Boy whose parents won court battle to stop his cancer treatment has died

Those who read the story of six-year-old Oshin Strachan, whose parents refused treatment for his cancer fearing it would destroy his

Those who read the story of six-year-old Oshin Strachan, whose parents refused treatment for his cancer fearing it would destroy his quality of life, would surely remember how his parents’ actions split public opinion. Sadly, after lengthy court battles, Oshin passed away on Wednesday around 2.30am, after spending Christmas Day with his family. 

Oshin Strachan was diagnosed with malignant brain tumour last December, however his parents, Angela Kiszko and Colin Strachan made the agonising decision to deny him treatment. The court heard evidence Oshin would have between a 30 and 50 per cent chance of survival for five years if he received both chemotherapy and radiotherapy. In September the court ruled Oshin be allowed to only receive palliative care.

The Family Court said that “by August 2016, specialist medical opinion confirmed that the delay in therapy had substantially reduced Oshin’s chances of a cure, which are now remote”.

The ‘Oceans of Hope’ Facebook page confirmed the death of the six-year-old in a heart-wrenching post.
“Dear, sweet Oshin has crossed over the rainbow bridge,” the post reads.

There will be a celebration of Oshin’s life and transcendent’s on Thursday, as well as an intimate ceremony at Oshin’s home.
His devastating death comes after Angela posted an emotional farewell online last Wednesday.
“I have no words to describe this process of letting go of this beautiful boy,” she wrote.
“Oshin has loved me so much, taught me honour, showed me fun, placed his trust in me, showed me very clearly children have voices and deserve respect and so so much more.” It must be a painful for a mother or father to experience such a loss.

Angela posted photos of herself, kissing her little boy on the forehead.

Oshin’s parents had refused treatment for his cancer, arguing it would destroy Oshin’s quality of life.
“I don’t understand it, and I’ve said that to the oncologist if I could understand your treatment I’d be for it but in my head I just cannot understand it”, said Angela to Liz Hayes in an interview with 60 Minutes.
“They’re treating cancer with a carcinogenic, or two carcinogenics, it doesn’t make sense to me and I find it really difficult to see that that’s called a treatment.”

A judge in the family court of Western Australiaruled the young boy was to be given chemotherapy to treat his life-threatening brain tumour, despite his parent’s opposition. But Oshin’s parents remained strongly against treatment, and the case returned to court in May because doctors again wanted the 6-year-old to have radiation treatment.

Oshin would have a 30 to 50 per cent chance of survival for five years if he received both chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatment, the court heard.
In September the court ruled Oshin be allowed to only receive palliative care.

Could it be time that people with terminal illnesses are given the option to end their journey with medical assistance?

Rest in peace, Oshin. May you find peace and eternal happiness…

  1. Yvonne  

    You did the right thing. I am so sad for your loss. Take courage and be assured your son is not dead but now he is with Jesus

  2. Monica  

    Never doubt what you did. It was out of love and you made the right decision.

  3. Gary seen  

    A very sad position for the mum and dad to be put I’m only guessing what I would do in their situation I would grasp at 1percent just in case a miracle happened RIP little man

  4. Alan  

    Radiation poisoning and chemical poisoning may have allowed him to be alive, but how do you define living. 5 years on a machine is not living. I think any doctor forcing someone to undergo this sort of torture must be instructed by the court to participate in the same treatment. See how long they would then insist! When doctors play God they need to also have the same powers, which they have not. When they understand how tumours arise and can provide a specific treatment that works 100%, then they can insist on the treatment. Burning and poisoning treatments are barbaric. My full support to your stance with light and love to Oshin forever.

  5. Hans de Rycke  

    Evidence suggests that up to 90 percent of landmark cancer research may be false
    by Jonathan Benson, staff writer

    (NaturalNews) The vast majority of the published scientific literature on cancer and cancer research is inherently flawed and non-reproducible, reveals a new review published online in the journal Nature. Researchers C. Glenn Begley and Lee Ellis found that a mere 11 percent of 53 papers on cancer published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals was solid, while the other 89 percent could not be reproduced, implying that it may be false or at the very least misleading.

    Preclinical studies are the basis upon which the scientific community at large determines how best to develop treatments for disease, including potential new approaches to treating cancer. But such studies, though sure to contain some minor flaws from time to time, appear to be missing the boat in major ways on a regular basis. And the end result of this intrinsic failure is a cancer treatment system that is not only outdated but potentially completely misguided.

    “The scientific community assumes that the claims in a preclinical study can be taken at face value – that although there might be some errors in detail, the main message of the paper can be relied on and the data will, for the most part, stand the test of time,” wrote the authors about their findings. “Unfortunately, this is not always the case.”

    Based on a review of 53 published papers on cancer, Begley and Ellis discovered that only six of them could be reproduced and confirmed in a clinical setting. And the worst part was that the 53 papers were considered to be “landmark,” which means they are generally recognized as having had a significant impact on cancer research due to presenting some new cancer treatment approach or novel therapy for targeting cancer cells.

    “[I]t looks like the scientific literature is contaminated with a growing number of tainted studies, which may reach 89 percent, the results of which are not reproducible by any means,” writes Eleni Roumeliotou for about the shocking findings. “This means that to an extent, we have based our healthcare and clinical guidelines on fake studies that reported untruthful results in order to accommodate the interests of industrial corporations.”
    Many cancer studies influenced by Big Pharma conflicts of interest
    The fact of the matter is that a considerable amount of published scientific research is questionable at best due to influence from the pharmaceutical industry. A similar but unrelated study that looked at research funding found that at least 17 percent of published research papers in general were conducted with serious conflicts of interest, which more often than not stemmed from drug industry funding that steered the research in a pre-determined direction.

    “Given the frequency we observed for conflicts of interest and the fact that conflicts were associated with study outcomes, I would suggest that merely disclosing conflicts is probably not enough,” says Dr. Reshma Jagsi, M.D., author of a University of Michigan (UM) study that found a considerable percentage of cancer research to be tainted by conflicts of interest. “It’s becoming increasingly clear that we need to look more at how we can disentangle cancer research from industry ties.”

    Sources for this article include:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *