In brief
A case-based bioethics essay that uses the Makayla Sault case to argue that Aboriginal Canadians' health mistrust is rooted in colonial, residential-school trauma, and that cultural safety, judged by patients rather than providers, should guide nursing care.
What this article is about
Quick Answer
A case-based bioethics essay that uses the Makayla Sault case to argue that Aboriginal Canadians' health mistrust is rooted in colonial, residential-school trauma, and that cultural safety, judged by patients rather than providers, should guide nursing care.
Student takeaways
Key Takeaways
- The article argues that Aboriginal Canadians' mistrust of Western health care is rooted in colonial history, especially the residential school system, and that this trauma is generational, affecting the health of later generations.
- Cultural safety, originating with the Maori in New Zealand, is presented as a bioethical framework in which safety is judged by the patient rather than the provider, and which requires providers and organizations to self-reflect on power and bias.
- As context, the article reports major health disparities drawn from cited sources, such as an Inuit man in Nunavik living about 15.8 years less than a man in Vancouver and 92 drinking-water advisories in Aboriginal communities in July 2017.
- It applies the four bioethics principles, autonomy, beneficence, justice, and non-maleficence, arguing all were violated by colonization and continue to be violated through institutional racism in health care.
- It describes promising but under-evaluated interventions, including cultural safety training (San'yas), Aboriginal Patient Navigators, and safe spaces for practices like smudging, and stresses Aboriginal involvement in designing and judging them.
Student summary
Why This Research Matters
This article from the journal Voices in Bioethics uses a real Canadian case to examine why many Aboriginal (Indigenous) patients distrust the Western health care system, and how nurses and other providers can respond. It is an ethics analysis and argument rather than an experimental study, so its central claims are reasoned points supported by cited literature, not new data the author collected. Reading it well means treating it as a way of thinking, not as a source of original statistics.
The case involves Makayla Sault, an 11-year-old Aboriginal girl who died of leukemia in January 2015. Her physicians estimated a roughly 75 percent cure rate with treatment, but after completing 11 weeks of chemotherapy she and her family chose to stop and pursue traditional and alternative therapies. Efforts to continue treatment, including an ethics consult and involvement of the Children's Aid Society, did not change the family's decision. The author uses this case to explore a painful question many Canadians asked: what role did being Aboriginal play, and how should the health system balance respect for self-determination against its duty to treat?
The article's main framework is cultural safety, a concept that originated in New Zealand with the Maori people. The author is careful to distinguish cultural safety from related ideas like cultural competence, humility, or awareness. Cultural safety does not ask providers to master 'Indigenous culture.' Instead, it examines the social and historical roots of health inequities and the power imbalances, such as the one between clinician and patient, that shape care. Crucially, whether care is safe is judged by the patient receiving it, not the provider delivering it. The article argues that meaningful change must begin with self-reflection by individual providers and by health care organizations.
To explain present-day mistrust, the author points to social determinants of health and to Canada's colonial history. The article cites striking disparities: for example, an Inuit man in Nunavik is reported to live about 15.8 years less than a man in Vancouver, and in July 2017 there were 92 drinking-water advisories in Aboriginal communities. It describes the residential school system as colonialism's most damaging tool: more than 150,000 Aboriginal children attended these church-run schools between 1870 and the 1990s, over 6,000 children are reported to have died, and Canada's Truth and Reconciliation Commission found that physical, emotional, and sexual abuse was rampant. The article emphasizes that this trauma is generational: families in which multiple generations attended residential schools are reported to experience greater distress, substance abuse, and suicide than families in which only one generation attended. These figures come from sources the author cites, so they are context, not the author's own measurements.
The author connects this history to clinical encounters today. Because hospitals place providers in positions of physical and emotional power over ill patients, they can echo the power dynamics of residential schools and trigger post-traumatic memories in survivors. The article notes that most physicians and nurses receive little formal education about residential schools, allowing bias and racism to go unchecked, and it gives examples of racist treatment reported in Canadian media and from the author's own observation.
Using the four principles of bioethics, autonomy, beneficence, justice, and non-maleficence, the article argues that all four were violated during colonization and that violations continue through institutional racism. It also handles the idea of 'vulnerability' with care, warning that labeling a group as vulnerable can become paternalistic or reinforce stigma, and stressing that Aboriginal peoples are diverse and resilient. Any solution, the author argues, must be shaped with Aboriginal people, not for them.
