The debate on whether or not parents have the right to refuse medical treatment for their child has been argued over countless times. With both sides proving to have valid points, it is difficult to determine the wiser option. However, following the death of Makayla Sault, an eleven-year old girl from Ontario, the beliefs of those in support of the family’s decision may have changed. Sault passed in January, almost a year after being taken off of chemotherapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Although there was a 75% chance of survival by undergoing chemotherapy, Sault’s family decided otherwise. They sought out an alternative, more natural way to heal her. Unfortunately, this decision was evidently fatal, thus once again igniting the argument on whether or not the government has the ability to intervene and overrule the family’s decision, which it should.
The case of Makayla Sault plays a crucial factor in the trending argument for it serves not only as an example, but a lesson. It provides factual reasoning as to why the government should have the right to override a parent’s decision. Understandably, Sault was removed from …show more content…
One of which being the limit on the fundamental freedoms of Canadian citizens. If the government had the ability to take the necessary control of the child in order to secure his or her welfare, the rights of one's decisions and beliefs would be highly restricted. This could cause distraught over the basic rights that Canadians are legally given. The families of these cases have their reasoning for such refusal, like their religious beliefs for example. Religion is highly respected and protected in Canada. However, if a parent fails to provide for their child by refusing the needed medical treatment, is that not child neglect? Of course the government must understand any belief the parents may have for their declination, but in the end, the life of an innocent child is at