Judge Lifts Order Requiring Treatment for Virginia Teen Cancer Patient

[LiberalHeart]

ACCOMAC, VIRGINIA (AP) -- A judge ruled Tuesday that a 16-year-old cancer patient who has refused conventional medical treatment does not have to report to a hospital as previously ordered and scheduled a trial to settle the dispute. Starchild Abraham Cherrix, who is battling Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymphatic system, refused a second round of chemotherapy when he learned early this year that the cancer had returned.

http://wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=5196462

[Bridget Dooley]

1. Good news!

No one should be forced by the government to undergo unwanted medical treatment. This was a blatant invasion into the personal decisions of a family. The government had no right.

I'm glad the decision was reversed.

[slackmaster]

2. Mixed feelings but I agree with lifting the order

People have a right to make bad personal decisions about medical treatment.

[Bridget Dooley]

4. Exactly

We just can't have the government policing our personal medical decisions. Our bodies, our choice.

[w4rma]

3. I think the parents are taking the child to a quack doctor to save money

not the boys life. In fact I think they are trying to let him die so they aren't saddled with the bill.

Actually I don't believe that. It sounds like the parents really are misinformed about what they should do to help get their boy better. But the former position could have just as easily been the case.

This child needs to be treated *now* every day he is kept from seeing good doctors lowers his chance of survival.

[slackmaster]

5. I think the parents are just plain fruitcake hippies

Not that there's anything wrong with hippies. Or fruitcakes.

[joeunderdog]

77. That's what I 1st thought. But have you seen them present their case?

They appear very educated and articulate. Normal, loving, stand-up people. NOT the quacks I expected.

The kid was VERY mature and well-stated and he made me feel like he is making a decision based on having done more research and education on treatment than 90% of all adults who face these decisions. The conventional chemo treatment will kill almost as many people as the disease in the 2nd round, and the 1st round almost killed the kid. That's WHY he started looking to alternatives. He was drawn to the alternatives because conventional treatment was too risky in his case.

THis patient has done due diligence and understands his treatment and prognosis better than most. If he dies doing it his way, then so be it.

[slackmaster]

78. Yes, they do appear to be reasonable people

But they are wrong, and their son will probably die as a result.

[Toots]

15. 16 is the age of consent in almost all states

Not exactly a child, still a minor but not a child...

[noonwitch]

17. I think the parents are letting the kid make a bad decision because

They don't want him to hold them responsible for making him suffer through painful treatment. I also read that he hadn't completed his first round of chemo, dropped out because he didn't like the way it made him feel. So, of course it wasn't effective.
Hodgkins has a high recovery rate with traditional treatment, especially with young people.

If kids/teens had their way about medical treatment:

they'd never get immunizations
they'd never go to the dentist


I've dealt with these kind of cases before for work, and I feel for the parents. They hate to see their kid in pain. His death from the disease will be far more painful to watch than the treatment.

[sgxnk]

6. cartman

<Cartman>

hippies!

</Cartman>

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. I think these parents should be charged with child abuse

Conventional treatment for Hodgkins in kids this age has a 90%+ success rate. To deny that to their son is abusive and downright cruel.

[Monkeyman]

8. I agree we had a little lass treated and success

[Scooter24]

9. Ridiculous...

Nobody is denying Abraham treatment. I would buy your argument if these parents were withholding this treatment from their son with no prior experience through the process, but the young man has clearly experienced this treatment before. Regardless of the survival rates, there are options available. Simply choosing a treatment with a less successful rate doesn't warrant the charge of child abuse on the parents. The parents and the child made a cognizant decision based on their own experiences and the rule of law should respect that.

[LiberalHeart]

10. My doc supported my decision to opt out of chemo...

...even though DNA studies on my tumor showed it to be highly agressive. I expected him to give me every reason to go with chemo; instead he said chemo is damaging to the body and is primitive in that it attacks the whole body in order to affect a few centimeters of it. He also said some of the meds in the chemical cocktail could be tolerated only thru one round of chemo, so if I had it show up again down the road, I wouldn't be able to use the most powerful weapons to fight it. He said he could support my decision to back away, and count on the surgery and regular check ups to handle it. That was sixteen years ago, and all is well. I fully realize the outcome could have been very different, but for me declining treatment paid off.

[murielm99]

11. What a great story.

I am glad you are still with us.

:hug:

[Bridget Burke]

13. What was your diagnosis?

And where were you treated?

[LiberalHeart]

19. Stage two breast cancer, 2 centimeter tumor, estrogen negative

I was pre-menopausal, and with the tumor being estrogen negative, the outlook wasn't good because they couldn't simply shut off the estrogen supply to control it. Then the DNA studies on the tumor made the outlook worse. I had a mastectomy for the cancer, then another just as a preventive measure. I also had a hysterectomy to remove a likely area for it to spread. I told my doc that with boobs and sex organs gone, I'm not sure I'm still a woman....gave him a chuckle.

I had one session of chemo and that took me down to a suicidal level, which is why I decided to reject the treatment. Just as I was supposed to get the next treatment, my red cells were so depleted, I just wanted to get a gun and shoot myself. Really. I was visualizing doing exactly that, and I'm someone who doesn't even want to touch a gun.

