Quote:

---

Judge Orders Teen to Have Cancer Treatment
By SONJA BARISIC, AP

NORFOLK, Virginia (July 22) - A judge ruled Friday that a 16-year-old boy fighting to use alternative treatment for his cancer must report to a hospital by Tuesday and accept treatment that doctors deem necessary, the family's attorney said.

The judge also found Starchild Abraham Cherrix's parents were neglectful for allowing him to pursue alternative treatment of a sugar-free, organic diet and herbal supplements supervised by a clinic in Mexico, lawyer John Stepanovich said.

Jay and Rose Cherrix of Chincoteague on Virginia's Eastern Shore must continue to share custody of their son with the Accomack County Department of Social Services, as the judge had previously ordered, Stepanovich said.

The parents were devastated by the new order and planned to appeal, the lawyer said.

Stepanovich said he will ask a higher court on Monday to stay enforcement of the order, which requires the parents to take Abraham to Children's Hospital of the King's Daughters in Norfolk and to give the oncologist their written legal consent to treat their son for Hodgkin's disease.

"I want to caution all parents of Virginia: Look out, because Social Services may be pounding on your door next when they disagree with the decision you've made about the health care of your child," Stepanovich said.

Phone calls to the Cherrix home went unanswered.

The lawyer declined to release the ruling, saying juvenile court Judge Jesse E. Demps has sealed much of the case.

Social Services officials have declined to comment, citing privacy laws. 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.

A social worker then asked a judge to require the teen to continue conventional treatment. In May, the judge issued a temporary order finding Abraham's parents neglectful and awarding partial custody to the county, with Abraham continuing to live at home with his four siblings.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/4064116.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Guywhowantsafireflyofhisown:
and how would you feel if it was your child?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Caveat Emptor indeed... folks should be allowed to make their own choices even if the rest of us do not agree, period.

---

Quote:

---

The state has no right, as I see it, to intervene here, from what I understand of the issue.

---

Quote:

---

What's the point of having a right if the state can take it away from you as soon as you try to exercise it?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
At this point I have not seen any evidence that what the parents were opting for was any more effective than chemo. Yes, chemo is rugged but the remission rate for childhood cancer is going up, not down, and cancers that were death sentences 15 years ago have remission rates of >80% today.

---

Quote:

---

Where is the line between "a reasonable difference of opinion on what is the best course of action" and "only crazy people think that suffocating a child will cure their ADD"?

---

Quote:

---

Informed consent is more than simply getting a patient to sign a written consent form. It is a process of communication between a patient and physician that results in the patient's authorization or agreement to undergo a specific medical intervention...This communications process, or a variation thereof, is both an ethical obligation and a legal requirement spelled out in statutes and case law in all 50 states.
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/4608.html

---

Quote:

---

"Many now regard traditional practices based on the theory that 'doctor knows best' as unacceptably paternalistic. Society recognizes that patients or their surrogates have a right to decide, in consultation with their physicians, which proposed medical interventions they will or will not accept."
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/pediatrics;9
5/2/314

---

Quote:

---

A 16 year old can hold a full time job, travel outside the country, drive a car, and have full responsibility for someone’s children while baby sitting. A 16 year old can even be tried as an adult for murder.

But if you are 16, you have no right to say what type of treatment is forced upon you by the medical system, even if your parents support your right to refuse. Cherrix explained to the press, "This is my body that I'm supposed to take care of. I should have the right to tell someone what I want to do with this body. I studied. I did research. I came to this conclusion that the chemotherapy was not the route I wanted to take."[3] His maturity carried no weight in the court of law and held no authority with the medical judge, his doctor.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Tenpenny/sherri10.htm

---

Quote:

---

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. . .
9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/313/7070/1448

---

Quote:

---

Frem- what makes you think that this cancer clinic in Mexico has anything in mind other than making money? Why do you suppose the Mexican medical establishment is any better than the USA medical establishment (other than being overall cheaper)? Remember, Steve McQueen died of laetrile from a cancer clinic in Mexico.

