, chemo is not a bundle of laughs, but most sufferers seem to prefer it to death - even people of my generation and older. Personally, at 73, I would go with palliative care, and hope I didn't drag it out. But that would be my decision for me. Nobody, including parents, has the right to make that choice for a 6 year old kid who, with proper treatment, could have another 3 decades of life ahead of him. The fact that the parents don't share a name, and have called the poor little bugger 'Oshin', says much about them.

Poirot, I am so sorry for what you and your family are going through. My only advice is to accept all help you are offered, and if you haven't already, write down some of the stories your mum has told you about her life. These stories will be a comfort later on.

Ttbn, you are disgracefully judgmental in your assessment of a family you know nothing about. Even if this society was still in the dark ages of gossiping about whether couples were married or not, how do you know if the mother in question IS married, but kept her maiden name?

I have a friend whose daughter was gravely ill with cancer at 11 years old. She went through a year of hell with chemo and radiotherapy. She is now a healthy 24 year old with no further signs of cancer. At no stage did she or her family even consider saying no to treatment, as she was told there was a 60% chance of cure.

Many people diagnosed with cancer will fight it with much worse odds and at any age.
It never ceases to amaze me that the very elderly often fight with every fibre of their being to beat cancer and live longer.
The will to live is very strong.

Thanks, folks...much appreciated.

SM,

Yes, I know that parental concern well. Instinctively they are the centre of the universe.

I've two children too - born 19 years apart. My first born, although she'd sailed through the first almost ten years, suddenly stopped producing insulin. OMG! - and although we had her to the docs a few times, it wasn't picked up until she was quite sick. In the days after, as we were learning all about Type 1 diabetes, I was rather cross it hadn't been picked up earlier. If I'd known what I knew three days later, I could have diagnosed her myself!

However, we were always acutely aware that it was a manageable condition, there was insulin and diet and exercise to balance - and it is hard at first to get your head around it...needles were always of the least concern to my daughter, it was the danger of low blood sugars that were the bane. They have to be treated promptly - but you can't have high blood sugars as well because they are also dangerous.

It wasn't cancer - it was diabetes..and we could manage it...but still shook us up.

Btw, my daughter does 4 needles a day, every day. She's fit and healthy. She's still using the same Novo Pen she started using a few months after diagnosis. I takes vials of insulin. Superior Norwegian technology provides a pen she has been using since 1992....Wow!

My mum today looked like she'd grown much weaker. My now 33 year-old daughter sat patiently and gently painting her Nanna's nails. Nan always liked to look nice, you know. I was proud of my girl for paying her grandmother this homage - bestowing her a little dignity.

More than we should pity the child, we should pity the doctor and the judges because they will end up with karma that will make themselves go through the hell of chemotherapy.

This is a case of forcing a particular outlook on life on others who do not share it. This is why I stress again and again over these pages that it's wrong for one big state to rule over the whole of this continent, as it seems that some people are unable to respect the values of others and abstain from using state-violence to inflict their particular values on them.

The Western/Christian/Medical tradition is prejudiced in believing that life is better than death. More precisely, they attach a mystical importance to the fact that a body with human genes is breathing. Somehow, they don't attach the same importance to others (animals), so when a dog suffers they hurry to euthanase it, not to mention other animals which they eat though healthy. This is an inconsistent superstition.

Life and death are both gifts as well as duties: both are necessary for our spiritual progress. Unless we are saints/prophets, we have no way to tell whether one has completed his/her duties on this earth and better shed their body, proceeding to death and the next life. What if one's duties were completed in 6 years? Why linger unnecessarily in a body that's no longer required? If anyone (other than sages and prophets) is to have a clue in this matter, then it's the person herself - and when unsure, it's best to allow nature to run its course rather than violently pushing this way or the other.

As he's still unable to speak for himself (or perhaps he is, but nobody is listening, cruelly believing that a 6yo cannot tell what they want: I remember being 6yo myself and I know that I could!), Oshin chose to be born to his parents so they can represent him, not to the said/sad doctor. This is what makes parents the most probable people to express the correct wishes of their child.

Yuyutsu, sadly, there are many parents in this world that do not 'choose' what is right for their children, so that is why the wider community should be prepared to step in if necessary to keep kids safe.

One only needs to see the parents drinking alcohol, self medicating, or smoking heavily while pregnant, or looking after small kids, to realize the world is not always a safe place for kids, 'spiritually' or otherwise.

I can't believe you would be happy to leave unloved or neglected kids with uncaring or dangerous parents simply because you think they 'chose' these parents and the parents 'probably' have their best interests at heart?

Dear Poirot,

I have a nephew who has diabetes 1, and injections with
insulin are a part of his life so I understand your
situation. Also, your daughter sounds like a very loving
and caring person. You've done a good job!
Doing her grand-mother's nails would
mean a great deal to her grandmother. My mum is settling
in quite nicely into her nursing home. She gets her nails
done there, as well as a weekly visit to the hairdressers.
It's all part of increasing her self esteem - and she
looks forward to it.

