Sally Roberts stands by her actions

Last updated 10:40 01/02/2014
Stands by her actions
Getty Images
STANDS BY HER ACTIONS: Sally Roberts leaving the high court on December 21, 2012.

Relevant offers

Europe

Pint Baby: Archive clip of an Irish baby supping from a pint of Guinness finds fame in a new era Lindsay Lohan claims she was 'racially profiled' for wearing headscarf at London's Heathrow Airport British court rejects couple's bid for civil partnership Fighter jets intercept passenger plane after it loses contact with air traffic control Daredevils climb London skyscraper, right to the top Pope Francis decries 'populist rhetoric' fuelling fear of immigrants Terrorists are building drones. France is destroying them with eagles Spanish police stop gas truck speeding against traffic, not linked to terrorism British MPs divided as they debate Donald Trump's invite to meet the Queen Mired in poverty, few Greeks hope for better days

A New Zealand mother who tried to stop her eight-year-old son receiving cancer treatment continues to stand by her actions.

Sally Roberts, formerly of Auckland, lost a case in the British High Court to stop her son, Neon, from receiving radiotherapy for a malignant brain tumour.

Doctors said without the treatment, Neon would be dead within three months.   

Roberts feared the treatment would fry his brain, and hid Neon from authorities. After a four-day man hunt, the pair were found by police.  After undergoing radiotherapy last year, recent scans showed Neon was in remission.

Roberts told BBC Five Radio that Neon was making a good recovery now the treatment was finished. 

"His spirit's up, he's handled everything so well. I'm so proud."

He would go back to school when he felt strong enough, she said. 

"He's very pale, he doesn't look that great at the moment. I think he has to get his confidence up and feel that strength that he wants to go back."

Roberts said she was "thrilled" her son was in remission, but had not changed her views on the use of radiotherapy.

"He was cancer-free a year ago and that's why I was against the treatment... because I think radiation as a precautionary measure is very harsh." 

She said she had been misrepresented, and had never been entirely against conventional treatment.

"I wanted the best treatment for my son and I didn't feel radiation was necessary because at that time he was already cancer-free," she said.

"The alarm bells rang when I was in the hospital reading the letter the doctor gave me which said one of the long-term side effects is secondary cancers and that very much scared me."

Neon still had "no idea" of the legal battle he had been at the centre of, and Roberts would discuss it with him at an appropriate time, she said. 

Ad Feedback

- Stuff

Special offers

Featured Promotions

Sponsored Content