The provincial coroner’s office will investigate the death of 11-year-old Makayla Sault, an aboriginal girl who died nearly one year after refusing chemotherapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

The results of the probe will remain secret, but the investigating coroner will also decide whether or not a public inquest is necessary, according to the Office of the Chief Coroner.

Sault’s family said in a statement that she died of a stroke Monday. They said it was caused by the 12 weeks of chemotherapy she underwent in early 2014 — a claim oncologists strongly dispute — before abandoning the treatment, which had an 80 per cent chance of curing her if followed for the full course.

Instead, Sault pursued a regime of natural medicine, releasing a video in which she said Jesus appeared to her. She was taken to Hippocrates Health Institute, a controversial Florida spa that is currently being sued by former employees who cited complaints of “ethical transgressions.”

Spokesperson Cheryl Mahyr confirmed that the Office of the Chief Coroner has started the investigation.

“We cannot provide a timeframe for completion of investigation as it has only commenced,” Mahyr wrote in an email to the Star, confirming that the death would be investigated as the result of a “joint directive” between the Ministry of Children and Youth Services and the chief coroner’s office related to any case in which Children’s Aid was involved with a child or family in the 12 months prior to the child’s death.

Top oncologists say it’s highly unlikely the chemotherapy caused the stroke.

“I can’t think of any of the (acute lymphoblastic leukemia) drugs being associated with that, directly or even as a late complication,” said Dr. Kirk Schultz, professor of pediatrics at the University of British Columbia, who isn’t directly involved with the case.

Treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukemia generally involves more than two years of chemotherapy to ensure the disease does not return, oncologists have told the Star.

“Leukemia can also cause a stroke. As well, it’s highly unlikely that the brief chemotherapy course that you describe has anything to do (with) a neurological event a year later,” said Dr. Michael Verneris, an associate professor at the University of Minnesota’s department of pediatrics.

Sault’s case is similar to that of J.J., an 11-year-old girl from the Six Nations reserve near Brantford who also refused chemotherapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia. In the case of J.J., doctors testified the chemotherapy had a 90 to 95 per cent chance of curing her. She abandoned the treatment after 10 days in hospital.

In both cases, Brant Children’s Aid Services did not apprehend the child. In the case of J.J., McMaster Children’s Hospital filed an application with the court calling for her apprehension.

Justice Gethin Edward issued a controversial ruling Nov. 14 that said the choice for J.J. to use traditional medicine rather than chemotherapy was her indigenous right, protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act.

Her family recently released a statement saying that J.J. had tested negative for signs of cancer months after stopping chemotherapy. Her family credits traditional medicine and a “100% raw and sugar free vegan diet” for the remission. The child was also sent to Hippocrates Health Institute in Florida.

Oncologists told the Star that it’s very likely the 10-day course of chemotherapy put her into remission, but that the cancer could return and will be harder to treat.

The results of the investigation will be shared with the Pediatric Death Review Committee, who can then share its recommendations with involved agencies such as the Brant Children’s Aid Society.

The coroner’s investigation into Sault’s death will remain otherwise secret unless a public inquest is called.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

The investigator will attempt to answer five standard key questions: Who was the deceased? How did the deceased come to his or her death? When did the deceased come to his or her death? Where did the deceased come to his or her death? By what means did the deceased come to his or her death?

The investigator will also determine whether a public inquest would “serve the public interest,” whether the answers to the above questions are known without an inquest, and whether or not a jury could make recommendations that would prevent similar deaths in the future.