The doc agreed it made no sense to give me a life-saving treatment that would cause me to kill myself. On the very day I was supposed to get the second treatment, I quit -- and it was with the doc's and the nurses' full support. Only my family believed that I should endure the chemo, no matter what. The oncology nurse talked to them long and hard to help them see that chemo could be both destructive and a treatment tool (the state of the art in an art that is still in a primitive stage). She explained how uncertain its effectiveness is, and what kind of problems it could leave in its wake.

I was treated at The Toledo Hospital in Toledo, OH.

[Bridget Burke]

22. You got medical approval for the decision.

That's the way to do it. Glad you're doing well.

[faithnotgreed]

24. thats wonderful liberalheart - you are fortunate to have that support

from the doctors/nurses - very impressive

im glad you beat it on your terms and that youre doing well
i could never choose chemotherapy and would be devastated to have the legal system force their involvement in my life
alternative therapies - done properly with the right practitioners - can be quite powerful

i would offer to those people who are so adamant against this family or against alternative therapies that they have likely not had the experience of those of us who have been through the awful experience and treatment by the traditional medical community - their limitations and arrogance and occasional outright lies give you a far different perspective

that is NOT to say that is all they offer
there are certainly good doctors and they offer proper treatment in some situations but again there are millions of people seeking alternatives largely because they have been treated poorly by some in the establishment and dont know what else to do

thank you for your story liberalheart - wishing you continued health and happiness
myself i am seeing a very alternative md and am quite happy with the treatment and communication

[LiberalHeart]

26. Oddly, I didn't get sick from the one dose of chemo I did have...

All that hit me was the emotional low about three weeks later, when the red cells dropped. I didn't even get nauseated the day of the treatment. By the three week mark, I had lost all my hair, which I'm told is extremely unusual -- from just one treatment. It could be the meds just hit me hard in one dose; I dunno.

I was on an experimental treatment in conjunction with the hospital where I went and the Mayo Clinic. One part of the cocktail was hard on hearts, which is why it could be used only once. To take the med, you have to have a work up making sure your heart is in good condition.

Years later I experienced nerve problems in my arm and a neurologist attributed it to the one dose of chemo I had. Hate to think what I would have been like if I'd gone through all the treatments.

What I loved about my oncologist was that he never pretended to be god or to have all the answers. He seems to have great respect for the mysteries and unpredictability of cancer. Doesn't pretend to have genuine control over it.

[faithnotgreed]

28. yes medications can be quite toxic

in both ways we can feel right away and those that may linger

again im so glad you had the support and knowledge of a caring doctor
of course we are conditioned to follow authority but its often without knowing the potential or long term implications

how wonderful that you got such good care from your doctor
your body was guiding you and both of you listened - that is the ideal

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

35. Unfortunately

until we identify targeted treatements for cancer, miserable (to say the least) side-effects will abound.

You are after all, killing a part of your own body that is killing you and that is stronger than the rest of the cells in your body.

Good Luck.

[BuddhaGirl]

30. thank you for sharing your experience

and how wonderful that you had a doctor that supported your decision!

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

34. But you still had treatment

A different treatment, but a medically accepted and recommended treatment, surgery. Correct?

[pecwae]

12. Good post. nt

[Bridget Burke]

14. The kid is receiving the Hoxsey Treatment.

Hoxsey herbal treatment includes a paste of antimony, zinc and bloodroot, arsenic, sulfur, and talc as external treatments, and a liquid mixture of licorice, red clover, burdock root, Stillingia root, barberry, Cascara, prickly ash bark, buckthorn bark, and potassium iodide for internal consumption. A mixture of procaine hydrochloride and vitamins, along with liver and cactus, is prescribed." (Spencer)

During treatment, patients are asked to avoid consumption of tomatoes, vinegar, pork, alcohol, salt, sugar, and white flour products. (Fink 1988)

"The Hoxsey therapy was started in 1840, when it was used on a horse with a cancerous sore on its leg. This formula was passed down through the Hoxsey family and has been used internally and externally on humans for more than fifty years. Mildred Nelson, R.N., now operated this clinic , which has been in Tijuana since 1963 and formerly was run by the late Harry Hoxsey." (Fink 1997)....

Hoxsey developed prostate cancer in 1967 and treated himself unsuccessfully with his tonic. He eventually underwent conventional surgery. He died in 1974. (Hafner)

www.bccancer.bc.ca/PPI/UnconventionalTherapies/HoxseysHerbalTonicHoxseyHerbalTreatment.htm

The Tijuana clinic does NOT offer free treatment--but it's cheaper than real medicine.

The Hoxsey Treatment has NO success rate at all.

[BuddhaGirl]

16. and that is their choice

they have refused western medicine, which he tried before, and didn't work. That is their choice.

[Bridget Burke]

18. Relapsed Hodgkin's can be treated successfully.

If the kid chose to shoot himself--would you be glad the parents gave him a gun?

By the way--Hoxsey's Quackery is quite "western."

[BuddhaGirl]

21. shooting with a gun - not a fair comparison

but I'm sure you knew that :-)

The teen and his parents should have the right to use the treatment that they prefer.

[Bridget Burke]

23. Shooting with a gun is often a quicker way to go.

The "treatment" they are using is no treatment at all.

[BuddhaGirl]

25. and it's not guaranteed that chemo will cure him

it didn't the first time, and it made him feel very, very sick. He doesn't want to feel sick again.

