NYT: Hodgkin's Returns to Girl Whose Parents Fought State

[DeepModem Mom]

Hodgkin's Returns to Girl Whose Parents Fought State
By RALPH BLUMENTHAL
Published: June 11, 2005


CORPUS CHRISTI, Tex., June 10 - A bitter standoff between the parents of a 12-year-old and Texas social workers and doctors over radiation treatment ended on Friday on a somber note with a medical report that the girl's Hodgkin's disease, which had seemed in remission, had reappeared.

The parents, Michele and Edward Wernecke, lost custody of their daughter Katie a week ago, after opposing radiation therapy as unnecessary. When the new test results were announced at a hearing in juvenile court, the parents quickly complied and agreed through their lawyers to let doctors set the course of treatment, which could resume in days.

"The Werneckes are devastated," said Daniel F. Horne, a lawyer for the couple. Mr. Horne said they were too distraught to comment.

Mrs. Wernecke went with a doctor to tell Katie the news before a family gathering under state supervision to celebrate her birthday. She will turn 13 on Saturday.

The agreement on treatment appeared to douse another hot spot in the field of patients' rights. Coming on the heels of the polarizing right-to-die case of Terri Schiavo, Katie's case raised the provocative question of when parents lose their rights to control a child's medical treatment. Under Texas law, parents may withhold medical treatment from a terminally ill child, but not in lesser situations....


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/11/national/11child.html

[Warpy]

1. OK, now that I know it's a lymphoma, I can add something

relevant about the case.

The lymphomas are notorius for shedding cells that turn into metastatic cancer elsewhere and everywhere. One of the places these new tumors like to develop is in the brain.

The problem with chemo is that it may kill the cancer throughout the body, but there is something called the blood-brain barrier, and chemo drugs don't cross it. Many medications don't cross it. It's generally a protective device, saving the brain from a lot of poisons in our environments.

Radiation is needed to destroy any brain mets that might be lurking.

The 3 week delay has apparently given those brain mets time to shed some cells into the blood or spinal cord and put them back into her body, or the chemo she had was insufficient to kill all the tumors throughout her body.

In this case, refusing radiation was medical neglect, and the state was correct to step in. Children are not our property, and the state has a stake in whether they get lifesaving treatment.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

2. But isn't texas the state....

Where if you cannot afford treatment, the hospital will let the children die? (As in premature infants or those born with rare diseases).

[rebecca_herman]

4. Yes and no

It's unfair that it's applied due to economic reasons, but the two children who were taken off life support due to that law were suffering and had no chance of recovery. One was in such severe pain from cancer she had to be kept on constant morphine. And she was only about THREE MONTHS OLD. So I don't think doctors should be forced to torture babies to prolong their lives a very brief time, but it shouldn't be based on economics. But sadly much in this world is.

[DeepModem Mom]

5. Thanks for this info, Warpy. nt

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

3. I wish her all the best

I saw this story yesterday on one of the news channels. They showed her parents arguing that the cancer was gone, so why was radiation necessary; then they played a video of the child saying she felt fine and didn't want the treatment, and didn't she have any say in what happens to her.

Then the talking head played devil's advocate with a bioethicist who tried to explain that no, underage children cannot decide their own treatment, and that how one feels is often a dangerously inaccurate gauge of an illness's progress. The whole story seemed slanted to make it appear like the child was cured, the hospital greedy and uncaring, and the law cold and unfair.

Now it turns out the hospital pushed for the right treatment, the law protected the way it's supposed to, and the child's chances for recovery have been greatly increased. I hope it's a lesson her parents remember with the rest of their children. I wish them all the best.

[LisaL]

6. Poor child. What is she going to say if her parents tell her

she is fine and doesn't need treatment?