In Issue 100 of the NZ Skeptic I commented on how issues of concern to this society never seem to go away. A classic example of the moment is the case of Neon Roberts, the seven-year-old English boy whose New Zealand-born mother took him into hiding rather than have him subjected to radiotherapy along with chemotherapy to treat his aggressive brain tumour, and fought in the courts for her right to use alternative therapies instead.
The parallels with the story of Liam Williams-Holloway are obvious. Liam, from Lake Hawea, died in Mexico in 2000 after his parents fled a court order requiring his neuroblastoma to be treated with chemotherapy, instead opting for a range of alternative therapies which ultimately proved unsuccessful. Every case is, however, unique, and there are significant differences in the way Neon's story is playing out. Most obviously, his mother's flight was a more fleeting event than that of the Williams-Holloways. Neon is now receiving radiotherapy and according to his father, who has not supported his estranged wife's court battles, he is making good progress.
Sally Roberts, on the other hand, is saying her son has been "broken". But his treatment is, of course, ongoing, with all the temporary side-effects that entails, and his physical condition is likely to improve once it is completed. Neon has a long way to go, and his chances of long-term survival are reported to be 67 percent, though they would have been 86 percent without the delays to his care. We can all only hope that he does indeed come through this.
Another difference from the Williams-Holloway affair is that media coverage this time round has been far more balanced. Overwhelmingly, the Williams-Holloways were portrayed as gallant battlers against the monolithic and uncaring medical establishment, making an "informed decision" on the care of their child. While Mrs Roberts has generally been treated sympathetically, there has also been recognition that parents do not have the final say over medical care for their children, and that mainstream therapies, for all their downsides, offer the only realistic options for treating cancer.
It"s not just that much of the coverage has been in the British, rather than the New Zealand media - the Mirror"s reporting was downright hysterical (and TV3"s online coverage was lifted straight from it) - but nor is it likely that reporting of such cases has improved much over the past 13 years. It may simply be that in Neon"s case the parents are pitted against one another, so that provides the conflict a good news story is perceived to require, and demonising the medical establishment is deemed unnecessary. Child cancer cases are fraught with emotion, and will doubtless continue to be a prolific source of media copy and a battleground for those with differing views on health care.