There are no guarantees with chemo and if the teen and his parents don't like those odds, then they and they alone should decide on the course of treatment. Not you or the government.

It's THEIR decision.

[Bridget Burke]

27. If he doesn't like feeling "sick"....

The quack therapy he wants will NOT make him feel better in the long run. Not at all.

[BuddhaGirl]

29. but it may not make him feel worse

which is what the chemo will do. He's already been through that experience and is willing to try another way.

Again, he should have the CHOICE. Hopefully they have/will find a doctor that supports that choice, as LiberalHeart related upthread.

[Bridget Burke]

32. LiberalHeart's situation was quite different.

She got medical approval for her decision & things have worked out well.

Starchild Abraham will not get medical approval for a well-known quack treatment. He may get legal approval. Then, he will probably get medical approval for the palliative care he will need at the end.

[BuddhaGirl]

38. Well, we'll have to agree to disagree I guess

:-) I don't see it as that much different.

Basically, again, it's a matter of choice. Abraham and his parents should be able to make their own medical decisions without the authoritarian state interfering.

[Bridget Burke]

41. Since you appear to have extensive knowledge of herbal medicine....

Please give us your opinion on the agents used in the Hoxsey regimen--which the kid wants to continue, in lieu of conventional medicine.

The Hoxsey herbal treatment is a regimen that includes an herbal mixture in two different forms - one for internal use and another for external use. The “brown tonic” (to be taken by mouth) has different components depending on the patient’s situation, but some herbs are used more commonly than others. The pastes or salves that are applied externally may contain antimony trisulfide, zinc chloride, and blood root, and a yellow powder consisting of arsenic sulfide, sulfur, and talc. Both the paste and powder are caustic, which means they can burn the skin (see Cancer Salves).....

The herbal mixture used internally is a liquid that contains a combination of supplements and herbs which may include pokeweed, burdock root, licorice, barberry, buckthorn bark, stillingia root, red clover, prickly ash bark, potassium iodide, and cascara and sometimes other ingredients (see Pokeweed, Licorice, and Red Clover). The components depend on when it was made, who it was made for, and the clinic in which is was made. The external preparation, usually a paste or salve, is rubbed directly onto tumors. Internal and external dosages vary depending on the patient and whether the tumor is inside the body or on the skin.

www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Hoxsey_Herbal_Treatment.asp?sitearea=ETO

This is not a pro-Hoxsey site, so you may wish to provide "alternative" evidence. Remember--anecdotal stories don't count.

[BuddhaGirl]

50. where did I say I was an expert on herbalism?

I am not an expert so I am not familiar with the Hoxey treatment. I do use herbs and supplements, as does my husband. They work for us and I have seen them work for others. That is our preferred route when either of us feels sick. I haven't been to a doctor in years, haven't needed to. I am not against doctors, but I want a CHOICE and I believe others should have a CHOICE when it comes to choosing their treatment.

[Kailassa]

54. We stand together, BuddhaGirl.

I disagree with his choice, and I would influence him to chance it if I could.
But it's his body, his choice, and I believe it's worse for the state to be able to remove out choices and dictate medical treatment than it is for a 16 year old to be free to refuse the treatment most likely to cure him.

[iverglas]

57. well that's interesting

You know absolutely nothing about the "treatment" that the parents wish to obtain for their child, but you advocate that they be permitted to refuse a known, highly-successful real treatment in favour of this "treatment" that you know absolutely nothing about.

So apparently it isn't just *this* instance in which the big bad authoritarian state should not intervene. I can only conclude that you would also say that parents must be permitted to "treat" their child's ruptured appendix with pig dung poultices, because to interfere would be authoritarian. At least, if the kid agrees with them.

Now, where exactly do the child's interests come into this?

[iverglas]

45. ah, the "authoritarian state"

That same authoritarian state that prohibits child labour, and mandates that children receive an education. The authoritarian state that would step in if it discovered that the parents had chosen to starve their child to death or beat him black and blue.

The "authoritarian state" that consists of you and your neighbours (and the institutions you have established for your common welfare), who presumably have a decent concern for the welfare of vulnerable members of your society.

Damn that authoritarian state.


You know, one really can agree to disagree on whether a particular course of action is proper, without levelling allegations of authoritarianism against those with whom you disagree, and without sounding quite so foolish.

[BuddhaGirl]

51. Yes, the state is being authoritarian in this case.

The family should have a choice of treatment.

All my opinion, as it is all your opinion. :-)

[iverglas]

56. yeah, but isn't it funny

All my opinion, as it is all your opinion.

... how some opinions are worthy of consideration, and some aren't?

The ones that come with nothing at all to demonstrate that they're based on anything that would make them reasonable tend to fall into the latter category.

[BuddhaGirl]

79. your choice to believe that

how high and mighty of you :-)

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

37. Wrong

LiberalHeart's Doctor supported an alternative MEDICAL choice that is also an accepted treatment choice.

His/Her Doctor did not support stopping all treatment in favor of a broth of weeds and seeds. A broth who's inventor by the way abandoned the very treatment he "invented."

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

36. Don't like the odds

The parents don't like a 90% success rate with kids his age and this chemo.

Wow, they are really hard to please aren't they.

Your kid doesn't want to go to the dentist b/c it makes his teeth hurt when they clean them or drill them, does he still have to go?

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

33. " Treatment With a Less Successful Rate"

That is a unique way to put it.

