‘I don’t want my boy’s brains fried’
AN ENGLISH judge will rule today whether a New Zealand mother can prevent her 7- year- old son from having radiotherapy for a brain tumour because she fears her ‘‘ vibrant and healthy’’ child will be left disabled.
Sally Roberts, who prompted a nationwide police search when she went into hiding last week with her son Neon, appeared at the High Court to argue that the risk of low IQ, infertility and further tumours outweighed the significantly improved survival rate. She denied being a ‘‘ bonkers mother’’ and apologised for going into hiding with her child for several days.
‘‘I panicked and only want the best for my son, and I felt no other choice,’’ she told Justice Bodey. ‘‘I want him to have the best quality of life and I feel radiotherapy could damage and greatly affect his future.’’
Roberts, 37, said she accepted advice from doctors at two hospital trusts that her son should have chemotherapy. But she refused to give consent for radiotherapy, as she detailed a litany of side-effects including stunted growth, thyroid problems and strokes.
Her estranged husband Ben, an IT consultant who could not be in court as he was taking Neon to hospital for a scan, wanted to follow medical advice advocating both therapies, the court was told. At lunchtime yesterday, however, he sent a text message saying that he, too, was ‘‘concerned’’ about the risks and would be ‘‘happy to support’’ his wife if she proved that the treatment was unnecessary.
In such important decisions, consent must come from both parents if they share parental responsibility, the court was told. The pair have remained friends and are both involved with Neon’s care.
Roberts, who previously said a doctor described radiotherapy as ‘‘frying his brains’’, shook slightly as she told the judge: ‘‘[Neon] has an incredible sense of humour, he’s a great artist. He’s vibrant, healthy. He has been made out [to be] sick. That’s not the truth . . . I feel if we go ahead with the radiotherapy, we could be depriving him of his talent.’’ Referring to an 80 per cent risk of infertility, she added: ‘‘No grandchildren.’’
Robin Tolson, QC, representing her, presented the alternative: ‘‘If he doesn’t have his radiotherapy, there is a much greater chance he will die. No grandchildren then.’’
His client nodded but said: ‘‘I’m going to have a disabled child and at the moment I feel he’s thriving.’’
A paediatric oncologist who has treated Neon said that there was no data on the effects of chemotherapy-only treatment on children of Neon’s age, and it was ‘‘ non- proven and unorthodox’’. Extrapolating research on younger children, the chance of surviving for five years without relapse was 80 per cent with radiotherapy or 35 per cent without, said the consultant, known as Dr A for legal reasons.
He doubted whether any practitioner would be prepared to carry out chemotherapy-only treatment, saying it was ‘‘unethical’’.
The doctor accepted that radiotherapy could lead to serious sideeffects, including children losing 16 IQ points on average and an impact on attention span and memory. Patients were four times more likely to develop tumours, though most were benign, he said.