Finally, the article surveys promising directions: cultural safety training programs such as San'yas in British Columbia; Aboriginal Patient Navigators, who are often Aboriginal themselves and are reported to reduce patient stress and improve access to supports; and safe spaces where patients can practice traditions like smudging alongside Western treatment. The author's key caution is that these programs are rarely evaluated, and that cultural safety requires Aboriginal patients, not providers, to judge whether care is safe.
For nursing students, the takeaway is not a set of statistics to memorize but a way of thinking: understand history, examine your own power and bias, and let the patient define safety. A caution: this is one author's ethics analysis focused on individual clinical encounters rather than policy, and the details of Makayla's care are incompletely known, so it should inform reflection rather than firm clinical rules.
Source abstract
Study Overview
Case Introduction: Makayla’s story
On January 19, 2015, Makayla Sault, an 11 year old Aboriginal girl, died of leukemia [1]. Although her physicians gave her a 75% cure rate with treatment, she and her family refused chemotherapy in favor of pursuing alternative therapies. Earlier in 2014, she completed 11 weeks of chemotherapy but decided to withdraw early. Makayla informed her doctors that, “I am writing this letter to tell you that this chemo is killing my body and I cannot take it anymore.”
Because untreated leukemia is a fatal diagnosis, the medical team tried to convince Makayla and her family to proceed with the treatment and an ethics consult was obtained to support communication. Discussions broke down however and Makayla left hospital. Her physicians pursued the matter further through the local Children’s Aid Society, who declined to apprehend Makayla and force her into treatment stating, "For us to take her away, to apprehend and place her in a home with strangers…when she's very, very ill — I can't see how that would be helpful" [1].
Many Canadians were angered by what they perceived as the justice system failing to intervene to save Makayla’s life. Did Makayla die simply because she was Aboriginal? Others supported the Sault’s decision to forgo Western medical paternalism, in favor of traditional Aboriginal medicine practices and a right to self-determination. Regardless of one’s position, Mikayla’s story resonates with the lived experience of many Aboriginal Canadians who suffer inferior health outcomes and face ongoing challenges reconciling their historical cultural narrative with that of the West.
Cultural Safety as Bioethical Framework
This paper will use a cultural safety framework as a bioethical tool to understand how Western medical institutions and practitioners contribute to broken trust for Aboriginal patients like Makayla. Cultural safety is a concept originating in New Zealand for the Maori people, and differs from other concepts like cultural humility, competency and awareness [2]. Cultural safety requires a thorough analysis of the social and historical contexts of health and health inequities. It does not focus on understanding “indigenous culture”, or specific belief systems. The cultural safety approach seeks to determine the roots of social injustice, and how imbalances in power, such as in the relationship between physician and patient, shape health care experiences. It demands that safety be evaluated and judged by those experiencing care, and not those providing it [3].
Through a cultural safety bioethical model, current and future strategies aimed at redressing health inequalities must first start with a self-reflective process on the part of the physician and health care organization. Following this, careful educational, research and policy interventions can be constructed, in concert with Aboriginal stakeholders. Although deep consideration of solutions is necessary at all levels of the health care continuum, this paper will focus primarily on the individual interactions that Aboriginal patients experience with health care providers and within health care institutions, and not specifically on governmental policy, judicial, and social reform.
Current inequities in social determinants of health and health care outcomes
Aboriginal Canadians continue to experience ill health and inferior life expectancy compared to the rest of Canadian society [4]. For example, the lifespan of an Inuit man in Nunavik is 15.8 years less than the lifespan of a man in Vancouver, British Columbia [5]. Aboriginal individuals are much more likely to die young from violence or trauma, and are more likely to suffer from preventable conditions like diabetes, heart disease and tuberculosis [6]. Addictions and mental health disorders are highly prevalent in Aboriginal communities [7]. In contrast, Canadians on the whole enjoy excellent health compared to the rest of the world and take pride in Canada’s universal health care system and strong social safety net, founded on the principles of equality and justice. So why do health inequities continue to exist for Aboriginals?
