DoCS – Stealing Our Children for Medicine?
One Australian Family’s Nightmare Loss of Health Freedom
Page 1| Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6
While the family attended to Sarah’s care back home on the farm, DoCS at Taree had consulted with their internal legal advisor who issued requests for information under section 248 of the Children and Young Persons Care and Protection Act. 1998. The previous week the department had contacted Sarah’s school with instructions to answer a list of questions. The school replied; “Sarah” is always well groomed and cared for. She is a well mannered and co-operative student.” DoCS compiled a dossier on Sarah’s school and medical records, and interviewed the local GP. Dr. A, the oncologist prepared a written report to the effect that Sarah has not had his treatment for several months and purported that she would die without his treatment.
On May 15, 2003, just before lunch, two caseworkers from the Taree office of DoCS arrived at the family’s home. Sarah was having her school lessons at her grandmother’s house nearby, from where she was summoned so the caseworkers could serve the child with documents. Meanwhile Mark explained in great detail the medical treatment Sarah was currently having. The women served the father with a notice under Section 173 of the Children and Young Persons Care and Protection Act. 1998, which forced him to take Sarah to Dr. A at a specified time later that week. The hospital was a two-hour drive away. When Sarah arrived from her grandmother’s house, the two caseworkers were visibly shocked. One noted in her report later; “The child arrived with her aunty and her baby cousin. I observed the child to be tall, slender, she had rosy cheeks, good skin tone, bright eyes, no visible signs of being ill, bouncy, active and apparently not incapacitated due to her illness.” Judging by the tone of Dr. A’s concerns, they evidently expected to see a neglected and dying child. The caseworkers took Sarah aside and served the notice on her, explaining to her that they were there to “make sure children are cared for properly”. Sarah took the paper that stated she would be compelled to see Dr. A, whom she and her family had decided not to see months ago. Sarah was eleven years and 8 months old. It was the first time she had ever experienced strangers coming to her home and forcing a course of action on her and her family.
On May 19th Sarah and her parents were on the road once again. Mark had managed to get a concession out of DoCS that they would not be forced to see Dr. A. Instead DoCS made a booking with another Oncologist, Professor M at the Sydney Children’s Hospital. Dr. M conducted a clinical examination. In a letter to Dr. A on 30th May he states; “When I examined “Sarah” on 20.5.03 I could find no abnormalities”. He ordered a bone and CT scan for Sarah for the following week. He ordered no other treatment in the interim. Chemo was discussed. The hospital social worker consulted with the family. She later reported back to DoCS that Mark and Dianne had requested studies (that supported the efficacy of chemotherapy for Sarah’s type of cancer). The social worker complained that they seemed quite “strange”. The Sydney Oncologist was also unnerved by the parents’ request for information. He reported back to DoCS that; “The parent’s behaviour and decision making about basics shows significant departure from normal behaviour in our society.”
Meanwhile in the absence of medical evidence the parents did not enter into any agreements about chemotherapy for Sarah. The doctor was quite clearly looking for other reasons as to why the parents were not convinced about chemo. He noted; “I don’t feel it’s only the family’s decision, but perhaps the church or influences from grandparents and extended family members.”
Sarah and her family were nondenominational. They had never gone to a church in search of medical information.
The family returned to see Dr. M, the Sydney Oncologist the following week. He told them the bone scan was clear, as was the former site of the original mass. But the CT scan revealed that Sarah had a plum sized mass attached to the lower pole of her spleen which did not appear to be a solid tumour mass, but appeared cystic or fluid filled. The doctor told the parents that Sarah was now in urgent need of chemotherapy and he wanted to start immediately. Mark told Dr. M he would give him an answer in a few days, and the family returned home. The doctor contacted DoCS and told them he was concerned that Sarah would drop dead at any moment.
By now the family had travelled from home to Sydney to Melbourne for professor C’s treatment and back home again. Back on the farm the family’s reunion was held under a cloud. Sarah was quieter than usual as she was forced to reconsider her treatment options. She told her parents that she had seen kids who’d had chemo at the hospital and she had decided that if that were her only choice she would rather die happy, surrounded by her family and animals. No sooner had the family settled down from their exhausting trip, than another visitor arrived from DoCS to question Sarah. She was beginning to sense the pressure keenly, and it was beginning to show. Sarah was more reluctant than ever to talk to strangers. Later she told her father; “I don’t want chemotherapy, Dad, there is no guarantee that I would live.”
