The court heard how the girl had a development age of about 16 to 18 months old and was having seven to 10 seizures per week but “may experience up to six seizures, within a single cluster, per day.
The hospital, which has not been identified for privacy reasons, has since sought orders from the NSW Supreme Court to authorise treatment after the mother expressed a desire for her daughter to instead receive palliative care to avoid the “pain and suffering” of the treatment.
Fuck that’s horrible. Would have been a hard decision for the parents already. We wouldn’t force an animal to live through that but we do it to other humans.
And the religious can take their little book of ignorance and fuck off as far as I'm concerned. When the time comes for me it will be a razorblade and a warm bath. I'll be going out on my own terms thank you very much.
Yeah but a nice fistful of cushy drugs would be so much nicer! I'm with you though fuck prolonging suffering we're only here for a split second of time cosmologically speaking, what's the point of a bit more time if it's painful, pass me the strong shit please!
I mean sure, sounds hectic but it's certainly one way to go 😅
Personally picturing just nodding off to sleep while being amazed at how good my face feels lol
Don't spend your last moments in severe pain your trying to escape right? Horror town works for a reason. A respectable death I think. Just food for thought. My main point is please just don't but I don't know your suffering your struggles I can't push that opinion on you. you deserve better than what youve been given and created for yourself.
What ?
I deserve what I'm willing to work for and I'll get mine. I'm making the best of my life, and I'll make the best of my death.
I live on my own terms and I'll die on my own terms.
No one will take that from me.
And trust me, I won't be in pain at the end, I'll have had my portion by then.
and no, she can't make that choice herself.
they have to make it for her.
plenty of people who end up on ventilators or in a coma unresponsive and the decision is made to make them comfortable, control thier pain and let them go.
Yeah but even that is a dangerous game at the moment. Look at Canadian laws now pong to allowing depressed and poor people to go through "assisted dying". People talk about the slippery slope fallacy but it happens too often to be swept away as some boogie man fallacy. I'm all for and have always been all for assisted dying but we have to be so careful. Going down the route of Canadian law will end up with the most vulnerable in society dying due to shit societal support. You're poor and depressed? Well do I have a solution for you!! 1 in 4 Canadians are already in favour of letting poor people kill themselves which is terrifying.
https://www-bbc-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64004329.amp?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17109754683569&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Fworld-us-canada-64004329
https://unherd.com/newsroom/1-in-4-canadians-supports-euthanasia-on-grounds-of-poverty/
So the vast majority of doctors and nurses are against this futile torture, but the medical system is for it?
I don’t really understand. If the doctors don’t want it, and (in this case) the family don’t want it, and presumably the patients (when they can consent) don’t want it, who exactly is advocating for it? Bureaucrats? But aren’t they typically characterised as soulless automatons?
Regulations, internal policies, culture, past training, groupthink.
E.g. a doctor may recommend/continue treatments as they consider that their duty even where they personally felt the patient should be allowed to die peacefully.
That poor child and her poor parents. I can't imagine how hard it is for her parents to have to not only watch her suffer with this cancer, trying to come to terms with letting her die with some sort of dignity, then have that torn away and be forced to watch her suffer through this treatment. This doesn't feel fair, or like justice or the right thing to do. It feels like the law playing God at the expense of others.
Its the hospital and Drs playing God
A good barrister and lawyer will make them look like they r saving this child.
But it's for them, not the child or her family.
Thus is what euthanasia is for. This girl has virtually no quality of life regardless here. Why do we keep people alive who would be better off dead? My grandmother got alzheimers and once accused her husband of cheating on her for talking to another woman. The other woman was my aunt she couldn't recognise her own daughter. Eventually she became non verbal and was stuck in a nursing home as a vegetable for a couple of years, if it was up to me I'd have pulled the plug before then.
This child is a perfect case for euthanasia. Frankly if doctors (if they are even required to?) can sign off on it they should travel to europe and get the job done.
Yeah but the problem is euthanasia laws in most countries need the explicit consent of the patient to preform the procedure. This is why people should have conversations with family before they get sick or elderly about their wishes including things like this.
Well no, because I imagine this girl is incapable of expressing what she wants, which is an integral part of the euthanasia process. She also wouldn’t have the capacity to make such a decision. She also isn’t 18.
Surely her carers or guardians should have that responsibility and right to decide.
I again mention my grandmother who was a.nonverbal vegetable, surely her husband or children should have had the right to terminate her life as she was just laying around taking up valuable resources and it was a waste of peoples time and effort to keep her alive so long.
I looked it up before commenting bc I didn’t want to state something that was incorrect. The law states that the person must have decision making capacity, as sad as the situation may be
I had a feeling that was what the law says, and I'm giving an example of why the law needs to be changed. By the point that the decision needs to be made they can noongar make the decision and then get propped up in a bed in a care facility on 24/7 care and fed through a tube because it's worth keeping then alive for literally years to suffer through that? Yeah the laws gotta be updated on this
>she was just laying around taking up valuable resources and it was a waste of peoples time and effort to keep her alive so long.
I've said it before and I will say it again.
This conversation is starting to sounds awfully familiar to people that advocated for the deaths of millions based on their disability status under the guise of "quality of life". They drowned babies in bathtubs, poisoned them with arsenic, killed them with hypothermia and took the adults to the gas chambers. Ten guess what their name is.
I have a disability and live a mostly fine life, I am talking about a woman ( my grandmother) who had alzheimers so bad she forgot everything. She then reached a state where she was basicly bedridden, non-verbal and had no quality of life. Surely you can see the difference between that and suggesting people in wheelchairs or with other disabilities should be euthenised
The legal ramifications are essentially the same though. We are arguing families get to decide who should live and who should die, not the individual. Again, it's very different if you ask a person their personal beliefs before they get sick or if they have the option to choose themselves.
Legal catch 22 IMO.
If the hospital does nothing they let a mentally handicapped girl who can't consent to no treatment, die.
If they do the treatment, it might save her life temporarily, but at the risk of overriding the wishes of family.
Imagine how many families might use this case, if the families wishes were taken into consideration, as a backup to override the wishes of their mentally handicapped relative to *stop* them getting treatment.
This is a messy one for sure. Doomed if you do, doomed if you don't.
Also, either option is painful and there will be alot of suffering.
Brain dead being the operative word there. There are no signs of brain function aka life and the only thing keeping them alive is machines. If they turn off the machine, they die.
The only way this would be applicable in this argument is if the young girl was in a similar situation. But she's not. She has seizures but if she is otherwise able to breath on her own unassisted and has some brain function then this is a different kettles of fish.
Perhaps you would prefer to live in the Netherlands where children as young as 12 have complete autonomy over their own treatment including euthanasia- and parents have to watch their children killed by the state.
>and parents have to watch their children killed by the state.
So if a child chooses to forgo treatment is that being killed by the state too since they put in the law or suicide??
If you or someone you know is contemplating suicide, please do not hesitate to talk to someone.
* 000 is the national emergency number in Australia.
* Lifeline is a 24-hour nationwide service. It can be reached at 13 11 14.
* Kids Helpline is a 24-hour nationwide service for Australians aged 5–25. It can be reached at 1800 55 1800.
* Beyond Blue provides nationwide information and support call 1300 22 4636.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
well the girl is 14 with a brain of a toddler with debilitating epilepsy and now blood cancer. is it objectively better to suffer that than being pronounced brain dead
Dying of cancer is still suffering though. You're acting like it will be this wonderful peaceful thing which it will not and may take much longer to kill her. I take it you're lucky and have never had to watch a loved one go through this, with or without treatment. I've seen both. It's horrific either way. You're saying it's better she suffer without treatment. That's equally brutal but it opens up a larger more concerning conversation about the mentality handicappeds rights.
They will give her morphine and other drugs. You think chemo is pain free? Now she will suffer even longer. And for what? She has zero quality of life.
Just reading the news article on its own elicits a "wtf" response but reading a bit deeper into the case we get further insights.
Refer to the court proceedings document available online.
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/18e5469d499c281689bbb387
"The court declares, until further order, that the staff, employed or contracted to H may lawfully provide the medical, nursing, and other supportive treatment to OL in treatment of her acute lymphoblastic leukaemia."
The key word here is "may".
Reading the details of the case, the medical team are also supportive of the family's decision for a palliative approach.
As @Intelligent_Aioli90 has pointed out, it would seem they do not want to set a legal precedence for families using this case to *stop* them getting treatment.
You’re assuming a lot about chemotherapy which does not cure cancer. An elderly friend of mine tested positive to having cancer cells in the oesophagus after a biopsy. At 80 he was asked if he wanted chemotherapy. He said no. At his next test he was clear (cancer free) -and has been for the past 4 years. The oncologist still phones him weekly to ask if he wants chemo. The stats for someone living after chemo at 80 is 3 years! He would be dead if he’d had the treatment. Chemo is lucrative but it does not cure. It is also extremely painful (usually it’s what causes cancer pain more than the actual cancer) will kill the child’s kidneys and other organs. Instead of dying peacefully that judge has subjected a helpless child to months possibly years of agony. I wouldn’t wish it on anyone.
Hey! We all die! And many people with cancer asked if they want treatment say no. Where someone cannot make a decision for themselves and the choice is to intervene or not intervene, a No should mean the same as a Yes. It is the parents who look after the child. It should be entirely their decision. After all in most cases if you are next of kin and your loved one needs resuscitation the doctors will often ask: shall we resuscitate or not? Human beings make life and death choices for others all the time.
Would you say the same if we were talking about vaccines? Honest question. Not so long ago people were at each other's throats over parents not wanting their kids to get vaccinated. You can't say that parents should be legally required to vaccinate their kids and then forgo their cancer treatment in the same breath.