[Lance_Boyle]

20. all fine and well, judge.

but make sure those "parents" are on the hook for willful neglect/child abuse once the poor kid dies.

[saddemocrat]

31. Exactly!

[mopinko]

39. child abuse!

just plain child abuse. they think this kid feels bad from the chemo. wait until they watch him die from cancer. will they accept conventional medicine then? or will they deny him good palliative care, also?
this is a pet peeve of mine, having watched a niece of die from having her cancer treated with brown rice and shark cartilage. these charlatans should rot in the worst prison.

[Kailassa]

40. When I was 21, I was diagnosed with cervical cancer.

I refused all treatment, and took myself home from the hospital as soon as I'd recovered from the toxic shock syndrome that was how I landed there.

I'm not religious, but I had an extremely strong feeling that I was going to be fine as long as I had no treatment. I also had nobody to look after my daughter while I had treatment, and no way to keep paying my rent if I was not working. At the time I was on my own with a baby girl, struggling to both work and study, and our food was porridge, home made whole-grain sour-dough bread, the scraps that the greengrocers were throwing out and the edible weeds I could find. Every few hours I'd be doubled over with pain inside, but I'd had a rough country upbringing, so the moment the pain stopped I'd forget it and get back to work.

I got better. No drama to it, I was too busy with other things to even notice. At the time the treatment for cervical cancer was not particularly successful, but I didn't know that back then. And if I'd looked at the survival statistics they'd have most likely frightened me to death. After a hysterectomy 15 years later the scar tissue stoped causing problems and I had no more pain.

I suspect the family genes had something to do with it, as none of my relatives have ever even had cancer. My mother had been given a drug during pregnancy that tends to give the daughters cervical cancer, which explains how I got it.

My point is, not everyone needs medical treatment. Even if it works for the majority, for some it is not the right option. And that is particularly true for people who feel a deep horror of going through a particular treatment. Your mind does affect your body, and the faith or fear you feel toward your treatment will have a big influence on how it affects you.

Death is always waiting around the corner, few of up can predict how or when. But the one thing that we do know is that everyone dies sometime, and if fear of the inevitable removes our freedom to choose, we may as well be dead already.

[saddemocrat]

42. The question though

is whether or not you did have cervical cancer. Being sick with toxic shock syndrome can cause cell dysplasia of the cervix. There are times when a patient is diagnosed with something and then after further testing it turns out to be not true.

Just as your story indicates a *success*, my good friend here was diagnosed with cervical cancer and was afraid of the treatement...and it spread to her uterus and part of her vagina. She had to have a complete hysterectomy as well as removal of part of the vagina...and she isn't even 40.

She has 4 children....had she not had the surgery, she'd have metastatic disease by now.

Of course death is waiting around the corner...but honestly, if you can live a few more years with family/friends wouldn't you do everything in your power to make that happen?

What if your cervical cancer had indeed taken over your body and left your duaghter without a mother? Who would have taken care of her then? I, personally, would error on the side of caution.

[Kailassa]

43. For myself, I did not have a choice, if I wanted to keep my baby.

In those days, early 70s, the government was very eager to remove babies from single mothers, and once they did, the child would purposefully be moved around and "lost" in the system, and even adopted out, under the lie that's its mother had died. And I absolutely had no-one to leave her with, as my own family were child abusers and I was a loner with aspergers.

My belief at the time was that I didn't really have anything wrong, that the doctors were making it up because they wanted people to experiment on. The doctor who broke the news to me had already very excitedly taken out my appendix, and pronounced it absolutely healthy. He was delighted to be allowed to do the opperation on his own, because he'd never even observed one before. I'm a bit of a fatalist, so I calmly wished hom luck, and assured him he'd be fine.

However, when I kept refusing treatment because I believed I didn't have cancer, they frustratedly did 3 more tests, and showed me the results to prove it to me. And years later it was discovered that a drug my mother had during pregnancy tends to cause it in daughters. Anyway, I'm not arguing with your suggestion that it may have been just dysplasia, I'm just trying to put the facts together to work it out for myself.

If it was up to me to advise anyone on treatment, I would want to know the success rates first. And then I would be strongly encouraging anyone to have the treatment with the highest success rate. If the best treatment was medical and they refused it however, I would support them in whatever choice they made. If I knew this boy or his parents, and was in a position to influence them, I'd be advising them to have regular medical treatment. But I would not stop respecting them just because they chose a treament I disagree with.

I have worked for years as a clinical masseuse and a "last resort" healer, and won the respect of good doctors in my area. They know I refuse to treat anyone who would have a better chance of survival with conventional treatment, because, even though I respect their choice, I will not, as a professional, do anything that may make people less likely to seek useful medical help. In return, they send me patients who can benefit from what I do and some see me regularly themselves. And I surprised one surgeon by diagnosing, and curing, his hernia. ;-)

[saddemocrat]

44. I respect your position...

Here is my quandry. This 16 year old has a 95%+ chance of cure with traditional chemotherapy but no proven cure rate or even remission with the non-traditional treatment he is undergoing for his Hodgkin's disease. The Hodgkins that he has is also highly aggressive and the likelihood is much greater than he will die with non-traditional treatment.

You said that you, personally would refuse to treat anyone with a better chance of survival with conventional treatment...which means you would not treat him. You would realize that this child has a chance of cure with traditional medicine. The parents (as his legal protectors) should be doing everything possible to see that he is indeed cured.