Disparities in basic social determinants of health, including lack of access to clean water, affordable and healthy food, and healthcare in the remote regions where Aboriginals often reside explain much of their poor health [8]. To illustrate, in July 2017 there were 92 advisories for unsafe drinking water in Aboriginal communities [9]. The Canadian senate described current health conditions among Aboriginal Canadians as a “national disgrace” [10]. Certainly, recent governmental efforts through the Truth and Reconciliation Committee (TRC) [11], aimed at closing socioeconomic disparities, as well as planned judicial reforms, will play a role in addressing wrongs, but this discussion is beyond the scope of this paper. Instead, let us look to the past through a cultural safety lens to better understand the historical struggles that have set the stage for Aboriginal Canadians’ mistrust of Western health care practitioners and institutions today.
Broken Trust: Colonial Legacy of Trauma
The most damaging tool of colonialism, perpetrated by white settlers on Canada’s original Aboriginal inhabitants, is often considered to be the residential school system. More than 150,000 Aboriginal children attended these church run schools between the years of 1870 and the 1990s when they were finally closed [12]. Taken by coercion or force from their homes, children were placed in these schools for the sole purpose of “aggressively civilizing” them, or to “kill the Indian in the child.” Severely underfunded and poorly staffed, these schools became synonymous with malnourishment and disease, with over 6000 children dying in care, and many more sent home to die. The TRC, which conducted a detailed six-year review, found that physical, emotional and sexual abuse was rampant at the schools [11]. Further, the education provided at residential schools was substandard and many children barely attained basic literacy, furthering cycles of unemployment and poverty. Because these children grew up outside of their traditional family structures, bands and nations, they lacked a basic understanding of community relations, parenting and household management.
Although these events reside in the past, it is crucial to understand that the legacy of trauma is in fact generational and continues to be vividly experienced by Aboriginals today when they engage with the health care system. Past suffering results in systemic harm to subsequent generations through a loss of language and culture, inferior educational attainment, and the disruption of family structures [13]. Children of attendees demonstrate worse health status than children of non-attendees. Further, families in which multiple generations attended residential schools have greater distress, substance abuse and suicide than those in which only one generation attended [14].
Unfortunately, most practicing physicians and nurses have no formal education about the disastrous impact of residential schools on Canadian Aboriginals. Medical schools do not include comprehensive teaching around traditional Aboriginal values or sensitive communication. This profound lack of understanding allows ongoing biases and racism to run unchecked. Rather than appreciating that present poor health conditions are influenced by social and historical events, many health care providers believe that Aboriginals are simply doomed to cycles of addiction, poor health, suicide and early mortality because of personal choice or racial inferiority [15].
Institutional racism in Western health care organizations engendered by these negative biases continues to perpetrate trauma upon Aboriginal patients. Many patients articulate feelings of fear, shame and judgement when admitted to hospital, to the point that they prefer to leave before treatment is complete, further worsening health outcomes [16]. Racist comments reported in the Canadian media include physicians writing prescriptions with crossed out beer bottles, instead of legitimate medication or care plans [17, 18]. I have personally witnessed an older Aboriginal woman admitted for severe medical issues being asked by a nurse, “So, did you fall down drunk?” Further, the institutional nature of hospitals, where physicians and nurses typically hold great emotional and physical power over ill and infirm patients, can mirror past events experienced at residential schools. As a result, survivors of residential schools may experience triggering of post-traumatic memories following hospital admission [19].
Taking a historical view when interpreting present day health injustices is critical to progress cultural safety. Unless health care providers understand the root causes of current health outcomes, their biases and racist beliefs will contribute to the cycle of trauma and injustice. The following bioethical analysis will clarify areas in which violations have occurred, while also striking a balance when advocating for solutions. Health care providers and institutions must serve the unmet needs of vulnerable Aboriginal patients, while also respecting their autonomy, diversity and resilience.
Bioethics Analysis: Acknowledging Vulnerability while Promoting Self-determination
From a cultural safety perspective, all four foundational bioethics principles — personal autonomy, beneficence, justice, and non-maleficence — were violated in the process of colonization. Autonomy was quashed, whereby those in power took an extremely paternalistic view of the Aboriginal peoples, believing that “civilizing” them into Euro-Canadian culture was in their best interests. Unfortunately this approach led to little or no benefits and many harms when we consider past and current health inequities. We continue to see infringement of autonomy and lack of respect for persons in the form of institutional racism in health care institutions today.