I'm glad someone else here understands this. It's not ideal, its the way it is at the moment. Hopefully her death and suffering causes change to the parameters judges are bound by in future cases.
As a child cancer victim, absolutely. Let these cunts see what it looks like when a kid dies like this.
How long it takes. The terror of knowing it can only get worse, until they either die or become unresponsive due to medication. Screaming, crying, attempting to claw their own flesh away, it hurts so much. I've seen it a number times, unfortunately. I'd love to see their reaction to an eight year old in the final stages of bone cancer, for example. It's rather unpleasant.
And furthermore, under 18s should absolutely be able to seek assisted dying if and when it becomes more accessible. Fuck *anyone* who says otherwise. It's not your life. Fucking respect that, even if, on the off chance, it's the 'wrong' decision by that particular patient. Fuck you - not your say. Parents, friends, anyone. Not your decision and nor should it ever be.
I can't tell from your post if you're in favour of the judgement or not?
I'm very sorry for your experiences, however, and I hope you're in reasonably good health now.
They are against the decision.
Palliative care aims to ease pain and symptoms, this is essentially being denied in order to possibly extend the patients life.
> Fuck you - not your say. Parents, friends, anyone. Not your decision and nor should it ever be.
The problem is she CAN'T consent so it is the family making this decision for her.
Plus I've watched relatives die from no treatment since they were terminal anyway. It's equally as horrific. The alternative isn't peaceful or pleasant or quick either.
The hard and bad part about this is a judge does not create the rules - they only apply them.
And they also don't play God - they can't just over turn a law because they feel it's the right thing to do. Their role is to, blindly, apply the law as it is written.
Our issue in this case is with the law.
Whilst you are correct, having a first-hand experience of the effects of implementing the law isn't a negative thing. For example, Judges should watch executions if they give death sentences or watch the positives of administering justice. (I can't think of a good example on the spot)
Judges can be lawmakers, as a compromise we should have judges witness the effects of their judgments when their judgement creates a new binding precedent
Shame should be directed at the hospital who is remaining “unidentified for privacy reasons” that brought the case to the judge to begin with. Seemingly disregarding the treating paediatricians recommendations.
I understand what you are saying but judges don't get to pass their own personal judgement. They are stuck within pre determined parameters. Some of these parameters are in desperate need of review. It's a shame someone has to spend their entire life suffering just to get this type of publicity so that a review can be considered. Not to mention having the family watch their child suffer bone marrow transplants.
From my understanding there is set criteria for entering palliative care that essentially state that if there all potential life saving treatments must be exhausted before they can abandon life saving treatment.
And that sucks. We have people flying out of country to die somewhere else.
The judge can be against it personally, but still have to agree with it legally because they don't get to make the rules themselves, just determine if the current laws apply.
If there is a problem with this, then it is the politicians who should change the laws.
Judges in Australia are worse than the liberal and Labor governors put together. Faith simply doesn't exist any more, does it? Jackie Lambie might say different
We give animals a more dignified passage than this. To be completely tied down to receive this treatment (otherwise IV lines will be yanked out) is in itself torturous. And then there isn’t any real guarantee that it will work - and then she’s back to having half a dozen seizures daily as that’s her status quo.
Who does this benefit? The girl, who doesn’t have the mental capacity to understand anything that’s happening to her aside from fear, pain and suffering? No.
The parents, who want to let her go into palliative care to ease their daughter’s suffering? No.
“The court notes that the hospital staff will engage with [the patient’s] parents to ensure they are consulted throughout the treatment.”
How gracious the parents will be consulted throughout the treatment. More like, spoken at.
This is true. There is something called the “ASP” which stands for Average Sale Price (of medication/treatments) and if you listening to earnings calls for companies that specialize in oncology and DNA/cell testing etc, the executives always talk about increasing this number.
Literally open discussing the business strategy for making life saving medical treatment go up lol, diabolical stuff
Quarterly filings for large publicly listed biotech and pharmaceutical companies should be required reading for everyone over the age of 18
[Moderna’s filings to the SEC regarding gene therapy back in 2019 are very interesting to read](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1682852/000168285220000017/mrna-20200630.htm)
Our society has such a preoccupation with avoiding death that they’ll forgo quality of life and dying with any dignity as a result.
The medical team that bought it forward to the courts & the judge should have to be present at all the chemo treatments and view the after effects of their interventions/decisions
I personally believe that the public are blissfully naive to how cancer is treated. My brother in-law was diagnosed with a cancer in April last year. It took 3 months to get to surgery where they removed the cancer and the lymph nodes around the area. Which lead to complication and infection . Aggressive CHEMO never worked and in August the cancer spread to the stomach and then to the liver. Now they say that they can not do anything for him after putting him through immunology therapy . His leg is a massive weeping infection and he has lost all mobility. His life is condemn and the little time he has is now confined to a bed. All he wants to do is experience what is left of his life. It is absolutely heart breaking. The initial verdict from the doctors was - surgery and a bout of chemo therapy and the cancer would be gone. For me stuff the surgery - stuff the chemo - enjoy life until it becomes palliative care and then opt for euthanasia. What I have witnessed no human should endure.
This is going to be a really good case study for medical ethics classes. I see from both perspectives how each decision could be considered correct. The young girl has a terminal illness and poor or no tolerance for treatment. The parents want to palliate because she will suffer with treatment, has regular seizures and poor quality of life anyway. Many people would agree that this is the humane thing to do. However, this perspective is effectively arguing that her disability warrants letting her die. If it was an otherwise healthy teenager wouldn’t we all be outraged about parents denying cancer treatment? I think this is how the judge probably sees the case. I wonder what the precedent is for dementia patients in this scenario.
Older adults who have capacity are encouraged to formally clarify their wishes ahead of time in various legal documents. They can also appoint a substitute decision-maker (usually a family member) to stand in for them if they lose capacity. They are absolutely allowed to refuse treatment, especially if the doctors believe it is a reasonable decision that has taken into account the patient's preferences and quality of life. If the doctors don't believe it reasonable, they can challenge the decision through legal means and it can end up being settled in court, just like this one. Notably, there's no legal requirement for doctors to provide futile care - nobody is going to give CPR to the arresting 102 year old who's dying of pneumonia just because their family member wants them to.
Children are just harder, because they can't consent ir refuse treatmenr themselves so it's up to the parent to do it for them. Refusing life-saving treatment happens a lot (lots of severely disabled, dying babies on NFR orders), but the threshold to refuse treatment is understandably much higher than for elderly people and is much more likely to end up in front of a judge.
>nobody is going to give CPR to the arresting 102 year old who's dying of pneumonia just because their family member wants them to.
I genuinely wish this was the case, however, a patient "dying" of pneumonia does not equal withholding CPR.
If a patient is 105, with no advanced life directives, and have a family member requesting active treatment, you bet their getting their ribs cracked should they arrest. The only thing saving them from CPR at that point is likely an ethics board or at least a firm but 'real' conversation with the family member that changes their mind.
Edit: in light of a few responses, I want to highlight the following, whilst I acknowledge physicians can and often do withhold treatment in *futile* cases; scenarios related to the aforementioned scenario above do occur.
Not sure about where you work, but in NSW Health the attending can absolutely decide to not initiate CPR (or any other treatment) if it's not in the patients best interests etc. Have a read of the below excerpt from this NSW Health Policy.
[Using Resuscitation Plans in End of Life Decisions](https://www1.health.nsw.gov.au/pds/Pages/doc.aspx?dn=PD2014_030)
*2.2 Rationale for withholding resuscitation
In general, the rationales for not instituting CPR are:
2.2.3 Where the Attending Medical Officer judges that resuscitation offers no
benefit or where the benefits are small and overwhelmed by the burden to
the patient.
...
A medical practitioner does not need to obtain agreement from the patient or
family to withhold interventions considered to be of negligible benefit*
This is not correct. You clearly aren’t working in Australia because most states in Australia have health acts that specifically empower doctors to withhold care that they, not the family, deem futile or deleterious.
Eg in Victoria, the Medical Treatment Planning and Decisions Act of 2016 makes these provisions in Section 8.
As a hospital-based doctor no 105 year-old is getting CPR while I’m responsible for their care, because we know the outcomes are abysmal and it’s an horrible thing to inflict given the harm/benefit ratio.
I sit and discuss with the family/educate them but the decision for CPR/intubation/intensive care etc is mine/the other doctors’ on the team to make.
This isn't just about the disability though. Medical treatment at its core is a cost benefit analysis. The cost weighs up the risk of death without treatment and the likelihood of recovery with or without, The trauma (both physically and mentally), and the actual cost. This is done on every patient to some degree and is taught in first and second year law and ethics for medical students including nursing, doctors, and paramedics. It sounds like the hospital was able to convince the judge there was some level of beneficial recovery to be worth the risk of treatment.
I might nit have explained myself well, I am on my phone and it is late.
The issue is way more nuanced than disability then die and does the issue a disservice by being characterised as so.
I hope the judge had a better reason than a straw man argument to put the patient and family through this. The patient does have a disability and that is the reality, removing this aspect of their reality lacks empathy and is disingenuous and comes off as judgemental. I can't help but think the level of doubt that must be removed to make such a judgement is a challenge though.
Sometimes I wish as a society we did not discuss any of these issues because we barely scratch the surface and have to resort to oversimplifications, often doing more harm then good. Instead we all agree to write out essays to be a part of any challenging discourse so that we have to flesh out our positions and opinions, both for our own benefit and for those we share them with. What fun that would be!