I have no problem with alternative medicine and I do think that it has its place. I do have a problem with parents denying their child medical treatment that would save his life and with the quack who would suggest he could cure this deadly disease....He is taking advantage of the parents (and patient's) fear.

[Kailassa]

46. We don't know to what extent the parents are encouraging him,

and to what extent this is his own decision.

If he was my son and refused treatment, and I could not completely talk him into it, I would have tried to make a compromise. And the compromise I would have gone for would be that he put up with the first round of medical therapy, to get into a state of remission, and then he could make his own choice if it came back. As he has already done this, it could be that they did exactly that.

But then, I'm used to extrememly stubborn teenagers who would leave home and hide rather than have something forced on them. The tone of posts here suggests that most people are used to dealing with much more docile children.

I certainly wish them well, and hope that, some how, he does get better.

[saddemocrat]

48. He did not complete the first round of therapy.

[Kailassa]

52. Oh. :-( All we can do now is hope .

It's frustrating, when you know that this is one of the cancers which medicine is the most successful at treating.

[iverglas]

47. very, very true

I did have a pre-cancerous cervical condition (damned if I can remember or find the name; beyond dysplasia) some years ago, and had the colposcopy and, when lesions were found, the cone biopsy.

At my next Pap, the lab reported abnormal cells. My doctor was aware that the scar tissue from the biopsy could cause this result, asked for further consideration, and received confirmation that this was the situation. We now routinely make a notation on the lab requisition form that a biopsy has been done. For various reasons, false positive results do occur. We have no idea how the cervical cancer in this particular case was even diagnosed.

When considering whether to accept recommended treatment for a diagnosed medical problem, I would no more consider someone's anecdote about successfully ignoring a problem that was allegedly diagnosed years ago, about which I have no actual facts at all, than I would consider someone's anecdote about visiting Benny Hinn.

[Kailassa]

49. I agree, One example proves little.

Firstly, the first was just a smear test, the next ones were cone biopsies.

Secondly, I would advise anyone who has a cancer that medicine has a reasonably chance of healing to get it treated medically. The choices I'd advise would be to find the doctor and hospital that seemed to be best, and to work on nutrition and happiness to enable them to best cope with that treatment.

All my story was for was to illustrate that there are a few exceptions to every rule, we are not all the same. Because I was an odd little loner who had to do things her own way, I don't judge others who make seemingly odd choices.

[iverglas]

58. eh?

Firstly, the first was just a smear test, the next ones were cone biopsies.

You're saying you had a cone biopsy??

In my case, the colposcopy (microscopic examination of cervix, removal of visible lesions) found lesions.

The cone biopsy was recommended to remove the entire area where other such lesions might be located, which could foreseeably develop into cancer.

No further lesions were found in the tissue that was removed from my cervix. Presumably, if I had *not* had the cone biopsy, I would have been perfectly fine forever.

It would seem to me to be quite a reasonable conclusion that the cone biopsy you had was successful in removing the problematic tissue in your cervix, just as the colposcopy was in my case.

That would seem more reasonable to me than mind-over-cancer, in any event.

And if my hypothesis were true (which we really have no way of knowing), it would mean that your tale of successfully beating cancer without medical intervention, well, isn't a tale of successfully beating cancer without medical intervention. It would be a tale of you declining the recommended precautionary treatment and winning the bet that it wasn't needed -- just as I probably would have, had I refused the cone biopsy.

That's gambling; that's not choosing an alternative treatment or an alternative to treatment.

Some people might well choose to gamble with their lives. I will be forever unpersuaded that anyone should be permitted to gamble with someone else's life, particularly when the odds of successful treatment are high and the odds that there has been a mistaken diagnosis or that the disease actually needs no further treatment are low, regardless of what the gamblers' relationship to the person whose life their staking may be.

[Kailassa]

62. You are making me laugh by opening my eyes to something.

I had wondered at the doctors patiently testing me over and over again to prove something to me.

I bet you're right, and, to get around me refusing treatment, they were telling me they just wanted to do one more test to prove what was going on, and then one more, and then one more ...

But as a by-the-way, some people do get better spontaneously, and scientists are investigating the relationship between certain genes and longevity. Possessing certain genes makes on much more likely to have a long life with robust health, and to recover from illnesses. As my relatives who have died have mostly made it past a hundred, and I've always recovered fast from things, I assume I'm one of the lucky ones.

However knowing that some people can smoke all their lives does not lead a sane person to recommend smoking, and in the same way, I am not recommending anyone avoid medical help for something like Hodgekins.

[bleedingheart]

53. If the kid and the parents are in agreement, why not let them be

I want to state first that I think that the kid's chances of survival without treatment are poor.

My mother's first husband died after having Hodgkins in 1956...when he was diagnosed it was a death sentence and they even went to the famed clinics for treatment... 50 years later it is the most curable of cancers...

Now if this kid had some virulent and insidious form of cancer...I would begin to think of it as a mixed bag...after watching a PBS special on kids with cancer "A Lion in the House"...in some cases the treatments are just brutal and leave the kids impaired. The most painful scene for me was seeing this one 20 year old beat his cancer be end up paralyzed and further impaired...is that okay?