---

Quote:

---

the "alternative" medicine industry (and it is an industry) is largely frauds and charlatans, giving out false hope to the gullible and those with no chances left.

Frem - how were you written by the doctors? Did they pronounce you dead? Twice?

---

Quote:

---

We are talking about a parent’s right to make a rational determination for what is best for their child and a 16 year old boy’s right not to undergo a painful medical procedure with a questionable result. Essentially, if you want to look at this way, a right to die.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SimonWho:
My mother dragged me to a homeopath (to treat my spots which eventually healed on their own). He said I was allergic to milk. ...

Instead I wanted a second opinion - from a different homeopath. He did the same tests on me as the first one. This time, I was "allergic" to wheat, pepper, onions, yeast and a whole heap more. He went through the list then asked if I had any questions. "Am I allergic to milk?" "No, you're fine with milk."

That was my last visit to a homeopath and indeed almost certainly my last visit to any quack medicine.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Parents don't "own" their children and they aren't allowed to do whatever the hell they want with them

---

Quote:

---

We aren’t talking about parents inflicting some deadly or dangerous ‘witchmagic’ on their son.

---

Quote:

---

We are talking about a parent’s right to make a rational determination for what is best for their child and a 16 year old boy’s right not to undergo a painful medical procedure with a questionable result. Essentially, if you want to look at this way, a right to die.- Finn

---

Quote:

---

Approximately 75 percent of patients diagnosed with Hodgkin's disease and 30 to 50 percent of patients diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma can be cured with radiation and/or standard-dose chemotherapy. For those not cured, high dose chemotherapy, with or without radiation, followed by a bone marrow transplant (BMT) may provide a cure or prolong survival.

---

Quote:

---

I wouldn’t support the treatment of constipation with lead sulfate (especially since one of the symptoms of lead sulfate poisoning is constipation)

---

Quote:

---

but chemotherapy is not too far removed from that kind of thing. I guarantee, many chemotherapy drugs are just as dangerous as lead sulfate, and almost all of them have nasty side effects, some of which can be permanent. And incidentally, many chemo drugs are carcinogens, ironically. With multiple chemo courses the likelihood of contracting leukemia from the chemo drugs goes up. And quite a few of them cause constipation as well. And yes, we’ve see dramatic increases in remission rates and theirs no doubt that progress is being made, but chemotherapy and radiation treatment are still essentially witchmagic. They aren’t cures and they never will be.

---

Quote:

---

The absolute ONLY reason we use them is because cancer is fatal and we have no clue what else to do. We look back at more primitive times and view with disgust the kinds of supposed cures that often caused more damage then the disease simply because people just did not know what else to do, and I’m pretty sure that 200 years from now people will look back at present day Oncology with similar disgust.

---

Quote:

---

I’m pretty sure there is no conclusive evidence that the parents’ option is any more effective then chemotherapy, but I’m also fairly sure, given what I know of it, that it will be far more comfortable. Given the questionable and painful nature of many cancer treatments, it is very likely that it is the better option based on what the patient expects to gain. Now as it turns out the particular type of cancer that this boy has is one that is often treated successfully, but after the first treatment has failed the likelihood of remission decreases and the second is often a lot rougher.

---

Quote:

---

I’m curious. In the Terry Schiavo case, you were one of those who wanted to see Mrs. Schiavo euthanized because you believed she or rather her husband (as her guardian) had a right to decide her fate in terms of medical care, despite the fact that Terry Schiavo could not pronounce her opinion on the matter. Yet, in this case you seem to be opposed to that same right, even though the person in question is capable and has pronounced his opinion not to seek conventional medical treatment.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
Thus, he cannot claim freedom from compulsory vaccination for the child more than for himself on religious grounds.

---

Quote:

---

. . .the state has a wide range of power for limiting parental freedom and authority in things affecting the child's welfare, and that this includes, to some extent, matters of conscience and religious conviction."- From Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 US 158 (1944).

---

Quote:

---

Yes, obviously, to some extent. "God told me not to feed my child" doesn't deserve religious freedom protections. The outcome of not feeding a child is certain to cause a child harm. But ..."God told me not to give my child chemo" is a different story.