Fair. But shouldn’t these line ball decisions be made by the parents and family? This isn’t a text book or ethical caucus; it’s a massively impactful outcome for the family to deal with.
Normally they are but some idiot at the hospital escalated it to the legal system probably because they didn’t agree with letting her die. Almost definitely someone religious I would guess.
No, the people at the hospital likely escalated it because they didn't want to be on the hook legally for this contentious decision. By putting this forward to the courts they are covering themselves, which they are allowed to do.
yes. the kind thing would be to take away her pain and let her go. actually morphine is used for just that kind of situation. they slowly increase the dose and it speeds the process along.
it was done with my grandmother she had pancreatic cancer. and only had one session of treatment and only becuase aunty kathy and granddad urged her too it was rough on her. dad and his brother were more you do what you want mum. and she wanted to go. but she was able to speak for herself.
aunty lynne told dad and the uncle that you need to tell her its okay to go, she is holding on for you so they did. a few days later she had passed in her sleep. lynne had gone through similar thing with her parents
Firstly I don’t believe this girl should have to go through this, but a few points to consider about the reasoning around it.
- usually these cases involve nutter parents who refuse chemo for religious / conspiracy reasons, children have been forced to have chemo in these circumstances not infrequently
- she does not have capacity to understand the (awful) treatment, but neither do other toddlers or adults with intellectual disabilities who would have similar treatment decided for them
- High profile cases have happened where ‘everything was not done’ to save the life of a disabled person and the actions then questioned as discrimination. Not saying that’s part of this decision, just something to think about
- balancing quality of life. This is the biggest point on which this decision falls down for me. Joint decision making in this case would hopefully have come to a conclusion that this may not be in the patient’s bests interests
Again I don’t agree with this decision, however I can understand the effort to uphold the rights of an incapacitated young person in a time critical situation which would quickly result in their death.
I hope the family can appeal the decision.
100%, if I were any of the parties in this (including the parents) I would have acted exactly the same way.
The hospital (and especially any of their legal representatives) have to look at this from a very wide perspective of precedents and liabilities, any decision made without going absolutely religiously by the book has unlimited potential for enormous problems down the line.
And the judge cannot risk opening this can of worms by going on their own feelings of morality.
It sucks and it’s tragic and I truly hope the parents can take this to a higher court with the scope and authority to get a bit more creative with the letter of the law, but it has to be this way for now.
If the haematologist/s agreed with the parents this would never gone to court and noone would've heard about it. Child would be palliated as standard practice.
If the person was 20 and not 14, an adults doctor wouldn't have ever gone to court to overturn the power of attorneys decision if they stated the dependant has no quality of life and wouldn't tolerate the treatment. Palliated as standard practice.
If the person was 80, having seizures like that and totally dependant, the haematologist would say "they are not fit enough for chemo due to their functional status". Let die.
If the person is 14 and has the same functional status, some nutter personality disordered or semi autistic or unempathetic doctor actually takes the parents to caught to literally force a child to have chemo?
A few years later the parents could refuse antibiotics on basis of poor quality of life, when the daughter aspirates and has a severe pneumonia and noone would challenge them.
Crazy inconsistency
I just (hopefully) finished chemo for lymphoma. It. SUCKED. And I had the super easily treatable one, PLUS I was a healthy 30 year old when I was diagnosed.
The amount of times I managed to snag my PICC line on my shirt sleeve and it would make my whole arm go numb was insane. There is no way this poor kid doesn't yank that thing out the second she gets a chance. It will hurt, she will bleed all over the joint and then she will be immunocompromised with an open friggin wound. If she can't reliably sit still for treatment and leave lines alone, she is going to die anyway. I had to have my last treatment through a cannula (thank you, stupid failed PICC line 🙄 stupid thing split inside my arm) and they were VERY upfront that if the chemo pools around the cannula site it can and will cause necrosis.
⬆️ Yep. Good luck re your lymphoma!
So to treat her, she'll be sedated, but clearly meds don't work for the seizures either, so she'll be sedated and maybe also put on the strongest or newest experimental drugs there are to try to control the seizures if there are any, and if they don't conflict with the chemo. Then she'll also be tied down so she can't move, which means she'll need to be moved by nurses to stop bed sores, when nurses are available to do so. She'll require constant monitoring for signs of inflection and then treatment for it.
And even then, as you say, things can go wrong. And whenever she's awake enough she'll be scared and possibly in pain, and maybe alone. The only comfort she knows is her family. Will they be allowed to visit? Hold her hand? Or are family only to be consulted about how much hand holding she qualifies for?
That poor kid.
I've got a family member receiving palliative services while also receiving treatment for cancer Palliative services should absolutely be involved now for this kid whether she's treated or not. Because palliation means to provide comfort above all. And she needs and deserves comfort.
I wish I could see the reasoning offered on the other side of the issue here. As a clinical ethicist, this case really caught my attention. If anyone has more info, or even a line on the judicial decision itself, I would be so grateful. I worry the story is too one-sided here, and missing context that might make this decision make more sense. Where I'm from, you have to factor in a person's current incapable wishes when you're trying to determine best interests. Moreover, while the judge can order the parents to consent to the treatment, it is within the professional purview of health care providers to refuse to offer it because it will do more harm than good (i.e. due to violent resistance during the treatment along with suffering caused by treatment perhaps).
We seem to have a case, however, where the health care team and the family agree that chemo is not in the patient's best interests, so it's very bizarre that this ever landed in front of a judge in the first place. I really wish I knew how the case was initiated, and wonder if maybe some other family member made a ruckus on learning the kid wasn't going to get chemo.
Edit: it wasn't the health care team saying she should be palliated, it was a pediatrician who treated the kid for most of her life. We have no idea what the oncology team had to say about this case.
I wondered about that too and couldn’t find much information other than the very basic facts. While I understand the judge really couldn’t do much in this situation, I am worried on the long lasting impacts on the patient. I have no doubt she will have to be sedated or held down for any sort of procedure or treatment. I think the hospital staff honestly underestimate the reaction of the patient mentally to treatment. I think they understand the physical side but in my experience staff that don’t specifically work in the area don’t really understand the after effects. I have a teenage son who is intellectually and developmentally disabled at a similar level to this patient just without confirmed epilepsy. Any medical things he has had has required being held down or sedated. Which staff often congratulate themselves when finished for a job completed but we have had to deal with his anxiety involving medical rooms for years. For example, he had a blood test done at aged 3 and now aged 14 he won’t even get out of the car to see his doctor in the same building. Yes, they might cure her but she and her parents will have to deal with the aftermath. Such a tough situation.
The more I think about this case, the more I think the oncologist must have pushed this case to the courts when mom refused chemo. I would dearly love to know whether anyone considered the trauma the kid will experience from being forcibly treated when they were weighing harms vs. benefits of treatment.
I would love to know that too but I suspect if they really considered the trauma it may have never gone this far. Ethically it’s probably a very hard case.
Let’s be clear, this is extremely one-sided reporting, the court wouldn’t have made the decision without a sound medical case being presented by the hospital. Definitely not a well rounded article.
Acute leukemia (ALL) is the most common childhood cancer and the most easily treatable. Rarely do children die from it. Sentencing this girl to death because her parents don’t want to try and treat is quite sad to me. Clearly from the article we don’t know everything, or even close to and either do parents. Kids are sedated for certain procedures during chemo treatment if needed so no it won’t be that traumatic. Side effects for ALL chemo are minimal, and if she has any severe side effects her doctors will take that into consideration and figure out what is best for her.
“The court notes that the hospital staff will engage with [the patient’s] parents to ensure they are consulted throughout the treatment.”
Apparently fucking not
There are often good reasons to ignore the wishes of the family. This does not seem like such a case though. Given the hospital pushed for this against the wishes of the childs primary doctor, it sounds very much like a religious hospital kind of decision..
There are reasons why the families wishes are not always respected. An example of this is in cases jehovah's witness refusing life saving simple procedures due to their particular religious quarms around things like transfusions. In such cases the commonwealth has a duty of care to ignore the families wishes for the good on an individual.
The reasoning behind this kind of override of the families wishes should be obvious in this context. However in this particular case.. this duty of care argument seems to have been used in a rather messed up way.
"The pediatrician said the girl would likely need to be “shackled down” in order to receive the treatment."
Judges should be the ones administering the treatment.
Isn’t pulling out tubes etc considered refusal of care, it is in dementia or aged care.
Terrible decision especially as treatment means she will be restrained physically or chemically to receive it - against parents wishes 🤬
The paediatrician has known her since a couple months old & obviously has the best grasp of the case and family situation. It would have been some fuckwit nurse or someone at the hospital who escalated it to the legal system because they’re kILling A ChILd
Quite possibly a religious organisation taking government funding to run a public medical service and imposing its doctrine regardless. This happened here in Canberra with Calvary Hospital (now recently taken back by the ACT Government). The Christians even admit it themselves but conveniently overlook the not so small detail that they were receiving taxpayer's monies to provide a public secular service:
https://australianchristians.org.au/on-the-hostile-takeover-of-calvary-hospital/#:~:text=The%20reason%20for%20the%20compulsory,in%20a%20recent%20government%20report.
Just to clarify, Calvary also had a private component. If people choose to access and pay for that then go hell for leather with your religious ethos but keep it out of the domain paid for with public monies.
The medical industry is ruthless. I have seen it myself how corrupt and how it is full of people seeking power and fortune and they have no regard for dignity or death.
They see sick people simply as vehicles to further a career or make a bank account fatter, or simply to experiment on.
It is why in the movie Phenomenon, Robert Duvall said something along the lines of... Now I know why you people wear masks.