From a justice perspective, the discussion can be framed as an issue of human rights, because it speaks to the degree of abuse perpetrated and the urgency with which a response is needed. Clearly, the process of colonization, illustrated by the residential schools, deprived Aboriginal Canadians of basic human rights on a societal level. The right to life, thought, religion, free movement, as well as basic needs including clean water, adequate nutrition, safety, education and housing were all systemically denied. Unfortunately, many of these gaps persist today. In 2015, a United Nations report declared that Canada’s tolerance of violence towards its Aboriginal women and girls constituted a violation of human rights [9]. All Canadians, including health care providers and institutions, must recognize that human rights violations have occurred historically and continue to be perpetrated inside our own borders. Human rights are not just theoretical constructs from the past, or issues that concern persons and aid organizations in the third world. Work being done through the TRC aims to address these social injustices through policy, but this is beyond the scope of this paper.
On an individual level, Aboriginal patients are often described as vulnerable by health care providers. Vulnerability in health care can arise because of internal factors that affect ability to advocate for oneself, including physical illness, mental illness or substance abuse [20]. External factors include epistemic power hierarchies, where physicians and nurses hold the power to provide or deny treatment to patients. Acknowledging vulnerability is important because it calls attention to the need for special care and tailored resources to help Aboriginal patients navigate the care environment with safety and quality.
Alternative voices and perspectives
The bioethics concept of vulnerability is a nuanced one and must be handled with care. When we label a group as vulnerable, we risk being overly paternalistic and may excuse unjustifiable increases in social control [21]. Also, dwelling on vulnerability can perversely entrench the ideas it seeks to reverse, namely exclusion and stigmatization. Lastly, Aboriginal Canadians are an extremely diverse group, and labeling or generalizing does disservice to individuals who have met adversity with resilience, or do not feel defined by the dominant cultural historical narrative. In any agenda meant to reduce vulnerability, input from the central stakeholder — in this case, Aboriginal Canadians — is necessary to ensure that solutions focus on unmet needs rather than further cementing misconceptions of internal deficiencies.
Canadian society as a whole is moving towards a better understanding of the challenges faced by Aboriginals. However, racism and lack of education persists and is evidenced by attitudes that seek to deny Aboriginals any special consideration or tailored aid strategies. Some believe, as in discussions around the validity of international aid, that aid only prolongs dependency [22]. This perspective belies the fact that Aboriginals continue to face institutional racism and unfair social conditions. Under these circumstances, largely created and propagated by the majority in power, we have an absolute ethical obligation to redress wrongs through research, education and policy change.
Current and Future Directions: Health Care Providers and Institutions Embracing Cultural Safety
In many parts of the world with a colonial history, including Australia, New Zealand and Canada, health care institutions are beginning to take steps to improve cultural safety [23]. This starts with the creation of an education program, such as the San’yas Indigenous Cultural Safety training program in British Columbia, Canada [24]. These programs focus exclusively on the care of Aboriginal patients, rather than cultural minorities in general, and aim to equip practitioners with the knowledge and communication skills needed to provide a safer health care experiences for their Aboriginal patients. Cultural safety training can be unexpectedly painful for health practitioners because it prompts self-reflection into one’s own biases and challenges conscious or subconscious racism. Further, it forces the acknowledgement of one’s own elevated status and privilege, and how this power differential impacts the care of Aboriginal people [3].
Health care institutions have also developed specialized roles, including Aboriginal Patient Navigators (APN), to bridge the cultural trust gap between health providers and Aboriginal patients [25]. The involvement of these trained individuals, who are often Aboriginal themselves, has been shown to decrease stress and anxiety for Aboriginal patients in hospital, as well as improve their access to social supports. Many health care institutions have also created “safe spaces” for patients of all faiths to practice and hold gatherings. These spaces have enabled Aboriginal patients to hold traditional ceremonies, including smudging, allowing them to integrate aspects of traditional medicine while still receiving Western treatments [26].
What is lacking in much of the discussion about cultural safety locally and internationally is meaningful data collection and research around how effective the above interventions are [27, 28]. Key to the concept of cultural safety is that quality and safety are judged by Aboriginal patients, not by health care providers or institutions. The involvement of Aboriginal people in the creation and evaluation of any program is essential to ensure that programs truly fill unmet needs. Lastly, institutions have the potential to improve care for individual patients, but without a larger societal commitment to advance social justice for Canadian Aboriginals, beneficial change will be hampered.
Makayla: Resolution Within the Team?