---

Quote:

---

The outcome of harm is not certain. There are ... kids who survived cancer without chemo.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:


And yes, we’ve see dramatic increases in remission rates and theirs no doubt that progress is being made, but chemotherapy and radiation treatment are still essentially witchmagic. They aren’t cures and they never will be. The absolute ONLY reason we use them is because cancer is fatal and we have no clue what else to do.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
So. Anyone have opinions on whether the State should have any say-so in other parental decisions regarding a child's health and safety?

---

Quote:

---

I think it also depends richly on the Doctor, many are competant, some are brilliant, but a signifgant number are dopes, or plain burned out.

---

Quote:

---

I've also had chemo play a part in my family's healthcare (or lack thereof), seen the effects firsthand, and with minor exceptions, I'd have nothing to do with it myself.

---

Quote:

---

Whenever the State tries to play a significant preventative role, it invariably becomes authoritarian and oppressive. Sci-fi and futuristic literature and media are full of such scenarios, including our own beloved Serenity and Firefly. It can't approve and disapprove of citizen choices, and still pretend to protect self-determination and freedom. Prevention control = authoritarianism... people tend to be willing to risk unhappiness and death for the ability to be free and make mistakes

---

Quote:

---

And yes, we’ve see dramatic increases in remission rates and theirs no doubt that progress is being made, but chemotherapy and radiation treatment are still essentially witchmagic. They aren’t cures and they never will be. The absolute ONLY reason we use them is because cancer is fatal and we have no clue what else to do.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

What disturbs me about the responses in this thread is the fact that people are providing very blanket responses with very little knowledge of the actual case and in many cases very little knowledge of medicine.

There's a whole lot of misinformation "out there".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
... if the cancer is treated and never come back, a case could be made that the cancer is indeed 'cured'. You can't blanket claim 'cancer is fatal' and never is cured.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
... if the cancer is treated and never come back, a case could be made that the cancer is indeed 'cured'. You can't blanket claim 'cancer is fatal' and never is cured.

---

Technically speaking, cancer is never 'cured'; most of us get it constantly, our systems just control it, like taking out the garbage...
It's the days the trash-peeps don't come that we have the problems...

Strange analogies Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

What disturbs me about the responses in this thread is the fact that people are providing very blanket responses with very little knowledge of the actual case and in many cases very little knowledge of medicine... For example, the point that thimeroseal causes autism has been repeated ad nauseum w/o proof.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CaliforniaKaylee:
Not sure if this is directed at me specifically, but since I did mention vaccinations and autism, I thought I'd clarify. I personally don't believe that autism is caused by vaccinations, and I believe that in most cases, vaccinations are worth the risk -- and I say this as someone who cannot even get a flu shot, because of the way my immune system could react. That said, I am not a parent, and I haven't done any research into the possible link between vaccinations and autism. I brought it up because it is a mainstream controversial medical topic, and one in which both sides are fairly large and fairly loud. I wasn't advocating either way, just pointing out an instance where state can't necessarily side with the majority and call it done.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
My own opinion is that cancer treatments (like chemo and radiation) reduce the cancer, giving the body time to mount a response.

---

Quote:

---

But I like the story of the kid that envisioned his cancer cells as Tie-fighters, and his white and T-cells as X-wings; he won the battle with very limited chemo that way- much to the doctor's irritation at not being able to provide the full explanation, heh heh.
"This boy had a wonderful immune system, it seems."
Yeah, then how'd he get the problem in the first place?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CaliforniaKaylee:
So a person can have both an over-active immune system and cancer.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

But I like the story of the kid that envisioned his cancer cells as Tie-fighters, and his white and T-cells as X-wings; he won the battle with very limited chemo that way- much to the doctor's irritation at not being able to provide the full explanation, heh heh.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SimonWho:

Source please?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Can'ttakesky- To respond to your previous post, religious freedom is enshrined in the Constitution, medical freedom is not, but the FIRST freedom is the right to LIFE. hat is why murder is a crime. If parents deprive their child of the right to life through willful action or inaction where does that place them?

---