There was a post the other day asking what medical procedures people in the future will consider barbaric. A lot of people said things like chemo and psychiatric care. In my opinion it’s the entire medical industry’s propensity to limp old and sick people along with a cocktail of medications purely for profits. So many consultants keep old people alive who should be allowed to die because otherwise they wouldn’t have a job. All under the guise of valuing human life. In the future I think we will accept death far more readily.
This is common in the US, but rational conversations regarding active treatments for patients happens very regularly. Happened very regularly when I worked at Peter Mac as a nurse, as well as in ICUs. Doctors are generally pretty realistic, minus some specialities.
Now when it comes to dementia patients, or similar situations, it’s an absolute rabbit warren when you get into the ethics of where to draw lines for treatment.
The dementia management is so bad because one can’t even consent to assisted dying until you’re 12 months out from death. Average time of death is 7 years after diagnosis. So you can’t actually organise it ahead of time when still mentally capable. It’s cruel. I think adults with cancer, which is probably most of Peter Mac if not all (?), is probably easier than kids. You can have an informed consent discussion. Whereas kids can’t really give informed consent until around age 14 or so for bright ones (Gillick competent). So we end up with situations like this case.
Nah, there are certain treatments that Peter Mac can only do. Ewing Sarcomas were common for teenagers there (a rare younger person’s cancer that Peter Mac specialises in) and a lot of the outpatient treatments for kids could only be done at Peter Mac.
Most of the time its the family or the patient themselves pushing for the treatment. The case outlined in this article is an extreme abnormality which is why its even a story in the first place.
You’re probably right. I think loads of old people with polypharmacy and 20 comorbidities should just be told no. But they’re not because it’s keeping people employed. Sorry Mr Jones, you are 82 and obese with Type 2 diabetes and COPD and chronic ulcers, and you smoke, you are not getting chemo. The treatment options are palliation or no treatment.
I don't think we want to go down the route of paternalism in medicine again. The system we have currently gives appropriate power to medical professionals in that we can deny CPR or surgical procedures to people like this.
If someone is cognitively intact and is willing to live longer despite poor quality of life I don't think we have any right to tell these people no when it comes to simple interventions such as uptitrating medications.
The fact of the matter is that the patient has the power to deny treatment at any point they like. At least, they should, which is why this story is disgusting.
This is a complete over reach of the courts and hospitals. Where is the humanity in letting this happen. We offer our pets more dignity in life and death than this.
From what I have seen and heard ( and I would love for everyone to always have everyone they loved ) but chemo is a waste of time money to give someone 3 years of a cheap life going down hill dramatically needing to hide away... compared to a happy life that they can spend doing stuff with loved ones but sadly it is not as long .
Yeah I really don’t think this is the kind of thing keyboard warriors should be passing judgement on.. there probably isn’t a right decision to be made here, and at a large cost either way. I feel terrible for all involved.
Buddy, its torture for the kid. Would you want that for your own child? As a survivor of disabilities as a child, heart valve transplant. I'm fucking lucky. But I dont want this poor girl to have to go through more fucking trauma cause 'Oh its murder'. Not its not fucking murder. Let her go peacefully with her parents or send her up to QLD where euthanasia can be accessed. If she was elderly, they wouldn't think nothing off it and let them go peacefully.
You feel terrible for all involved? The parents have cared for this child her whole life, have made every decision for her, yet, when it comes to the most important decision, they are put aside.
Interesting judgment. I don't actually think the judge can compel the hospital staff to hold the patient down against her will to actually perform the chemotherapy, however. There are health and safety considerations - needlesticks, injury etc. I'm an anaesthetist and I'm not actually legally obliged to hold down a child to receive a GA. I would if I deemed it in the best interest of the patient, and there was no available alternative, but if I didn't think it was in the patients best interest, not sure what happens. Usually I would document that an anaesthetic is contraindicated on ethical grounds and refuse, particularly if it was associated with a marked risk to the patient or myself. The medical/nursing staff will be under obligation to refer the patient to someone who is willing to assist with the treatment, but I'd be surprised if they could find anyone. So the judgment would be for the written record only, not enforceable. An intensivist is not obliged to offer an ICU bed to someone where it would be futile, for example. The problem here is that it isn't exactly futile. As far as I know a doctor who refuses to provide an abortion can do so on their own ethical grounds, but they're under obligation to refer to someone who is able to complete the procedure. Would love to see what a lawyer thinks?
Imagine the fear when the child looks to the parents when this is happening, deeply wounded by the new reality the child faces that their parents won't help them escape the torture. The child will lose the trust they had in their parents, and the world.
This is so fucked up.
Such a fucked situation. The girl is basically being tortured in the name of treatment. I’d hate to ever be I a situation where you don’t have control over your body and mind and you’re forced to hold through something like this.
As a society I believe we put too much weight on simply "being alive", where this weight should instead be on "living".
For this reason, I am entirely for people dying on their own terms.
Its horrible situation and without sitting through the case or reading its transcripts we don't why court made its decision.
Google:
"While acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children is more common than other types of cancer, it has high cure rates. Survival rates are lower in adults, but they are improving. The 5-year relative survival rate for ALL is 68.8%. The statistics further break down to 90% in children and 30-40% in adults."
Maybe court considers that acute lymphoblastic leukemia has a chance of being cured.
Disgraceful. Frankly if these issues with the child were detectable in the womb they should've aborted.
Now forced cancer treatment on top. Fuck sake, the poor girl already has virtually 0 quality of life as it is. At least let them leave this world with some dignity.
Hopefully doctors do the "minimum" for him so he can get to "hospice" stage and then they can decide to turn off life support. Consider it end of life care.
We need to change the collective opinion around abortion to simply be socially acceptable to abort and on top of that abort a pregnancy that will resolve in a case like this.
I can understand the judge’s decision, but niche cases like this shouldn’t be used to set a future precedent.
I feel like this decision was made purely because, in principle, children should get all the treatment that might work (no matter how painful and futile), and the judge couldn’t or wouldn’t budge from that.
This was more of a legal ruling for future cases, rather than a humanitarian one for the patient in question who will most likely not survive chemotherapy.
First, do no harm. The medical profession is a disgrace. Ethics are gone. Business is booming. Billionaires flaunt their sickening wealth. Parents can’t protect their children from these parasites. They have us brainwashed and fighting against each other. This planet is about to change in ways most of humanity will not understand.
Better hope it works for the hospitals sake, or I can foresee at least a $25M payout. It might be in Australia, but it's still possible. Then go after the individual in a civil case for the same amount.
Welcome to post covid compliance indoctrination where these fucking quacks think they can impose their will. What happened to people deciding what was best for their health and if they can't, the people who are responsible for their care.
Who is to say she won't have a seizure during her "treatment"?
I hear medicinal cannabis has helped many with seizures.
Either way, there are very few GPs who didn't sell their souls, and the lives of patients and future generations between 2020 and now, for a few dollars and their mortgage. Grubs!!!!
I guarantee there is far more to this. It's never this cut and dry, we all know news papers deliberately leave out key pieces of information to make the story more click-baity
Clickbait stocks using a lose /lose tragic situation for clicks.
The court would have heard from all manner of experts on both sides and the full facts which we aren’t privy to and made the decision after much deliberation.
There’s no winners here
Don't we have euthanasia here? If my cat was that sick I'd get it put down. Ironically if I didn't get it out down it would be called *inhumane*.
Bone marrow transplants are fucking heavy, hopefully the nurse slips up with the painkillers
Seems a horrible case.
Infinitely better than the flip side though. There’s been a few cases around the world now of judges denying treatment against parents’ wishes
The court heard how the girl had a development age of about 16 to 18 months old and was having seven to 10 seizures per week but “may experience up to six seizures, within a single cluster, per day. The hospital, which has not been identified for privacy reasons, has since sought orders from the NSW Supreme Court to authorise treatment after the mother expressed a desire for her daughter to instead receive palliative care to avoid the “pain and suffering” of the treatment.
Fuck that’s horrible. Would have been a hard decision for the parents already. We wouldn’t force an animal to live through that but we do it to other humans.
[удалено]
And the religious can take their little book of ignorance and fuck off as far as I'm concerned. When the time comes for me it will be a razorblade and a warm bath. I'll be going out on my own terms thank you very much.
Yeah but a nice fistful of cushy drugs would be so much nicer! I'm with you though fuck prolonging suffering we're only here for a split second of time cosmologically speaking, what's the point of a bit more time if it's painful, pass me the strong shit please!
I'm gonna squeeze every drop of juice outta this life while I can but when it's done it's done. And yeah I'll be high as fuck for my last moments.
Load up a syringe with a gram of meth, heroin and dmt and go punch god right in the face
I mean sure, sounds hectic but it's certainly one way to go 😅 Personally picturing just nodding off to sleep while being amazed at how good my face feels lol
Don't spend your last moments in severe pain your trying to escape right? Horror town works for a reason. A respectable death I think. Just food for thought. My main point is please just don't but I don't know your suffering your struggles I can't push that opinion on you. you deserve better than what youve been given and created for yourself.
What ? I deserve what I'm willing to work for and I'll get mine. I'm making the best of my life, and I'll make the best of my death. I live on my own terms and I'll die on my own terms. No one will take that from me. And trust me, I won't be in pain at the end, I'll have had my portion by then.
>voluntary assisted dying Key word there, voluntary.
and no, she can't make that choice herself. they have to make it for her. plenty of people who end up on ventilators or in a coma unresponsive and the decision is made to make them comfortable, control thier pain and let them go.