We do not know the details of the interactions that led to a fracturing of trust between Makayla’s family and the medical team. However, specific recommendations could be made for future such conflicts aiming to improve mutual understanding and respect. Upon admission, the team could offer the services of an Aboriginal Patient Navigator. If no APN role exists, the institution should urgently consider creating one. The team could benefit from specific training in cultural safety, and perhaps this should become a mandatory expectation for any front line health provider. A safe space could also be offered to Makayla to facilitate integration of traditional medicine practices within the Western institution. Consideration could also be given to moving Makayla to her home community, allowing her to continue her treatment in relative comfort. Lastly, any such programs need to be evaluated by Aboriginal patients and their families to ensure unmet needs are being served.
Photo by Louis Paulin on Unsplash
Works Cited •
"'Chemo is Killing My Body:' First Nations Girl Opts for Traditional Treatment,” CBC News, accessed Sep 15, 2018, https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/first-nations-girl-chooses-traditional-medicine-over-chemo-1.2644637.
•
Papps, E. and I. Ramsden. 1996. "Cultural Safety in Nursing: The New Zealand Experience." International Journal for Quality in Health Care: Journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care 8 (5): 491-497.
•
Government of Canada, Public Services and Procurement Canada. "Empathy, Dignity, and Respect: Creating Cultural Safety for Aboriginal People in Urban Health Care,” last modified -07-01, accessed Sep 15, 2018, http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/445881/publication.html.
•
Adelson, Naomi. 2005. "The Embodiment of Inequity: Health Disparities in Aboriginal Canada." Canadian Journal of Public Health 96 Suppl 2: 45.
•
Unger, David. "The Canadian Bioethics Companion." The Canadian Bioethics Companion, accessed September 15, 2018, http://canadianbioethicscompanion.ca/the-canadian-bioethics-companion/.
•
Cass, Alan. 2004. "Health Outcomes in Aboriginal Populations." Canadian Medical Association Journal 171 (6): 597-598. doi:10.1503/cmaj.1041059. http://www.cmaj.ca/content/171/6/597.abstract.
•
Rowan, Margo, Nancy Poole, Beverley Shea, Joseph P. Gone, David Mykota, Marwa Farag, Carol Hopkins, Laura Hall, Christopher Mushquash, and Colleen Dell. 2014. "Cultural Interventions to Treat Addictions in Indigenous Populations: Findings from a Scoping Study." Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy 9 (1): 34. doi:10.1186/1747-597X-9-34. https://doi.org/10.1186/1747-597X-9-34.
•
Reading, C. L. and F. Wien. 2009. Health Inequalities and the Social Determinants of Aboriginal Peoples’ Health. Prince George, Canada: National Collaborating Center for Aboriginal Health.
•
"UN Human Rights Report shows that Canada is Failing Indigenous Peoples." Amnesty International Canada, accessed Sep 15, 2018, https://www.amnesty.ca/news/public-statements/joint-press-release/un-human-rights-report-shows-that-canada-is-failing.
•
Kirby, Michael. 2002. The Health of Canadians – the Federal Role. Interim Report. Volume Five: Principles and Recommendations for Reform - Part I. Ottawa, Canada: The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
•
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to Action. 2015. Winnipeg, Canada: Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.
•
Milloy, John. 1999. A National Crime: The Canadian Government and the Residential School System, 1879 to 1986. Winnipeg, Canada: University of Manitoba Press.
•
Kaspar, Violet. 2014. "The Lifetime Effect of Residential School Attendance on Indigenous Health Status." American Journal of Public Health 104 (11): 2184-2190. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301479.
•
Hackett, Christina, David Feeny, and Emile Tompa. 2016. "Canada's Residential School System: Measuring the Intergenerational Impact of Familial Attendance on Health and Mental Health Outcomes." Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 70 (11): 1096-1105. doi:10.1136/jech-2016-207380.
•
Allan, B. and J. Smylie. 2015. First Peoples, Second Class Treatment: The Role of Racism in the Health and Wellbeing of Indigenous Peoples in Canada. Toronto, Canada.
•
Browne, Annette J., Victoria L. Smye, Patricia Rodney, Sannie Y. Tang, Bill Mussell, and John O'Neil. 2011. "Access to Primary Care from the Perspective of Aboriginal Patients at an Urban Emergency Department." Qualitative Health Research 21 (3): 333-348. doi:10.1177/1049732310385824.
•
"'Unconscious, Pro-White Bias a Major Factor in Poor Aboriginal Health Care,” CBC News, accessed Sep 15, 2018, https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/racism-against-aboriginal-people-in-health-care-system-pervasive-study-1.2942644.