Dear Suse,

Your posts make a great deal of sense - and as a nurse you're
speaking from experience. I'll be watching the "Sixty Minutes,"
program tonight on channel nine.

Dear Suse,

There was no indication or even allegation that the parents in question are drinkers, smokers, unloving or uncaring.

(as for self-medicating, I see no wrong in failing to seek the permission of the secular-priesthood class)

The first question to be asked is whether you would allow the child himself to decide about his treatment: if your answer is 'No', then there's no point to even ask the next question as to who would best be able to represent him. Different children develop differently, but as I remember myself at the age of 6, I could have answered for myself if anyone cared to listen. At least many children of 6 could answer the question, if put to them, whether they want their parents or their doctor (or perhaps someone else) to decide about their treatment.

Ideally, we would have some sage or prophet who could tell what's best for the child's soul, but sadly we don't have this luxury in our current dark age, so we need to resort to probabilities.

Medical doctors are mechanics of the body with no understanding or concern for the spiritual needs of their patients. In the general case, parents love their children far more than an unrelated doctor would or anyone else for that matter. Even parents who are afflicted by drinking generally wish the best for their children, even when the child is not with them because they are unable to care for them properly on a daily basis.

Yes there are exceptions. As we all have free choice, there could for example be parents who took up drinking only after their child chose to be born to them, but say the parents were already drinking when their child was born, then we should wonder why that child still chose them of all other parents! Most likely, it's due to the child's karma, needing to expiate for his previous actions. Perhaps that's even the purpose of his present birth, so are we going to thwart it, thereby forcing him to be born yet again to yet another couple of drunkard parents?

Yuyutsu, "Medical doctors are mechanics of the body with no understanding or concern for the spiritual needs of their patients"

That is incorrect.

The science and technology of medicine is transforming
the treatment of the very ill and injured, and millions
of people owe their health and lives to the dramatic
medical innovations of the past decades.

In particular, the new technologies have given doctors
and patients a range of difficult life-or-death choices
that they did not have even a few years ago.

For example, terminally ill patients can now be kept
alive through artificial respiration, intravenous
feeding, electronic heart stimulation, mechanical organ
substitutes, or even transplants of body parts from
other people or animals, to name just a few.

Consequently, medical dilemmas frequently become
moral and legal ones as well.

In the past most people were born and died at home.
Births and deaths happened when they happened, often
without medical intervention. If a child was too
premature or defective or if a seriously ill person
was dying, there was little the family doctor could do
about it other than to offer comfort.

Today, most people are born and die in hospitals under
the supervision of medical personnel. Physicians are
expected to do all they can to sustain life. The
medical profession today has come to rely more heavily
on scientific and technological innovations.

The
physicians of a century ago would have very little
understanding of the techniques used by their
counterparts today - but they were also spared the kinds
of moral dilemmas and life-or-death decisions that modern
physicians sometimes face. Such as giving a child a 50
percent chance at life or allowing them to die.
In practice, some physicians and parents
would try to keep these infants alive, others would hope
that their child will die. Parents and doctors
have thus become involved
in a process that some call, "Playing
God in the nursery."

Yuyutsu, I don't believe children 'choose' who they are born to, or else all the deadbeat parents in our world would surely never have more than one child, if they neglected or didn't love them. Surely no other new baby would choose those parents?
Where did you get that bizarre idea from?

How can you say that no medical doctor cares for the spiritual needs of their patients, when you can't possibly know all the doctors in the world? Are you thinking that only specially enlightened persons, like yourself, are aware of these spiritual needs?

Maybe in your personal experience you felt your doctors did not understand your 'spiritual" needs, but to be honest I don't think many on this forum understand where you are coming from most of the time : )

At the end of the day, medical doctors mainly care for the physical and mental health needs of their patients, but are also taught how to accommodate the myriad kinds of spiritual or religious needs as well, in a holistic way.
If you don't think your current Doctor understands you, then keep looking!

Dear Suse,

Just as there are bad, abusive and neglecting parents, there are guilty souls of formerly bad, abusive and neglecting parents which seek expiation through experiencing the same from the other end of the stick.

Most of us are happy to admit our aspirations for pleasure and comfort, but repress and try to avoid the social ridicule for wishing the opposite, yet those negative wishes are there and constantly drive us to do things that will bring us suffering. The will to suppress them can only last a little while, then our will breaks and the negative desires dominate.

(there are ways to limit these negative desires, such as the Christian confession, yet they are not in the least popular nowadays, but I digress)

Even doctors who do care and understand, face a conflict between their official and legal duties and the spiritual welfare of the patient. They are paid to heal the body and are held responsible to do so: I don't envy the doctor who even in this dark day and age recognises when a conflict arises between the needs of the body and the needs of the spirit - through natural selection, most of them would not remain doctors (or even medical students) for long.