Meanwhile the department of Community Services (DoCS) intervened swiftly and took the case to the Supreme Court where Sarah was made a ward of that Court.
In the week prior and just after the court hearing, Mark’s car was broken into twice, the money he had in the glove box was untouched. Their home had also been entered during the Queen’s Birthday long weekend. Nothing but important papers had been taken, all of them pertaining to Sarah’s court case.
Involuntary chemotherapy was started on June 13, and lasted for three days. Sarah was so sick during the procedure the hospital staff warned that she could die from the treatment. Within days Sarah had brown striped skin discoloration over her body and her hair began falling out in clumps. She was allowed home to recover. Two weeks later she presented to Dr. Tyler, hardly able to stand. She was pale and listless. She said very little. The doctor noted that she’d had severe and prolonged nosebleeds, a sign of a low platelet count, and upper respiratory tract infection, along with an active chest infection. She’d also had abdominal discomfort and cramping since the treatment. The doctor recommended a pro-biotic lactobacillus powder to restore the bowel flora after the chemo’s massive gut cell kill-off had disturbed bowel function. Sarah later reported this had helped her “a lot”. He wrote a medical certificate declaring Sarah as “unfit to receive another dose of chemotherapy at this time”. In addition Sarah was still suffering from a heavy chest infection and seemed unfit for any invasive procedure.
The following day her parents were compelled to bring her to the Sydney Children’s hospital. The DoCS’ legal representative wrote a letter to his Honour, the Supreme Court Judge, notifying him of the fact that Sarah would be operated on forthwith to remove her spleen. As Sarah was wheeled into the operating room, her parents were told this was a court order and were given no opportunity to sign a consent form. As Mark and Dianne waited for Sarah to come out of surgery they were left wondering why it was that since Sarah had had the chemo, (which was supposed to decrease tumour size), her splenic lump had doubled in size. The staff could not give them an adequate explanation. Now their child was suffering from the post-operative complications of a severe chest infection for which she could not have oxygen because she had had Bleomycin as one of her chemotherapeutic agents, which when combined with therapeutic oxygen, can cause lung damage. Sarah was in agony for a week post operatively while she tried to cough and clear her chest without tearing her abdominal sutures. Ten days after surgery she still had not eaten much. Hunched and frail, barely able to get out of bed, she received a visit from the DoCS legal personnel and caseworkers. They sent her grandmother out of the room and when they were alone with her, they impressed upon Sarah that she was a ward of the Court and without chemotherapy, they claimed, she would certainly die. DoCS social workers were determined to make Sarah aware of her “rights”. Sarah had never in her life heard so much about death as she had since the people from DOCS had come into her life.
Dr. Tyler visited Sarah at the hospital. He was shocked at Sarah’s emaciated state and the large amount of weight she had lost. He noticed that the child was unusually quiet and withdrawn, hardly bothering to look up, even at her mother and grandmother. Since he had seen the parents last he had investigated a number of clinics in various countries that had had quite surprising success with integrative and natural cancer treatments, but it seemed a mute point at the time. He was also in the process of conducting a search of the medical literature about chemotherapy treatment for Sarah’s cancer, and what he found was beginning to surprise him. But for the time being he decided to keep it to himself. His concern was with Sarah’s emotional wellbeing, which had clearly suffered since she was forced to undergo treatment. Most of all he suspected her main suffering came from the fact that the Court was now her parent. And there was another hearing scheduled.
Dr. Tyler decided to address the court directly with the following plea on Sarah’s behalf:
July 23, 2003
To His Honour Judge (name deleted),
Re: My patient; Sarah Elizabeth Westley, Born, 1st September 1991
I, Dr. Dan Tyler am a registered medical doctor, having practiced medicine in New South Wales since 1982. Prior to that time I practiced medicine and surgery in Hamburg, Germany where I was board certified in general surgery and trauma surgery. In addition to my medical degree I hold a PhD in Experimental Medical Physiology from the University of Kiel. Please refer to my CV for further professional details.
