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

Cries of corruption follow Serbia's bouncing lottery ball Google fighting French order to apply 'right to be forgotten' outside Europe Scottish police officer under fire for NZ holiday snap of children with guns Drunk badger sleeps for two days after big night on beer Ultra-Orthodox Jewish man stabs six people at Gay Pride march in Jerusalem After Russia UN veto, countries seek court for Flight MH17 prosecutions Reports shows Russians hackers used Twitter, photos to breach US computers Crush turns deadly as migrants push toward Britain Priest performs exorcism from helicopter after churches robbed and defiled Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras may have to call early election

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