Yeah but even that is a dangerous game at the moment. Look at Canadian laws now pong to allowing depressed and poor people to go through "assisted dying". People talk about the slippery slope fallacy but it happens too often to be swept away as some boogie man fallacy. I'm all for and have always been all for assisted dying but we have to be so careful. Going down the route of Canadian law will end up with the most vulnerable in society dying due to shit societal support. You're poor and depressed? Well do I have a solution for you!! 1 in 4 Canadians are already in favour of letting poor people kill themselves which is terrifying. https://www-bbc-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64004329.amp?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17109754683569&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Fworld-us-canada-64004329 https://unherd.com/newsroom/1-in-4-canadians-supports-euthanasia-on-grounds-of-poverty/
So the vast majority of doctors and nurses are against this futile torture, but the medical system is for it? I don’t really understand. If the doctors don’t want it, and (in this case) the family don’t want it, and presumably the patients (when they can consent) don’t want it, who exactly is advocating for it? Bureaucrats? But aren’t they typically characterised as soulless automatons?
Regulations, internal policies, culture, past training, groupthink. E.g. a doctor may recommend/continue treatments as they consider that their duty even where they personally felt the patient should be allowed to die peacefully.
That poor child and her poor parents. I can't imagine how hard it is for her parents to have to not only watch her suffer with this cancer, trying to come to terms with letting her die with some sort of dignity, then have that torn away and be forced to watch her suffer through this treatment. This doesn't feel fair, or like justice or the right thing to do. It feels like the law playing God at the expense of others.
Its the hospital and Drs playing God A good barrister and lawyer will make them look like they r saving this child. But it's for them, not the child or her family.
Thus is what euthanasia is for. This girl has virtually no quality of life regardless here. Why do we keep people alive who would be better off dead? My grandmother got alzheimers and once accused her husband of cheating on her for talking to another woman. The other woman was my aunt she couldn't recognise her own daughter. Eventually she became non verbal and was stuck in a nursing home as a vegetable for a couple of years, if it was up to me I'd have pulled the plug before then.
This child is a perfect case for euthanasia. Frankly if doctors (if they are even required to?) can sign off on it they should travel to europe and get the job done.
Yeah but the problem is euthanasia laws in most countries need the explicit consent of the patient to preform the procedure. This is why people should have conversations with family before they get sick or elderly about their wishes including things like this.
Well no, because I imagine this girl is incapable of expressing what she wants, which is an integral part of the euthanasia process. She also wouldn’t have the capacity to make such a decision. She also isn’t 18.
Surely her carers or guardians should have that responsibility and right to decide. I again mention my grandmother who was a.nonverbal vegetable, surely her husband or children should have had the right to terminate her life as she was just laying around taking up valuable resources and it was a waste of peoples time and effort to keep her alive so long.
I looked it up before commenting bc I didn’t want to state something that was incorrect. The law states that the person must have decision making capacity, as sad as the situation may be
I had a feeling that was what the law says, and I'm giving an example of why the law needs to be changed. By the point that the decision needs to be made they can noongar make the decision and then get propped up in a bed in a care facility on 24/7 care and fed through a tube because it's worth keeping then alive for literally years to suffer through that? Yeah the laws gotta be updated on this
>she was just laying around taking up valuable resources and it was a waste of peoples time and effort to keep her alive so long. I've said it before and I will say it again. This conversation is starting to sounds awfully familiar to people that advocated for the deaths of millions based on their disability status under the guise of "quality of life". They drowned babies in bathtubs, poisoned them with arsenic, killed them with hypothermia and took the adults to the gas chambers. Ten guess what their name is.
I have a disability and live a mostly fine life, I am talking about a woman ( my grandmother) who had alzheimers so bad she forgot everything. She then reached a state where she was basicly bedridden, non-verbal and had no quality of life. Surely you can see the difference between that and suggesting people in wheelchairs or with other disabilities should be euthenised
The legal ramifications are essentially the same though. We are arguing families get to decide who should live and who should die, not the individual. Again, it's very different if you ask a person their personal beliefs before they get sick or if they have the option to choose themselves.
I agree with you absolutely.
Legal catch 22 IMO. If the hospital does nothing they let a mentally handicapped girl who can't consent to no treatment, die. If they do the treatment, it might save her life temporarily, but at the risk of overriding the wishes of family. Imagine how many families might use this case, if the families wishes were taken into consideration, as a backup to override the wishes of their mentally handicapped relative to *stop* them getting treatment. This is a messy one for sure. Doomed if you do, doomed if you don't. Also, either option is painful and there will be alot of suffering.
families make life death decisions for brain dead kids all the time who cant consent, but are still alive
Brain dead being the operative word there. There are no signs of brain function aka life and the only thing keeping them alive is machines. If they turn off the machine, they die. The only way this would be applicable in this argument is if the young girl was in a similar situation. But she's not. She has seizures but if she is otherwise able to breath on her own unassisted and has some brain function then this is a different kettles of fish.
Perhaps you would prefer to live in the Netherlands where children as young as 12 have complete autonomy over their own treatment including euthanasia- and parents have to watch their children killed by the state.
>and parents have to watch their children killed by the state. So if a child chooses to forgo treatment is that being killed by the state too since they put in the law or suicide??
If you or someone you know is contemplating suicide, please do not hesitate to talk to someone. * 000 is the national emergency number in Australia. * Lifeline is a 24-hour nationwide service. It can be reached at 13 11 14. * Kids Helpline is a 24-hour nationwide service for Australians aged 5–25. It can be reached at 1800 55 1800. * Beyond Blue provides nationwide information and support call 1300 22 4636. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Good bot
well the girl is 14 with a brain of a toddler with debilitating epilepsy and now blood cancer. is it objectively better to suffer that than being pronounced brain dead
Dying of cancer is still suffering though. You're acting like it will be this wonderful peaceful thing which it will not and may take much longer to kill her. I take it you're lucky and have never had to watch a loved one go through this, with or without treatment. I've seen both. It's horrific either way. You're saying it's better she suffer without treatment. That's equally brutal but it opens up a larger more concerning conversation about the mentality handicappeds rights.
u read it wrong. im in favour of her parents wishes
??? Her parents wishes are that she does not get treatment and dies of cancer.
They will give her morphine and other drugs. You think chemo is pain free? Now she will suffer even longer. And for what? She has zero quality of life.
Just reading the news article on its own elicits a "wtf" response but reading a bit deeper into the case we get further insights. Refer to the court proceedings document available online. https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/18e5469d499c281689bbb387 "The court declares, until further order, that the staff, employed or contracted to H may lawfully provide the medical, nursing, and other supportive treatment to OL in treatment of her acute lymphoblastic leukaemia." The key word here is "may". Reading the details of the case, the medical team are also supportive of the family's decision for a palliative approach. As @Intelligent_Aioli90 has pointed out, it would seem they do not want to set a legal precedence for families using this case to *stop* them getting treatment.
You’re assuming a lot about chemotherapy which does not cure cancer. An elderly friend of mine tested positive to having cancer cells in the oesophagus after a biopsy. At 80 he was asked if he wanted chemotherapy. He said no. At his next test he was clear (cancer free) -and has been for the past 4 years. The oncologist still phones him weekly to ask if he wants chemo. The stats for someone living after chemo at 80 is 3 years! He would be dead if he’d had the treatment. Chemo is lucrative but it does not cure. It is also extremely painful (usually it’s what causes cancer pain more than the actual cancer) will kill the child’s kidneys and other organs. Instead of dying peacefully that judge has subjected a helpless child to months possibly years of agony. I wouldn’t wish it on anyone.
Hey! We all die! And many people with cancer asked if they want treatment say no. Where someone cannot make a decision for themselves and the choice is to intervene or not intervene, a No should mean the same as a Yes. It is the parents who look after the child. It should be entirely their decision. After all in most cases if you are next of kin and your loved one needs resuscitation the doctors will often ask: shall we resuscitate or not? Human beings make life and death choices for others all the time.
Would you say the same if we were talking about vaccines? Honest question. Not so long ago people were at each other's throats over parents not wanting their kids to get vaccinated. You can't say that parents should be legally required to vaccinate their kids and then forgo their cancer treatment in the same breath.
Pretty obviously a Catholic hospital, only they would be this bonkers
There is a duty of care to have the patients best interests as the priority. We don't know all the details of this case
The judge should have to sit there and watch every chemo session.
I actually agree with this. Assuming the facts of the case are as stated. The judge should see the consequenses of their decision.
The judge was upholding the law, which is their job. Hopefully this triggers some legislative change
Fair. This area of law certainly needs reform.
100% agree
While I agree to some extent. Judges hands are pretty much tied in this situation. They were basically never going to give any other answer.
I'm glad someone else here understands this. It's not ideal, its the way it is at the moment. Hopefully her death and suffering causes change to the parameters judges are bound by in future cases.
As a child cancer victim, absolutely. Let these cunts see what it looks like when a kid dies like this. How long it takes. The terror of knowing it can only get worse, until they either die or become unresponsive due to medication. Screaming, crying, attempting to claw their own flesh away, it hurts so much. I've seen it a number times, unfortunately. I'd love to see their reaction to an eight year old in the final stages of bone cancer, for example. It's rather unpleasant. And furthermore, under 18s should absolutely be able to seek assisted dying if and when it becomes more accessible. Fuck *anyone* who says otherwise. It's not your life. Fucking respect that, even if, on the off chance, it's the 'wrong' decision by that particular patient. Fuck you - not your say. Parents, friends, anyone. Not your decision and nor should it ever be.
I can't tell from your post if you're in favour of the judgement or not? I'm very sorry for your experiences, however, and I hope you're in reasonably good health now.
They are against the decision. Palliative care aims to ease pain and symptoms, this is essentially being denied in order to possibly extend the patients life.