[onenote]

59. if parents and child agreed that a kid with a bleeding artery

should be treated with sprinkings of kool aid and the singing of "healing" songs, would you agree that they should be allowed to let him bleed to death? I hope not.

[bleedingheart]

61. while I understand the tragedy here....it also means that the state

has more control over your family than you do....

There is no law that says you have to go for a doctor's visit. None... There are many children in this nation who because of lack of healthcare insurance have never been for a "baby well" visit...their only doctor's visits...if they go are for when they are severely ill.

Same goes for adults.. no laws governing pap smears, prostate exams and other things that would make our lives better.

The situation this child is in is sad and can end tragically, but...if we step in here...where else do we step in??? Add to this that this kid is 16, he isn't a 6 month old his parents are praying over to get rid of strep throat. At 16, he is very aware of the risks he is taking.

Personally I would rather see our efforts directed to something like a national healthcare program so that people who need and want treatment can get it.

I do want to state that I don't agree with the parents or the kid, but this is a "free" country..

[onenote]

64. this is a "free" country, but also is a country of "laws"

And the law treats a 16 year old as incompetent to make certain decisions, enter into certain agreements. Is there any doubt that if this kid's parents wanted him to get the conventional, proven treatment for his disease, but he objected because he would rather have it treated by playing video games all day, a court (assuming that he could find someone to bring an action on his behalf) would rule in favor of the parents. In other words, the kid's views don't count for anything. And where the parents views are harmful to the kid (as would be the case if they let a child bleed to death or starved a child etc), those views don't count either. The state is permitted, and indeed has a responsibility, to step in to protect the kid against the poor judgment of his family.

[iverglas]

67. when did children become chattel?

I can tell you 'round about when they *stopped* being chattel, but I wasn't aware they'd come full circle.

There is no law that says you have to go for a doctor's visit.

Nope. There are no laws that say that adults have to go to the doctor, or accept treatment. (Unless, of course, they have a horrible infectious disease, in which case they may have the option of accepting treatment or being confined, but they still can't be forced to accept treatment.)

Is that what we're talking about here? I don't think so. We're talking about someone making decisions for someone else.

Children are human beings. Children have human rights. Children are, obviously, not always capable of exercising their own rights. Parents are regarded as being, usually, in the best position to exercise children's rights for them.

Parents may not exercise children's rights in a way that is seriously harmful to the child. Really. An adult may choose to jump off a bridge. A parent may *not* choose for his/her child to jump off a bridge. An adult may choose to live in a closet. A parent may *not* choose for his/her child to live in a closet. An adult may choose to chop a hand off. A parent may *not* choose for his/her child to chop a hand off. An adult may choose to take a lethal overdose of drugs. A parent may *not* choose for his/her child to take a lethal overdose of drugs.

Is refusing medical treatment analogous to any of those things? In some cases, yes it is. The debate is properly about when a parent's choices may be overridden, *not* about whether they may be overridden.

That is:

The situation this child is in is sad and can end tragically, but...if we step in here...where else do we step in???

-- how about when a child has been locked in a closet for weeks, or starved, or beaten black and blue? Then?

When a child is not allowed to go to the movies with his/her friends? denied a popsicle? smacked on the hand? Probably not then.

But isn't there just a whole lot of space between the two ends of those continuums? Would you say the state has more authority over your family than you do as if that were a bad thing if the state stepped in to stop your neighbours from beating their child black and blue? If not, why is it a useful thing to say in this situation?

"The state" is you and your neighbours and the institutions you have established to provide for your common welfare -- that little phrase used in the US constitution, after all. The state really is not some monster that sprang full-blown from a burning Bush.

Personally I would rather see our efforts directed to something like a national healthcare program so that people who need and want treatment can get it.

And I'm with you on doing that, and where I'm at, in Canada, we have exactly that. Arguments (and litigation) up here are over whether the state must pay thousands of dollars a month to provide autistic children with debated therapy after the several years for which when it is now provided. I'm sure you'd give your right arm to have problems like that. It simply is not a binary choice, though.

Often, carrots do work better than sticks. Threatening pregnant women with jail if they "supply" drugs to their fetuses is likely to result in fewer pregnant women with drug problems seeking help, and unlikely to stop any from using drugs.

But that consideration doesn't really apply here. This is a case in which the child is not being denied health care by anyone but his parents. (Leaving aside the entire issue of when a child becomes competent to make his/her own decisions -- in any event, a 16-yr-old may very well not have had the time/opportunity to be exposed to views other than his parents' and consider them maturely.)

Parents in Canada, where the treatment would be provided at absolutely no out-of-pocket expense, and where the child could have had excellent medical care since birth, might still make decisions like this. And their children would still need to be protected against their stupidity/malice. "The state" -- we -- have that duty to children.

[bleedingheart]

69. You are really over reaching and making assumptions.

I am strictly speaking with regard to medical care because this case is about medical care.

From the article...

"After three months of chemotherapy last year made him nauseated and weak, Abraham rejected doctors' recommendations to go through a second round when he learned early this year that his Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymph nodes, was active again. " ....this article appears to make it look as if it is this young man's decision.

As for my statements regarding the refusal of medical treatment, I am not sure what the laws are in different states but there are states that allow people of certain faiths a great deal of leeway when it comes to their right to refuse treatment even in the treatment of their kids. This kid is 16, he isn't 6. He is old enough in some states to be tried as an adult for crimes, become a father, drive a car, and even pick out his classes in high school based on what he wants to do with his life...

