'Is it wrong that she question a 'worldwide protocol' when an adult would be able to refuse treatment but a child can't?
No one could force me to vaccinate my child for example, so why should a court enforce the wishes of doctors over that of a parent? I wonder what would have been the leal position had both parents been in agreement about not having the further treatment.'
They would both have been taken to court and yes, very likely the child would be removed from their custody and given the treatment.
Because the issue is that there is no other viable treatment available for that form of brain cancer and so the child's death was a *certainty.
Not vaccinating is a different kettle of fish as this means the child may or may not contract a communicable disease and may or may not, if they do, survive it.
Not giving a child surgery/chemo/etc when they have medullablastoma means they will always die.
And a child cannot make a decision in the same way an adult does.
Paed cancer consultants do no work in vacuums, they work in teams, with other ones in the world.
Plenty of people have and do push for their children to receive funding for treatments in other countries where there are treatments known to be effective against certain types of cancer, usually relapsers, or can and do put their child forward for trials in the UK and abroad.
And, in certain cases, a parent can elect for the child to move directly to palliative care/no further treatment on the cancer itself.