I can confidently say that I am well grounded in conventional medical approaches to cancer such as surgery and chemotherapy. However during the last 20 years of medical practice, I have also undertaken further professional training in environmental and nutritional medicine, which includes nutritional and complementary and alternative approaches. I have practiced an integrated approach to medicine for over 20 years, encompassing both orthodox as well as alternative treatments for a variety of conditions including cancer. I currently use a variety of modalities and integrate them according to the patient’s needs. This includes: pharmaceutical approaches, nutritional medicine, surgery, acupuncture, diet, orthomolecular medicine, hormone therapies (where required), intra-venous therapies and counselling. I have found many positive outcomes using this integrated approach with few side effects. It can also be tailored to individual
needs and tolerances.
I have read all available legal material and medical records pertaining to Sarah to this current time. I first saw Sarah on 19.5.03 at my surgery at which time she had been recovering from surgery to remove a left ovarian tumour in November 2002. Despite rising tumour markers at the time she looked remarkably well. She had been undergoing treatment under (Professor C.) at the time and the treatment regimen was in the process of being reassessed when the Department of Community Services (DoCS) intervened, as I understand it, at the behest of (Dr. A) who had formed the opinion that Sarah would die if she did not undergo his recommended treatment consisting of high dose chemotherapy. As a result of this action Sarah became a ward of the Court and subsequently underwent further surgery and a cycle of chemotherapy,
under the supervision of Dr. A’s nominated colleague (Dr.M). Sarah tolerated the chemotherapy very poorly with major side effects, which I documented at the time of her visit to my surgery on 3.7.03. During her involuntary hospitalization and treatment I noted that Sarah had become very despondent, refused to eat and suffered significant weight loss.
I understand that in the interim Mr. and Mrs. Westley have sought medical advice from Dr. Kenyon, a physician in the UK with an integrated approach. I am familiar with the regimen Dr. Kenyon proposes and would be happy to oversee his protocol. I would be equally willing to continue monitoring Sarah’s treatment and be involved in administering other integrated approaches, should the court so decide. My preference is to brief a specialist oncologist who is versed in both orthodox and integrative approaches. I would be happy to treat or monitor Sarah under his supervision.
It is not my intention at this time to argue the merits or shortcomings of either approach to treatment of Sarah’s condition. And in my opinion it is most unfortunate that the family has been caught in the crossfire between medical opinions, when it is obvious to me that they had widely researched the available treatment options and were trying to provide their daughter with a range of therapeutic options up until the time Sarah became a ward of the Court by way of DoCS intervention.
I can state with absolute certainty the fact that Sarah is a very intelligent girl. She has heard a great deal of discussion from staff about her care, and about the “likelihood” of her “death” if she does not pursue Dr. M’s and Dr. A’s treatment. She is aware that Dr. A and Dr. M have recommended to DoCS that her parents have limited access to her. Furthermore Sarah is aware of their advice that she be entirely removed from her family and placed in foster care and furthermore that she involuntarily undergoes another 3 to 4 cycles of chemotherapy such as the first course which caused severe side effects. I have closely monitored Sarah’s progress since before she became a ward of the Court. It is my opinion that removing Sarah from her closely-knit family would be tantamount to collapsing this child’s life and removing from her all that she knows and holds dear. Placing her into an alien environment and severing bonds between Sarah, her parents and her sisters and brother, would cause her such excruciating emotional pain and stress that this cataclysmic event alone can be reasonably expected to shorten her life expectancy even if the forced treatment she undergoes is guaranteed to work, which it is not. Indeed, as I had occasion to observe recently, the mere threat of this possibility, while Sarah is forced to languish in the hospital environment, is already deeply distressing to her, and is set to undermine her chances of recovery, no matter what modality is used.
Children undergoing chemotherapy are at considerable risk of developing post-traumatic stress disorder, even when supported by a loving family. It is difficult to imagine how Sarah would endure this extremely unpleasant procedure after she has been virtually orphaned by the persistent actions of the department of community services claiming to act in her best interests.
So far Sarah has not been consulted about her management. Her only way to register her disapproval has been her periodic refusal to eat in the hospital. She will be 12 years old in several weeks. With the utmost respect, my recommendation is to allow Sarah her voice. I also respectfully recommend she be allowed to return home to a family environment while the merits or shortcomings of her management are argued elsewhere but at her bedside. If you will allow me to make one further suggestion, I would request that the court considers allowing two oncologists with integrative approaches to be briefed on Sarah’s condition. I would be happy to assist with this.
I would be happy to provide Your Honour with further and better particulars if required.
Sincerely Yours,
Signed
Dr. Dan Tyler MBBS PhD