This isn't about child abuse which there are strict laws about.

As for his parents influence over him, there are 40 year olds who still hold the values that their parents instilled in them...whether we agree with those values or not....do we then rule that a 40 year old Jehovah's witness shouldn't be allowed to die of blood loss because his faith is irrational or that he is just a victim of his upbringing....

To be honest, there aren't many cases like this one here in the US. There are however many cases of people who can't get care because our callous government doesn't provide healthcare for you unless you can provide it for yourself or if you are poor. There are many people in the "middle" who are walking around with cancerous lesions and heart problems that can't get help and they die and no one covers those stories.

I know of one young woman who has some health problems and she is waiting to get help when she finally gets a job with healthcare.

[iverglas]

73. now, if you could make a meaningful distinction ...

... between "child abuse" resulting in serious harm to a child, or the child's death, and denial of medical care resulting in serious harm to a child, or the child's death, we'd have something to talk about.

I am not sure what the laws are in different states but there are states that allow people of certain faiths a great deal of leeway when it comes to their right to refuse treatment even in the treatment of their kids. ... This isn't about child abuse which there are strict laws about.

See the problem there at all?

Kill your kid by denying him/her antibiotics, get off scot free. Kill your kid by denying him/her food, get convicted of homicide. Hmmmm.

My mother's eldest brother died at 18 months, in the early 1920s, of strep throat. I've been researching family history, and discovered things like the fact that my gr-grandfather had at least three siblings who died in infancy or early childhood -- those just being the ones who happened to be alive in the every-10-year censuses, and dead by the next one; there were undoubtedly more who didn't make it to a census. At least one of his siblings, and his first wife and daughter and niece, died of tuberculosis before they were 25; I don't know yet what his own two died-in-infancy daughters died of.

Those diseases are all 100% treatable now, and yet there are parents who would deny their children the treatments, and others who would apparently stand by while the parents killed their children this way. Were my grandmother, who could do nothing but sing to her baby as he spent two weeks dying a painful death, alive now, I think she'd have something to say about, and to, parents like that.

And I'd be cheering her on.

Children are human beings. They aren't science experiments or religious martyrs. No one is unless s/he chooses to be, and children are not capable of making those choices. No one who advocates letting parents making those choices for them can claim to have any respect for human rights.


There are however many cases of people who can't get care because our callous government doesn't provide healthcare for you unless you can provide it for yourself or if you are poor. There are many people in the "middle" who are walking around with cancerous lesions and heart problems that can't get help and they die and no one covers those stories.

I AGREE with everything you say about this situation, and with every finger of blame you level at everyone responsible for it and for the way that the facts are hidden away and brushed off.

Health care IS a basic human right. And that's exactly why in the rare cases when parents try to deny it to their children even though it is available, the state must intervene.

The two things simply are not mutually exclusive.

[bleedingheart]

75. Well I have been very close to being in that situation myself

one of my children was born prematurely.

While she was very sick, it was made very clear to us what the risks were. My husband and I made the decision that while we would have our child treated, we would not let them experiment on our child just to "save a life" and leave her no quality of life. Every stage of our child's treatment was reassessed to see what was going on. We made it very clear what the doctors could and could not do.

We were very lucky, our child survived and is healthy but there were parents whose children were experimented upon and the results in some cases were heartbreaking.

Now based on what you are stating, you probably think we were callous individuals, however we had out child's best interests in mind. Do you think the state had more rights than we did?

[iverglas]

76. gee, I'm a big bad monster

Now based on what you are stating, you probably think we were callous individuals, however we had out child's best interests in mind.

I guess maybe you hadn't read my other post:

*If* the treatment being proposed were not very likely to cure his disease, and *if* it were also very likely to make him sick and in pain and miserable for the time he has left, then his wishes should indeed be taken into consideration. Just as children's wishes are taken into consideration in custody cases, where there one choice is not clearly more in the child's interests than another. None of that seems to be the case here.

... or, like, you had some other reason for making that baseless allegation.

I'm perfectly aware that in many instances, extreme premature birth IS one of those cases. It is a CLASSIC EXAMPLE of one of those cases. The "treatment" given to extremely premature babies is often the CAUSE of problems like severe, painful, lifelong cerebral palsy and blindness. *I* would probably decline such treatment for a child of mine in those circumstances, and I would expect to be permitted to do so -- and I would also expect that there would be sound medical opinion supporting my choice, and that no one's fear of civil actions for wrongful death would be allowed to override a decision that was, in my opinion and in many doctors' and many other people's opinion, in my child's best interests.

I'm also aware that many people have a hard time distinguishing between themselves and the rest of the world. This case isn't about your child or your choices. It's about someone and something that is entirely different and very much UNLIKE your child's situation and your choices.

Intervening in a case in which parents are quite plainly acting contrary to their child's interests, as those interests are defined by our society, is not the first step on some slippery slope down to intervening in cases where parents don't want their children go to skiing in avalanche country.

Do you think the state had more rights than we did?

The state doesn't have ANY RIGHTS.

THE CHILD has rights. The question is whether the parents or the state is most likely to protect those rights.

[iverglas]

68. and some learnèd opinion about the role of the state

This article is about religious exemption from the duty to provide medical care, but some of it is nonetheless on point.

