Should parents be

allowed to refuse
medical treatment on
behalf of their children?
BY JESSICA IRELAND

Example
The family of an 11-year-old Aboriginal girl
in Brantford, ON recently won a court case
that will allow her to pursue traditional
medicines in lieu of chemotherapy.
After the childs parents refused to
continue chemotherapy, doctors at
McMaster Childrens Hospital sued the
Brant Family and Childrens Services (BFCS)
when BFCS refused to remove the child
from her parents care to continue
treatment.

Should parents be allowed to refuse medical

treatment on behalf of their children?
This is an ethical question and a matter of public policy that asks
how we should act as a nation, and the answer could carry serious
consequences and cause or prevent a lot of harm.
We must consider:

The rights of the child

The rights and responsibilities of the parents
The responsibilities of medical professionals
The role of government
Religious and cultural freedom

Childrens Rights
Children have a right to life and a right to medical care.
Children have the right to autonomy, but their autonomy is
hindered by their limited ability to make decisions.
Anyone under the age of 16 is considered a child in Canadian law.
Children can be deemed mature minors in a court of law,
granting them more autonomy.

Parental Rights and Responsibilities

Section 215 of the Criminal Code of Canada says:
Every one is under legal duty as a parent, foster
parent, guardian, or head of a family, to provide
necessaries of life for a child under the age of sixteen
years.

Parents have guardianship or custody of their

children, but this can be revoked if parents fail to
provide the necessaries of life.
Necessaries of life includes food, shelter, clothing,
and medical care.
In regards to their children, parents have no
rights. Only responsibilities.
- Former Justice Minister, Martin Cauchon

Medical Professionals
Four guiding principles of the medical
profession are:

Autonomy
Beneficence
Non-maleficence
Justice

The patient is the child, not the parent.

Doctors are obligated to act in the best

interest of the child.

Government Intervention
Ontario Child and Family Services Act
Section 40.(2)(a) allows the government to apprehend a child who is in need of protections.
Section c.21, ss. 3(1), 6. defines in need of protections and includes:
The child requires medical treatment to cure, prevent or alleviate physical harm or suffering and the
childs parent or the person having charge of the child does not provide, or refuses or is unavailable or
unable to consent to, the treatment.

Refusal of life-saving treatments, such as chemotherapy and blood transfusions, meets this
criteria.

Religious and Cultural Exceptions

Objections to government intervention are often raised on the ground of religious and cultural
freedom.
In the Aboriginal case, the judge argued that since Aboriginals have been practicing traditional
medicines pre-contact, they have a constitutional right to continue this tradition.
Problems with this reasoning:
- Religious views of parents do not necessarily extend to their children.

- Religious and cultural freedoms do not give anyone the right to rob a child of their
potential to grow into an adult who can enjoy religious and cultural freedom of
their own.

My Opinion
My opinion is both utilitarian and deontological. Allowing parents, regardless of how well
intentioned they are, to refuse life-saving medical treatments can and has resulted in the death
of children.

Also, parents, doctors, and government are all bound by the principle of beneficence to act in
the best interests of the child. Denying a child medical care on the basis of cultural, religious, or
ideological reasons constitutes a failure to fulfill ones obligations as a parent, and prohibits
doctors from fulfilling their obligations.
Therefore, parents should not be allowed to deny medical treatment on behalf of their children.