First Nation chemo case decision corrected to incorporate child’s wellbeing

The illumination of a questionable court decision that permitted the mother of a 11-year-old First Nations young girl to get her out of chemotherapy says the best interest of the girl are “Paramount,” yet customary medication must be regarded.

Queen’s University law teacher, Nick Bala, says the illumination “walks back” the first decision that put First Nations constitutional rights as the central point to be considered in the care of by the girl.

Court Friday afternoon, comes with a news that the girl restarted chemotherapy in March when the cancer returned after a time of reduction.

The family’s attorney, Paul Williams, said the elucidation keeps the past decision viewing native rights as being translated as an ‘absolute’.

The joint submission from the auditor general of Ontario, and the Six Nations, the girl’s family and McMaster Youngsters’ Clinic, was praised as a synergistic discussion instead of an encounter among the parties included.

At the time, the mother told CBC News she thought chemotherapy was “Poison.” The hospital attempted to get J.J. proclaimed as a kid needing protection after Brant Family and Child Services made it clear they would not venture in.

A year ago, the court decided for permitting the Six Nation’s mother, rejecting the hospital’s case, and said in its choice it was her constitutional right to seek after indigenous pharmaceutical.

“Further, such a right cannot be qualified as a right only if it is proven to work by employing the Western medical paradigm. To do so would be to leave open the opportunity to perpetually erode aboriginal rights.”

Friday’s addition includes the kid’s best interest, saying they are “Paramount.” Bala called it a “Significant Clarification” that perceived the prior decision had not alluded to the kid’s rights as being foremost.

“The aboriginal rights are one factor to be considered, but not the only factor,” said Bala.

“The right to use traditional medicine is part of the child’s best interests. That was clarified, it wasn’t changed,” Williams said.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *