Journalist: Dana Brown
Date: May 13, 2008
Summary: This article public reports the case of an 11 year old boy who was forced to receive cancer treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukemia by a Children’s Aid authority. Such events have resulted in debates regarding whether child authorities can supersede parents desires and impose medical treatment on their children. The decision to supersede parents’ desires to refuse or use alternative medical treatments for their children is a difficult decision. When a child’s life is at risk, the first responsibility of child authorities is to protect the life of the child. Sometimes parents’ desires are upheld. A major component of such a decision is made based on the suffering-to-benefit-ratio.
Relevance: Although social work clients have a right to self determination, some events may limit the situations where clients can exercise their rights to self determination. It is important to understand the reasoning behind these debates.
Questions:
1. What is the right to self determination?
2. Are cases treated the same in court?
3. What is the suffering-to-benefit-ratio?
4. What are the implications of a lower likelihood of treatment succeeding? What are the implications if treatment is causing suffering for a child?
Click here to read the article