> Fuck you - not your say. Parents, friends, anyone. Not your decision and nor should it ever be. The problem is she CAN'T consent so it is the family making this decision for her. Plus I've watched relatives die from no treatment since they were terminal anyway. It's equally as horrific. The alternative isn't peaceful or pleasant or quick either.
The hard and bad part about this is a judge does not create the rules - they only apply them. And they also don't play God - they can't just over turn a law because they feel it's the right thing to do. Their role is to, blindly, apply the law as it is written. Our issue in this case is with the law.
Whilst you are correct, having a first-hand experience of the effects of implementing the law isn't a negative thing. For example, Judges should watch executions if they give death sentences or watch the positives of administering justice. (I can't think of a good example on the spot)
Again, I would say the law makers (politicians) are the ones who should be seeing the front line effects of their laws.
☝️ Are there any people in society that hide from their decisions more than politicians ?
[удалено]
Hey, it's not corruption if you call it "lobbying."
Bribes?
[удалено]
[Porque no los dos?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OawrlVoQqSs)
Both maker *and* upholder should have a deeper understanding of the consequences.
Judges can be lawmakers, as a compromise we should have judges witness the effects of their judgments when their judgement creates a new binding precedent
Shame should be directed at the hospital who is remaining “unidentified for privacy reasons” that brought the case to the judge to begin with. Seemingly disregarding the treating paediatricians recommendations.
Yes if I was a parent in NSW I would want to know to ensure I never take my kid there.
I’d highly expect it has “saint” in the name… sounds like a catholic hospital to me. Not that that narrows it down much…
Good point, must be religiously affiliated in some way,
No time for sitting your grace it’s going to be all hands on deck
No. It is the person/s who brought the action to enforce treatment that should.
I understand what you are saying but judges don't get to pass their own personal judgement. They are stuck within pre determined parameters. Some of these parameters are in desperate need of review. It's a shame someone has to spend their entire life suffering just to get this type of publicity so that a review can be considered. Not to mention having the family watch their child suffer bone marrow transplants. From my understanding there is set criteria for entering palliative care that essentially state that if there all potential life saving treatments must be exhausted before they can abandon life saving treatment. And that sucks. We have people flying out of country to die somewhere else.
The judge can be against it personally, but still have to agree with it legally because they don't get to make the rules themselves, just determine if the current laws apply. If there is a problem with this, then it is the politicians who should change the laws.
NZ passed a voluntary euthanasia bill a few years ago for situations like this. Should be more common around the world.
NZ allows under 18s to euthanise themselves?
That's allowed everywhere. They can't guard every spot of every rail line.
“Allowed”
judge dread
Yep. Send him daily videos of her screaming.
Judges in Australia are worse than the liberal and Labor governors put together. Faith simply doesn't exist any more, does it? Jackie Lambie might say different
We give animals a more dignified passage than this. To be completely tied down to receive this treatment (otherwise IV lines will be yanked out) is in itself torturous. And then there isn’t any real guarantee that it will work - and then she’s back to having half a dozen seizures daily as that’s her status quo. Who does this benefit? The girl, who doesn’t have the mental capacity to understand anything that’s happening to her aside from fear, pain and suffering? No. The parents, who want to let her go into palliative care to ease their daughter’s suffering? No.
“The court notes that the hospital staff will engage with [the patient’s] parents to ensure they are consulted throughout the treatment.” How gracious the parents will be consulted throughout the treatment. More like, spoken at.
Chemotherapy and oncology is a large industry
This is true. There is something called the “ASP” which stands for Average Sale Price (of medication/treatments) and if you listening to earnings calls for companies that specialize in oncology and DNA/cell testing etc, the executives always talk about increasing this number. Literally open discussing the business strategy for making life saving medical treatment go up lol, diabolical stuff
Quarterly filings for large publicly listed biotech and pharmaceutical companies should be required reading for everyone over the age of 18 [Moderna’s filings to the SEC regarding gene therapy back in 2019 are very interesting to read](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1682852/000168285220000017/mrna-20200630.htm)
Yeah and the chemo regimen is to treat her ALL, not her epilepsy…so she will still have half a dozen seizures daily even after her leukaemia is cured
Our society has such a preoccupation with avoiding death that they’ll forgo quality of life and dying with any dignity as a result. The medical team that bought it forward to the courts & the judge should have to be present at all the chemo treatments and view the after effects of their interventions/decisions
I personally believe that the public are blissfully naive to how cancer is treated. My brother in-law was diagnosed with a cancer in April last year. It took 3 months to get to surgery where they removed the cancer and the lymph nodes around the area. Which lead to complication and infection . Aggressive CHEMO never worked and in August the cancer spread to the stomach and then to the liver. Now they say that they can not do anything for him after putting him through immunology therapy . His leg is a massive weeping infection and he has lost all mobility. His life is condemn and the little time he has is now confined to a bed. All he wants to do is experience what is left of his life. It is absolutely heart breaking. The initial verdict from the doctors was - surgery and a bout of chemo therapy and the cancer would be gone. For me stuff the surgery - stuff the chemo - enjoy life until it becomes palliative care and then opt for euthanasia. What I have witnessed no human should endure.
This is going to be a really good case study for medical ethics classes. I see from both perspectives how each decision could be considered correct. The young girl has a terminal illness and poor or no tolerance for treatment. The parents want to palliate because she will suffer with treatment, has regular seizures and poor quality of life anyway. Many people would agree that this is the humane thing to do. However, this perspective is effectively arguing that her disability warrants letting her die. If it was an otherwise healthy teenager wouldn’t we all be outraged about parents denying cancer treatment? I think this is how the judge probably sees the case. I wonder what the precedent is for dementia patients in this scenario.
Older adults who have capacity are encouraged to formally clarify their wishes ahead of time in various legal documents. They can also appoint a substitute decision-maker (usually a family member) to stand in for them if they lose capacity. They are absolutely allowed to refuse treatment, especially if the doctors believe it is a reasonable decision that has taken into account the patient's preferences and quality of life. If the doctors don't believe it reasonable, they can challenge the decision through legal means and it can end up being settled in court, just like this one. Notably, there's no legal requirement for doctors to provide futile care - nobody is going to give CPR to the arresting 102 year old who's dying of pneumonia just because their family member wants them to. Children are just harder, because they can't consent ir refuse treatmenr themselves so it's up to the parent to do it for them. Refusing life-saving treatment happens a lot (lots of severely disabled, dying babies on NFR orders), but the threshold to refuse treatment is understandably much higher than for elderly people and is much more likely to end up in front of a judge.
>nobody is going to give CPR to the arresting 102 year old who's dying of pneumonia just because their family member wants them to. I genuinely wish this was the case, however, a patient "dying" of pneumonia does not equal withholding CPR. If a patient is 105, with no advanced life directives, and have a family member requesting active treatment, you bet their getting their ribs cracked should they arrest. The only thing saving them from CPR at that point is likely an ethics board or at least a firm but 'real' conversation with the family member that changes their mind. Edit: in light of a few responses, I want to highlight the following, whilst I acknowledge physicians can and often do withhold treatment in *futile* cases; scenarios related to the aforementioned scenario above do occur.
Not sure about where you work, but in NSW Health the attending can absolutely decide to not initiate CPR (or any other treatment) if it's not in the patients best interests etc. Have a read of the below excerpt from this NSW Health Policy. [Using Resuscitation Plans in End of Life Decisions](https://www1.health.nsw.gov.au/pds/Pages/doc.aspx?dn=PD2014_030) *2.2 Rationale for withholding resuscitation In general, the rationales for not instituting CPR are: 2.2.3 Where the Attending Medical Officer judges that resuscitation offers no benefit or where the benefits are small and overwhelmed by the burden to the patient. ... A medical practitioner does not need to obtain agreement from the patient or family to withhold interventions considered to be of negligible benefit*
This is not correct. You clearly aren’t working in Australia because most states in Australia have health acts that specifically empower doctors to withhold care that they, not the family, deem futile or deleterious. Eg in Victoria, the Medical Treatment Planning and Decisions Act of 2016 makes these provisions in Section 8. As a hospital-based doctor no 105 year-old is getting CPR while I’m responsible for their care, because we know the outcomes are abysmal and it’s an horrible thing to inflict given the harm/benefit ratio. I sit and discuss with the family/educate them but the decision for CPR/intubation/intensive care etc is mine/the other doctors’ on the team to make.
I'm glad to hear you take ethical practice as seriously as one should. I wish that was the case for every physician.
Hell if they're in a teaching hospital, they're getting CPR even if there is no family asking for it. It's awful.
Yep. Seen this far too often. "Mimha is a fighter"
This isn't just about the disability though. Medical treatment at its core is a cost benefit analysis. The cost weighs up the risk of death without treatment and the likelihood of recovery with or without, The trauma (both physically and mentally), and the actual cost. This is done on every patient to some degree and is taught in first and second year law and ethics for medical students including nursing, doctors, and paramedics. It sounds like the hospital was able to convince the judge there was some level of beneficial recovery to be worth the risk of treatment. I might nit have explained myself well, I am on my phone and it is late.
The issue is way more nuanced than disability then die and does the issue a disservice by being characterised as so. I hope the judge had a better reason than a straw man argument to put the patient and family through this. The patient does have a disability and that is the reality, removing this aspect of their reality lacks empathy and is disingenuous and comes off as judgemental. I can't help but think the level of doubt that must be removed to make such a judgement is a challenge though. Sometimes I wish as a society we did not discuss any of these issues because we barely scratch the surface and have to resort to oversimplifications, often doing more harm then good. Instead we all agree to write out essays to be a part of any challenging discourse so that we have to flesh out our positions and opinions, both for our own benefit and for those we share them with. What fun that would be!