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/6-14-2005-71580.asp
(my emphasis)

... But parents do not have an unfettered right to act in ways that harm their children, even if they are acting on religious beliefs. It is now well settled that religious motivation is no defense to illegal conduct. In addition, the Supreme Court has explained that children have rights independent of their parents:

Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow that they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves.

The preeminent right is the right to live, so the exemptions do raise some interesting constitutional questions whether a child might well have a constitutional (as well as a statutory) right to receive medical treatment despite the parents' beliefs. At the very least, the Constitution does not prohibit the states from mandating medical treatment for seriously ill children of faith-healing parents. The religious entities' capacity to avoid the child-welfare laws is derived from their political power and moxie, not any constitutional right.

In another case that this one is being compared to:

While the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not endorse faith healing alone, some adherents disfavor medical treatment. During the fall of 2003, a drama began in the state of Utah involving Mormon parents, and their 12-year-old son, Parker Jensen, who was diagnosed with Ewing's sarcoma, which is a lethal cancer. Doctors recommended chemotherapy, and gave him a 70 percent chance of surviving with the treatment, and only 20 percent without it. His parents, Daren and Barbara Jensen, refused the treatment, saying he did not have cancer and several days later asserted that the treatment would make him sterile and impede his growth. They fled Utah and were wanted for kidnapping, but when they voluntarily returned, the state announced it would not seek custody of the boy for medical purposes, because the Jensens agreed to abide by the recommendations of an oncologist. When the state backed out of the picture, and the oncologist recommended nearly a year of chemotherapy and a bone marrow test, they once again asserted the cancer did not exist and refused to follow the doctor's recommendation. The Utah legislature has responded to the drama by pursuing a bill that would increase parents' rights to deny medical treatment to their children.

Hmm; how exactly will a dead kid go about challenging that violation of his/her fundamental human right to life?

[bleedingheart]

70. did you read the article?

the kid is refusing treatment... granted his parents may agree...but he is refusing treatment.

What if this kid "goes along"...but then flushes the pills he receives down the toilet and/or does other things to impede his treatment?

Once again...the law does allow for cases to be examined on a case by case basis...there are shades of gray in the law.

[iverglas]

72. uh ... yes

What if this kid "goes along"...but then flushes the pills he receives down the toilet and/or does other things to impede his treatment?

Well ... that's why there are child welfare agencies. To ensure that what is in the interests of the child's welfare gets done. No? And yes, it really could come to restraining the child and tube-feeding him, if he decided to hunger strike or wrist slit or something. If you asked me, I'd say that if a child was facing a 91% chance of survival in return for temporary discomfort vs. a very high likelihood of a rather horrible death and chose to resist treatment to that extent, s/he would be demonstrating his/her incompetence to make such important decisions rather clearly.

When this child reaches the age of legal competence, he may choose to off himself, if that's what he wants to do then.

*If* the treatment being proposed were not very likely to cure his disease, and *if* it were also very likely to make him sick and in pain and miserable for the time he has left, then his wishes should indeed be taken into consideration. Just as children's wishes are taken into consideration in custody cases, where there one choice is not clearly more in the child's interests than another.

None of that seems to be the case here.

[bleedingheart]

63. I just checked the PBS link and that 20 year old died...

he was actually 19..(I had the age wrong)....actually the entire link made me so sad...so many kids died that I had hoped would survive....

[iverglas]

55. "In a similar case last year, ..."

... the parents of 13-year-old Hodgkin's disease patient Katie Wernecke won the right in November to make all her medical decisions after a court fight with Texas child welfare officials. Doctors had recommended chemotherapy and radiation; her father favored a program of intravenous vitamin C.

(from the article quoted in the opening post)

http://quackfiles.blogspot.com/2005/06/hodgkins-returns-to-girl-whose-parents.html

New York Times
June 11, 2005

Hodgkin's Returns to Girl Whose Parents Fought State

... 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.

... Last week, Mrs. Wernecke absconded with Katie to forestall the radiation treatments that the parents - and Katie herself, in a family video - said risked doing her more harm than good, because her cancer was in remission.

Hmmm:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44683

The family maintains a blog entitled Pray for Katie on which her parents claim she is being used in a research project.

Common threads ...

[LanternWaste]

60. Dad, Mom & Judges know a LOT more about medicine

Dad, Mom & Judges know a LOT more about medicine than silly doctors do...

:sarcasm:

[Posteritatis]

65. Judge Sentences Minor To Slow Death (n/t)

[Midlodemocrat]

66. I think they are making a huge mistake, but it is their choice.

Hodgkins is extremely curable with proven protocol. It is my understanding from what I have seen on the news here and read that this boy didn't finish his first round of chemo because he didn't like how it made him 'feel'.

Seeing my dear SIL in the last stage of cancer was pretty painful and I don't think he has any idea what he is up against when the cancer starts to kill him.

The protocol for treating this disease is essentially the same nationwide. And it works.

[bleedingheart]

71. I agree with you...

I have seen people survive cancers that would have killed others.

I have also seen my cousin, uncle, and a grandparent suffer through treatment after treatment and die in pain as well.

[Nutmegger]

74. Their choice.

Everyone has a damn opinion on this...

I don't. As long as they are free to make a decision(s), it's none of my damn business.

I know what I'd be saying.....BUTT OUT!