•
Cunningham, James K., Teshia A. Solomon, and Myra L. Muramoto. 2016. "Alcohol use among Native Americans Compared to Whites: Examining the Veracity of the 'Native American Elevated Alcohol Consumption' Belief." Drug and Alcohol Dependence 160: 65-75. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.12.015.
•
Kurtz, Donna L. M., Jessie C. Nyberg, Susan Van Den Tillaart, Buffy Mills, and The Okanagan Urban Aboriginal Health Research Collective. 2008. "Silencing of Voice: An Act of Structural Violence Urban Aboriginal Women Speak Out about their Experiences with Health Care." International Journal of Indigenous Health 4 (1): 53-63. doi:10.18357/ijih41200812315. https://journals.uvic.ca/index.php/ijih/article/view/12315.
•
Clark, Beth and Nina Preto. 2018. "Exploring the Concept of Vulnerability in Health Care." CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal = Journal De L'Association Medicale Canadienne 190 (11): E309. doi:10.1503/cmaj.180242.
•
Piggott, T. W. 2015. Pursuing Health: Underserved Populations in Canada. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Public Health Agency.
•
Kopinak, J. K. 2013. Humanitarian Aid: Are Effectiveness and Sustainability Impossible Dreams? | the Journal of Humanitarian Assistance. http://sites.tufts.edu/jha/archives/1935.
•
Schiffer, J. J. 2016. "Why Aboriginal Peoples Just Can’t “Get Over it”: Addressing and Understanding Intergenerational Trauma." Visions 11 (4): 7.
•
Ward, Cheryl, Chelsey Branch, and Alycia Fridkin. 2016. "What is Indigenous Cultural Safety—and Why should I Care about it?" Visions 11 (44): 29.
•
Foreman, J. and S. Stewart. 2011. An Evaluation of the Northern Health Aboriginal Patient Liaison Program. Prince George, Canada: Aboriginal Health Engagement.
•
"Aboriginal Health Team Calling Back a Different Song," Providence Health Care News, last modified June 25, http://phcnews.ca/news/aboriginal-health-team-calling-back-different-song.
•
Paradies, Yin, Ricci Harris, and Ian Anderson. 2008. The Impact of Racism on Indigenous Health in Australia and Aotearoa: Towards a Research Agenda. Casuarina, Australia: Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal Health. http://dro.deakin.edu.au/view/DU:30058493.
•
Anderson, Marcia, Janet Smylie, Ian Anderson, Raven Sinclair, and Sue Crengle. 2006. First Nations, Métis, and Inuit Health Indicators in Canada. A Background Paper for the Project Action Oriented Indicators of Health and Health Systems Development for Indigenous People in Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Regina, Canada: Indigenous Peoples’ Health Research Centre.
Evidence appraisal
Main Findings
- The article argues that Aboriginal Canadians' mistrust of Western health care is rooted in colonial history, especially the residential school system, and that this trauma is generational, affecting the health of later generations.
- Cultural safety, originating with the Maori in New Zealand, is presented as a bioethical framework in which safety is judged by the patient rather than the provider, and which requires providers and organizations to self-reflect on power and bias.
- As context, the article reports major health disparities drawn from cited sources, such as an Inuit man in Nunavik living about 15.8 years less than a man in Vancouver and 92 drinking-water advisories in Aboriginal communities in July 2017.
- It applies the four bioethics principles, autonomy, beneficence, justice, and non-maleficence, arguing all were violated by colonization and continue to be violated through institutional racism in health care.
- It describes promising but under-evaluated interventions, including cultural safety training (San'yas), Aboriginal Patient Navigators, and safe spaces for practices like smudging, and stresses Aboriginal involvement in designing and judging them.
Practice transfer
Clinical Relevance
- Nurses can practice cultural safety by reflecting on their own power and biases and letting patients define whether care feels safe, rather than assuming cultural competence.
- Understanding residential-school history helps nurses recognize that a hospital's power dynamics may trigger trauma in survivors, so trauma-informed, respectful communication matters.
- Avoid stereotyping, such as assumptions linking Aboriginal patients to alcohol; the article presents such assumptions as examples of harmful bias.
- Where available, involve Aboriginal Patient Navigators and offer safe spaces for traditional practices alongside Western care to help bridge trust.
- Respect autonomy and self-determination while still offering care, balancing beneficence with non-paternalism and involving patients, families, and community in decisions.