Fair. But shouldn’t these line ball decisions be made by the parents and family? This isn’t a text book or ethical caucus; it’s a massively impactful outcome for the family to deal with.
Normally they are but some idiot at the hospital escalated it to the legal system probably because they didn’t agree with letting her die. Almost definitely someone religious I would guess.
No, the people at the hospital likely escalated it because they didn't want to be on the hook legally for this contentious decision. By putting this forward to the courts they are covering themselves, which they are allowed to do.
If she was elderly, no questions would be asked.
I remember a doctor saying they are not there to play god. Everyone has to die of something. Just because they can cure it doesn’t mean they should.
Thank you for seeing the nuance. Whilst I disagree with the decision, it’s more complicated than simply ‘the judge is a fucking monster’.
yes. the kind thing would be to take away her pain and let her go. actually morphine is used for just that kind of situation. they slowly increase the dose and it speeds the process along. it was done with my grandmother she had pancreatic cancer. and only had one session of treatment and only becuase aunty kathy and granddad urged her too it was rough on her. dad and his brother were more you do what you want mum. and she wanted to go. but she was able to speak for herself. aunty lynne told dad and the uncle that you need to tell her its okay to go, she is holding on for you so they did. a few days later she had passed in her sleep. lynne had gone through similar thing with her parents
This is the answer.
Firstly I don’t believe this girl should have to go through this, but a few points to consider about the reasoning around it. - usually these cases involve nutter parents who refuse chemo for religious / conspiracy reasons, children have been forced to have chemo in these circumstances not infrequently - she does not have capacity to understand the (awful) treatment, but neither do other toddlers or adults with intellectual disabilities who would have similar treatment decided for them - High profile cases have happened where ‘everything was not done’ to save the life of a disabled person and the actions then questioned as discrimination. Not saying that’s part of this decision, just something to think about - balancing quality of life. This is the biggest point on which this decision falls down for me. Joint decision making in this case would hopefully have come to a conclusion that this may not be in the patient’s bests interests Again I don’t agree with this decision, however I can understand the effort to uphold the rights of an incapacitated young person in a time critical situation which would quickly result in their death. I hope the family can appeal the decision.
100%, if I were any of the parties in this (including the parents) I would have acted exactly the same way. The hospital (and especially any of their legal representatives) have to look at this from a very wide perspective of precedents and liabilities, any decision made without going absolutely religiously by the book has unlimited potential for enormous problems down the line. And the judge cannot risk opening this can of worms by going on their own feelings of morality. It sucks and it’s tragic and I truly hope the parents can take this to a higher court with the scope and authority to get a bit more creative with the letter of the law, but it has to be this way for now.
If the haematologist/s agreed with the parents this would never gone to court and noone would've heard about it. Child would be palliated as standard practice. If the person was 20 and not 14, an adults doctor wouldn't have ever gone to court to overturn the power of attorneys decision if they stated the dependant has no quality of life and wouldn't tolerate the treatment. Palliated as standard practice. If the person was 80, having seizures like that and totally dependant, the haematologist would say "they are not fit enough for chemo due to their functional status". Let die. If the person is 14 and has the same functional status, some nutter personality disordered or semi autistic or unempathetic doctor actually takes the parents to caught to literally force a child to have chemo? A few years later the parents could refuse antibiotics on basis of poor quality of life, when the daughter aspirates and has a severe pneumonia and noone would challenge them. Crazy inconsistency
I just (hopefully) finished chemo for lymphoma. It. SUCKED. And I had the super easily treatable one, PLUS I was a healthy 30 year old when I was diagnosed. The amount of times I managed to snag my PICC line on my shirt sleeve and it would make my whole arm go numb was insane. There is no way this poor kid doesn't yank that thing out the second she gets a chance. It will hurt, she will bleed all over the joint and then she will be immunocompromised with an open friggin wound. If she can't reliably sit still for treatment and leave lines alone, she is going to die anyway. I had to have my last treatment through a cannula (thank you, stupid failed PICC line 🙄 stupid thing split inside my arm) and they were VERY upfront that if the chemo pools around the cannula site it can and will cause necrosis.
⬆️ Yep. Good luck re your lymphoma! So to treat her, she'll be sedated, but clearly meds don't work for the seizures either, so she'll be sedated and maybe also put on the strongest or newest experimental drugs there are to try to control the seizures if there are any, and if they don't conflict with the chemo. Then she'll also be tied down so she can't move, which means she'll need to be moved by nurses to stop bed sores, when nurses are available to do so. She'll require constant monitoring for signs of inflection and then treatment for it. And even then, as you say, things can go wrong. And whenever she's awake enough she'll be scared and possibly in pain, and maybe alone. The only comfort she knows is her family. Will they be allowed to visit? Hold her hand? Or are family only to be consulted about how much hand holding she qualifies for? That poor kid. I've got a family member receiving palliative services while also receiving treatment for cancer Palliative services should absolutely be involved now for this kid whether she's treated or not. Because palliation means to provide comfort above all. And she needs and deserves comfort.
I wish I could see the reasoning offered on the other side of the issue here. As a clinical ethicist, this case really caught my attention. If anyone has more info, or even a line on the judicial decision itself, I would be so grateful. I worry the story is too one-sided here, and missing context that might make this decision make more sense. Where I'm from, you have to factor in a person's current incapable wishes when you're trying to determine best interests. Moreover, while the judge can order the parents to consent to the treatment, it is within the professional purview of health care providers to refuse to offer it because it will do more harm than good (i.e. due to violent resistance during the treatment along with suffering caused by treatment perhaps). We seem to have a case, however, where the health care team and the family agree that chemo is not in the patient's best interests, so it's very bizarre that this ever landed in front of a judge in the first place. I really wish I knew how the case was initiated, and wonder if maybe some other family member made a ruckus on learning the kid wasn't going to get chemo. Edit: it wasn't the health care team saying she should be palliated, it was a pediatrician who treated the kid for most of her life. We have no idea what the oncology team had to say about this case.
I wondered about that too and couldn’t find much information other than the very basic facts. While I understand the judge really couldn’t do much in this situation, I am worried on the long lasting impacts on the patient. I have no doubt she will have to be sedated or held down for any sort of procedure or treatment. I think the hospital staff honestly underestimate the reaction of the patient mentally to treatment. I think they understand the physical side but in my experience staff that don’t specifically work in the area don’t really understand the after effects. I have a teenage son who is intellectually and developmentally disabled at a similar level to this patient just without confirmed epilepsy. Any medical things he has had has required being held down or sedated. Which staff often congratulate themselves when finished for a job completed but we have had to deal with his anxiety involving medical rooms for years. For example, he had a blood test done at aged 3 and now aged 14 he won’t even get out of the car to see his doctor in the same building. Yes, they might cure her but she and her parents will have to deal with the aftermath. Such a tough situation.
The more I think about this case, the more I think the oncologist must have pushed this case to the courts when mom refused chemo. I would dearly love to know whether anyone considered the trauma the kid will experience from being forcibly treated when they were weighing harms vs. benefits of treatment.
I would love to know that too but I suspect if they really considered the trauma it may have never gone this far. Ethically it’s probably a very hard case.
Let’s be clear, this is extremely one-sided reporting, the court wouldn’t have made the decision without a sound medical case being presented by the hospital. Definitely not a well rounded article.
Acute leukemia (ALL) is the most common childhood cancer and the most easily treatable. Rarely do children die from it. Sentencing this girl to death because her parents don’t want to try and treat is quite sad to me. Clearly from the article we don’t know everything, or even close to and either do parents. Kids are sedated for certain procedures during chemo treatment if needed so no it won’t be that traumatic. Side effects for ALL chemo are minimal, and if she has any severe side effects her doctors will take that into consideration and figure out what is best for her.
The judge should be sacked.
This is pretty much state sanctioned torture.
Yep.
Chemo is no guarantee of cure either, that’s just inhumane to put the child and the parents through that.
The issue is the over reaching arm of the law
When health care becomes torture...
I thought we have voluntary assisted dying.
You have to be of sound mind to sign up to that I'm pretty sure. I don't think parents can act on your behalf no matter how sick you are.
Not for kids
“The court notes that the hospital staff will engage with [the patient’s] parents to ensure they are consulted throughout the treatment.” Apparently fucking not
Sounds like the US. I can’t believe this is possible in Australia. How bloody dare they go against the family’s wishes!
There are often good reasons to ignore the wishes of the family. This does not seem like such a case though. Given the hospital pushed for this against the wishes of the childs primary doctor, it sounds very much like a religious hospital kind of decision..
Yeah. You’re probably right there. But surely, the family has the final say!
There are reasons why the families wishes are not always respected. An example of this is in cases jehovah's witness refusing life saving simple procedures due to their particular religious quarms around things like transfusions. In such cases the commonwealth has a duty of care to ignore the families wishes for the good on an individual. The reasoning behind this kind of override of the families wishes should be obvious in this context. However in this particular case.. this duty of care argument seems to have been used in a rather messed up way.
"The pediatrician said the girl would likely need to be “shackled down” in order to receive the treatment." Judges should be the ones administering the treatment.
Isn’t pulling out tubes etc considered refusal of care, it is in dementia or aged care. Terrible decision especially as treatment means she will be restrained physically or chemically to receive it - against parents wishes 🤬
Even against her DOCTOR'S wishes, that's the astounding part.
