Upholding religious or cultural convictions must never be considered more important than the lives and well-being of young children.

For example, female genital mutilation is deemed a religious right by some Canadian Muslims, yet it is banned in Canada because it is obviously against the interest of female children to undergo such procedures.

When Justice Gethin Edward ruled last November that a young aboriginal girl’s family had the constitutional right to choose alternative treatments for the girl’s lymphoma, including native medicine over conventional treatments, it was a victory for culture over kindness.

It may still have been tolerable for the family to choose alternative medicine alongside conventional chemotherapy, as long as the alternative did not interfere chemically.

But in the case of Makayla Sault, the family had chosen to abandon chemotherapy and tried a Florida cancer treatment run by a “practitioner” with dubious credentials. Makayla died, aged just 11, in February this year.

The family of another aboriginal girl has also forsaken conventional treatment in favour of native medicine. The same judge is due to revisit her case this Friday. The province has now become involved: Christine Burke, the attorney general’s spokesman wants to “seek clarification” over the judge’s past decision in relation to yet another 11-year-old.

The current hearing involves the case of the second girl, who is still alive and known simply as J.J.

The November ruling implies that upholding aboriginal cultural rights should take precedence over a child’s right to empirically tested treatments. These would have given Makayla a fair chance at life.

Justice Edward’s decision was hailed as correct by her mother, who refused chemotherapy for her daughter. Her mother’s supporters applauded the decision.

The judge ruled the girl’s mother’s decision to pursue traditional medicine for her daughter “is her aboriginal right. 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.”

The province now apparently thinks otherwise, and rightly so. Makayla was a minor who could not make such a decision for herself. But would she have opted to die for the sake of her mother’s traditions if given a chance? Such life and death issues involve informed choices which must transcend culture.

It is agonizing to wonder whether Makayla would still be alive and perhaps thriving if the province had intervened in time on the girl’s behalf, and made her mother pursue chemotherapy.

Chemotherapy is certainly a harrowing process, but it can treat many childhood cancers, including some childhood leukemia and lymphomas. This case obviously has repercussions beyond poor Makayla. Other vulnerable young people may die because their parents will make irrational choices on their behalf.

Influential people must summon the courage to intervene. Justice Edward’s decision on alternative therapy may have stood if the hospital had not taken the family of the second girl to court.

The Ontario government needs to investigate the details of such cases thoroughly and keep the interest of the child above any cultural or religious bias.

The government must protect children from anyone who might bring them harm, whether through malevolence or, as in this case, ignorance.