Faculty notes
Educational Relevance
Use this article to teach cultural safety as a bioethical lens and to model how nurses appraise argument-based scholarship. Because it is a case-based essay, not empirical research, it is ideal for showing students the difference between reasoned, cited claims and original data. Anchor discussion in the Makayla Sault case to explore the tension between respecting self-determination and the duty to treat a curable illness. Highlight the author's distinction between cultural safety and cultural competence, and the principle that the patient, not the provider, judges whether care is safe. The four principles of bioethics offer a structured analysis activity: ask students to map how autonomy, beneficence, justice, and non-maleficence were violated historically and can be honored today. The residential school history supports a trauma-informed care lesson on how hospital power dynamics may re-traumatize survivors. Assign students to critique the concept of vulnerability, weighing its protective value against paternalism and stigma. Close by having students propose unit-level steps, such as engaging Aboriginal Patient Navigators or safe spaces, while noting the author's caution that such programs are rarely evaluated and must be judged by Aboriginal patients themselves.
Critical appraisal
Limitations
- This is a single-author bioethics essay and argument, not an empirical study; its claims are reasoned and cited rather than derived from original data.
- The statistics it reports are drawn from other sources within the essay, so their currency and context should be checked against the originals before being repeated.
- The details of Makayla Sault's care are incompletely known, as the author acknowledges, so conclusions about that specific case are limited.
Classroom use
Discussion Questions
- How does cultural safety differ from cultural competence, humility, and awareness, and why does the author insist the patient must judge whether care is safe?
- In Makayla's case, how should a care team balance respect for self-determination with the duty to treat a potentially curable illness?
- In what ways can a hospital's power dynamics echo the residential school experience for survivors?
- How might a nurse's lack of education about residential schools contribute to unchecked bias in care?
- What are the risks and the benefits of labeling a patient group as 'vulnerable'?
- How can each of the four bioethics principles guide care for an Aboriginal patient today?
- Why is Aboriginal involvement essential in designing and evaluating cultural safety programs?
- What practical steps could a unit take to create safe spaces and to involve Aboriginal Patient Navigators?
- How should a student treat statistics that an essay cites from other sources rather than measuring directly?
- How can trauma-informed communication reduce the chance that a hospital admission re-traumatizes a patient?
Knowledge check
Quiz
1. What framework does the article use to analyze Aboriginal patients' care experiences?
- Cultural competence
- Cultural safety
- The health belief model
- The biomedical model
Rationale: The article explicitly adopts cultural safety as its bioethical framework.
2. Where did the concept of cultural safety originate?
- Canada, with the Inuit
- New Zealand, with the Maori
- Australia, with Aboriginal Australians
- The United States
Rationale: The abstract states cultural safety originated in New Zealand for the Maori people.
3. In cultural safety, who judges whether care is safe?
- The physician
- The hospital administrator
- The patient receiving care
- A government regulator
Rationale: A core tenet is that safety is evaluated and judged by those experiencing care, not those providing it.
4. What does the article identify as colonialism's most damaging tool?
- Taxation policy
- The residential school system
- Language laws
- Trade restrictions
Rationale: The article describes the residential school system as the most damaging tool of colonialism.
5. According to the article, what is true of families where multiple generations attended residential schools?
- They report better overall health
- They report greater distress, substance abuse, and suicide than families where only one generation attended
- They report no measurable difference
- They avoided health care entirely
Rationale: The article cites this as evidence that the trauma is generational.
6. Which four bioethics principles does the article say were violated by colonization?
- Fidelity, veracity, privacy, and dignity
- Autonomy, beneficence, justice, and non-maleficence
- Speed, cost, access, and quality
- Only autonomy and justice
Rationale: The article analyzes all four foundational bioethics principles and argues each was violated.
7. Which role, often filled by Aboriginal people, is described as reducing patient stress and improving access to supports?
- Ward clerk
- Aboriginal Patient Navigator
- Chief medical officer
- Hospital chaplain
Rationale: The article reports that Aboriginal Patient Navigators help bridge the trust gap and reduce stress and anxiety.
8. What caution does the article raise about labeling a group 'vulnerable'?
- It has no downsides
- It can become paternalistic and entrench stigma
- It guarantees better funding
- It removes all bias
Rationale: The article warns that labeling can lead to paternalism, social control, and reinforced stigma.