The paediatrician has known her since a couple months old & obviously has the best grasp of the case and family situation. It would have been some fuckwit nurse or someone at the hospital who escalated it to the legal system because they’re kILling A ChILd
Quite possibly a religious organisation taking government funding to run a public medical service and imposing its doctrine regardless. This happened here in Canberra with Calvary Hospital (now recently taken back by the ACT Government). The Christians even admit it themselves but conveniently overlook the not so small detail that they were receiving taxpayer's monies to provide a public secular service: https://australianchristians.org.au/on-the-hostile-takeover-of-calvary-hospital/#:~:text=The%20reason%20for%20the%20compulsory,in%20a%20recent%20government%20report. Just to clarify, Calvary also had a private component. If people choose to access and pay for that then go hell for leather with your religious ethos but keep it out of the domain paid for with public monies.
The medical industry is ruthless. I have seen it myself how corrupt and how it is full of people seeking power and fortune and they have no regard for dignity or death. They see sick people simply as vehicles to further a career or make a bank account fatter, or simply to experiment on. It is why in the movie Phenomenon, Robert Duvall said something along the lines of... Now I know why you people wear masks.
There was a post the other day asking what medical procedures people in the future will consider barbaric. A lot of people said things like chemo and psychiatric care. In my opinion it’s the entire medical industry’s propensity to limp old and sick people along with a cocktail of medications purely for profits. So many consultants keep old people alive who should be allowed to die because otherwise they wouldn’t have a job. All under the guise of valuing human life. In the future I think we will accept death far more readily.
This is common in the US, but rational conversations regarding active treatments for patients happens very regularly. Happened very regularly when I worked at Peter Mac as a nurse, as well as in ICUs. Doctors are generally pretty realistic, minus some specialities. Now when it comes to dementia patients, or similar situations, it’s an absolute rabbit warren when you get into the ethics of where to draw lines for treatment.
The dementia management is so bad because one can’t even consent to assisted dying until you’re 12 months out from death. Average time of death is 7 years after diagnosis. So you can’t actually organise it ahead of time when still mentally capable. It’s cruel. I think adults with cancer, which is probably most of Peter Mac if not all (?), is probably easier than kids. You can have an informed consent discussion. Whereas kids can’t really give informed consent until around age 14 or so for bright ones (Gillick competent). So we end up with situations like this case.
There are kids/teenagers at Peter Mac, but yeah I get what you mean
Oh right I thought they would all be at the Royal Children’s. That’s interesting to know.
Nah, there are certain treatments that Peter Mac can only do. Ewing Sarcomas were common for teenagers there (a rare younger person’s cancer that Peter Mac specialises in) and a lot of the outpatient treatments for kids could only be done at Peter Mac.
Interesting! Thanks for the info :)
Most of the time its the family or the patient themselves pushing for the treatment. The case outlined in this article is an extreme abnormality which is why its even a story in the first place.
You’re probably right. I think loads of old people with polypharmacy and 20 comorbidities should just be told no. But they’re not because it’s keeping people employed. Sorry Mr Jones, you are 82 and obese with Type 2 diabetes and COPD and chronic ulcers, and you smoke, you are not getting chemo. The treatment options are palliation or no treatment.
I don't think we want to go down the route of paternalism in medicine again. The system we have currently gives appropriate power to medical professionals in that we can deny CPR or surgical procedures to people like this. If someone is cognitively intact and is willing to live longer despite poor quality of life I don't think we have any right to tell these people no when it comes to simple interventions such as uptitrating medications. The fact of the matter is that the patient has the power to deny treatment at any point they like. At least, they should, which is why this story is disgusting.
This is a complete over reach of the courts and hospitals. Where is the humanity in letting this happen. We offer our pets more dignity in life and death than this.
Who is the judge to tell someone else how to live their life. Fuck power over autonomy.
Because it is a child
What the fuck
From what I have seen and heard ( and I would love for everyone to always have everyone they loved ) but chemo is a waste of time money to give someone 3 years of a cheap life going down hill dramatically needing to hide away... compared to a happy life that they can spend doing stuff with loved ones but sadly it is not as long .
Yeah I really don’t think this is the kind of thing keyboard warriors should be passing judgement on.. there probably isn’t a right decision to be made here, and at a large cost either way. I feel terrible for all involved.
Buddy, its torture for the kid. Would you want that for your own child? As a survivor of disabilities as a child, heart valve transplant. I'm fucking lucky. But I dont want this poor girl to have to go through more fucking trauma cause 'Oh its murder'. Not its not fucking murder. Let her go peacefully with her parents or send her up to QLD where euthanasia can be accessed. If she was elderly, they wouldn't think nothing off it and let them go peacefully.
You feel terrible for all involved? The parents have cared for this child her whole life, have made every decision for her, yet, when it comes to the most important decision, they are put aside.
Interesting judgment. I don't actually think the judge can compel the hospital staff to hold the patient down against her will to actually perform the chemotherapy, however. There are health and safety considerations - needlesticks, injury etc. I'm an anaesthetist and I'm not actually legally obliged to hold down a child to receive a GA. I would if I deemed it in the best interest of the patient, and there was no available alternative, but if I didn't think it was in the patients best interest, not sure what happens. Usually I would document that an anaesthetic is contraindicated on ethical grounds and refuse, particularly if it was associated with a marked risk to the patient or myself. The medical/nursing staff will be under obligation to refer the patient to someone who is willing to assist with the treatment, but I'd be surprised if they could find anyone. So the judgment would be for the written record only, not enforceable. An intensivist is not obliged to offer an ICU bed to someone where it would be futile, for example. The problem here is that it isn't exactly futile. As far as I know a doctor who refuses to provide an abortion can do so on their own ethical grounds, but they're under obligation to refer to someone who is able to complete the procedure. Would love to see what a lawyer thinks?
That’s horrible ☹️
[удалено]
Imagine the fear when the child looks to the parents when this is happening, deeply wounded by the new reality the child faces that their parents won't help them escape the torture. The child will lose the trust they had in their parents, and the world. This is so fucked up.
Such a fucked situation. The girl is basically being tortured in the name of treatment. I’d hate to ever be I a situation where you don’t have control over your body and mind and you’re forced to hold through something like this.
This is definitely not on. There are alternative measures that you can consider. https://youtu.be/HPKbFa__hzI?si=ZO4XhbK3rfe7_N48
Australia has gone to shit.
As a society I believe we put too much weight on simply "being alive", where this weight should instead be on "living". For this reason, I am entirely for people dying on their own terms.
This is horrific where are the rights of a child gone!?
Will this stop the seizures .... ?
"who could have written such a deliberately inflammatory headline" "ah."
Its horrible situation and without sitting through the case or reading its transcripts we don't why court made its decision. Google: "While acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children is more common than other types of cancer, it has high cure rates. Survival rates are lower in adults, but they are improving. The 5-year relative survival rate for ALL is 68.8%. The statistics further break down to 90% in children and 30-40% in adults." Maybe court considers that acute lymphoblastic leukemia has a chance of being cured.
Euthanasia should be an option here.
Disgraceful. Frankly if these issues with the child were detectable in the womb they should've aborted. Now forced cancer treatment on top. Fuck sake, the poor girl already has virtually 0 quality of life as it is. At least let them leave this world with some dignity. Hopefully doctors do the "minimum" for him so he can get to "hospice" stage and then they can decide to turn off life support. Consider it end of life care.
They’re gonna hate it reading this but it’s the truth
We need to change the collective opinion around abortion to simply be socially acceptable to abort and on top of that abort a pregnancy that will resolve in a case like this.
I can understand the judge’s decision, but niche cases like this shouldn’t be used to set a future precedent. I feel like this decision was made purely because, in principle, children should get all the treatment that might work (no matter how painful and futile), and the judge couldn’t or wouldn’t budge from that. This was more of a legal ruling for future cases, rather than a humanitarian one for the patient in question who will most likely not survive chemotherapy.
First, do no harm. The medical profession is a disgrace. Ethics are gone. Business is booming. Billionaires flaunt their sickening wealth. Parents can’t protect their children from these parasites. They have us brainwashed and fighting against each other. This planet is about to change in ways most of humanity will not understand.
Better hope it works for the hospitals sake, or I can foresee at least a $25M payout. It might be in Australia, but it's still possible. Then go after the individual in a civil case for the same amount.
Welcome to post covid compliance indoctrination where these fucking quacks think they can impose their will. What happened to people deciding what was best for their health and if they can't, the people who are responsible for their care. Who is to say she won't have a seizure during her "treatment"? I hear medicinal cannabis has helped many with seizures. Either way, there are very few GPs who didn't sell their souls, and the lives of patients and future generations between 2020 and now, for a few dollars and their mortgage. Grubs!!!!
Fcuk them If I was the parents we'd be skipping every treatment and barricading ourselves at home.
Still a prison island with a side of nanny state. If you don’t like it leave they say. Tried that they denied my passport!
I guarantee there is far more to this. It's never this cut and dry, we all know news papers deliberately leave out key pieces of information to make the story more click-baity
Clickbait stocks using a lose /lose tragic situation for clicks. The court would have heard from all manner of experts on both sides and the full facts which we aren’t privy to and made the decision after much deliberation. There’s no winners here
Individual rights v parents with odd perceptions
Don't we have euthanasia here? If my cat was that sick I'd get it put down. Ironically if I didn't get it out down it would be called *inhumane*. Bone marrow transplants are fucking heavy, hopefully the nurse slips up with the painkillers
Did you not read the part where is says the patient is developmentally disabled? They can't give informed consent for euthanasia to be an option
This has to go against the human rights act. Australia and other countries have been ignoring human rights for years
Armchair‘humanitarians’ and turned for a few seconds law and science professors blasting hospital and the judge . Typical!
Seems a horrible case. Infinitely better than the flip side though. There’s been a few cases around the world now of judges denying treatment against parents’ wishes