9. What key limitation does the article note about cultural safety interventions?
- They are too expensive to run
- They are rarely evaluated for effectiveness
- They are illegal in Canada
- They only work in New Zealand
Rationale: The article states there is a lack of meaningful data and research on how effective these interventions are.
10. What kind of source is this article?
- A randomized controlled trial
- A systematic review with meta-analysis
- A case-based bioethics essay and analysis
- A government policy statute
Rationale: It uses the Makayla Sault case to build a reasoned bioethical argument rather than reporting original research data.
Study cards
Flashcards
Who was Makayla Sault?
An 11-year-old Aboriginal girl who died of leukemia in January 2015 after she and her family stopped chemotherapy to pursue traditional and alternative therapies.
What cure rate did physicians estimate for Makayla with treatment?
About 75 percent.
What is cultural safety?
A framework, originating with the Maori in New Zealand, that examines the social and historical roots of inequity and power imbalances; safety is judged by the patient, not the provider.
How does cultural safety differ from cultural competence?
It does not focus on mastering a culture; it targets power imbalances, history, and social injustice, and is judged by the patient.
What was the residential school system?
Church-run schools that took Aboriginal children to 'civilize' them; the article describes it as colonialism's most damaging tool.
How many Aboriginal children attended residential schools, and when?
More than 150,000, between 1870 and the 1990s.
How many children are reported to have died in residential schools?
Over 6,000.
What did the Truth and Reconciliation Commission find about the schools?
That physical, emotional, and sexual abuse was rampant.
What does 'generational trauma' mean here?
Harm passed to later generations through loss of language and culture, disrupted family structures, and worse health among descendants.
What life-expectancy disparity does the article cite?
An Inuit man in Nunavik is reported to live about 15.8 years less than a man in Vancouver.
What drinking-water disparity does the article cite?
92 advisories for unsafe drinking water in Aboriginal communities in July 2017.
Why can hospitals trigger trauma for residential-school survivors?
Providers hold physical and emotional power over ill patients, echoing residential-school power dynamics.
What education gap does the article note among clinicians?
Most physicians and nurses receive little or no formal education about the impact of residential schools.
Name the four bioethics principles discussed.
Autonomy, beneficence, justice, and non-maleficence.
What is the San'yas program?
An Indigenous Cultural Safety training program in British Columbia, Canada.
What do Aboriginal Patient Navigators do?
They help bridge the trust gap and are reported to reduce stress and anxiety and improve access to social supports.
What are 'safe spaces' in this context?
Spaces where patients can hold traditional ceremonies, such as smudging, alongside Western treatment.
What risk comes with labeling a group 'vulnerable'?
Paternalism, unjustified social control, and entrenching the stigma the label seeks to reverse.
Who should judge and help design cultural safety programs?
Aboriginal patients and communities; solutions should be made with them, not for them.
What major gap does the article identify in cultural safety work?
A lack of meaningful data and research evaluating whether the interventions are effective.
Search-ready answers
Frequently asked questions
Is this article a research study?
No. It is a case-based bioethics essay; its claims are reasoned and cited rather than derived from original data.
What is the article's main argument?
That Aboriginal Canadians' mistrust of Western care is rooted in colonial history, especially residential schools, and that cultural safety should guide how care is reformed.
Why is Makayla's case used?
To illustrate broken trust and the tension between a family's right to self-determination and the health system's duty to treat.
What is the difference between cultural safety and cultural competence?
Cultural competence emphasizes learning about a culture, while cultural safety focuses on power imbalances, history, and social injustice, and is judged by the patient.
Are the statistics in the article the author's own data?
No. They are drawn from cited sources and should be verified against the originals before being repeated as fact.
What can a nurse do with this article in practice?
Reflect on personal power and bias, communicate respectfully, avoid stereotyping, and use navigators and safe spaces where available.
Does the article say cultural safety programs are proven to work?
No. It notes that these programs are rarely evaluated, so their effectiveness is not established here.
Is it appropriate to call all Aboriginal patients 'vulnerable'?
Use caution. The article warns this can be paternalistic and stigmatizing, and it stresses that Aboriginal peoples are diverse and resilient.
Does the article cover Canadian policy or legal reform?
No. It deliberately focuses on individual clinical encounters rather than policy, judicial, or broad social reform.
How should students use this source?
As a lens for reflection on history, power, and patient-defined safety, not as a statistics source or a clinical protocol.