Posted on 06/10/2005 4:17:36 PM PDT by freepatriot32
CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas Medical tests today showed that cancer has returned to a 12-year-old girl whose parents were in court to fight radiation treatment because they believed her illness was in remission.
The new tests were revealed by state attorneys during a hearing that was supposed to determine whether treatment for Katie Wernecke was necessary in the days leading up to a custody hearing next Wednesday.
Texas Child Protective Services removed the girl and her siblings from the home of Michele and Edward Wernecke last week after doctors said discontinued treatment could be life-threatening.
Katie was diagnosed with Hodgkin's Disease in January, when her parents brought her to the hospital for pneumonia treatment.
The parents had insisted the four rounds of chemotherapy Katie received killed the cancer and that the recommended radiation therapy would only harm a healthy girl.
But Friday's results, "changes everything," said Daniel Horne, an attorney for the parents.
The judge decided that the girl, who was not present for the hearing, would remain in state custody.
He recommended that the girl's treatment begin tomorrow, her 13th birthday. The judge did not immediately address how involved he would let the parents be.
In Florida a few years ago, a boy in his early teens was taken into protective custody because he decided against further cancer treatment. He was dying and just wanted to go home. Eventually, the court agreed with him and let him go home to die.
This is an innacurate analogy. With the prescribed treatment regimen she would have a >95% chance of surviving. Stopping the treatment would ensure her death. Before radiation and chemotherapy were discovered Hodgkin's was invariably terminal.
The only alternative is to let the child die, and then try and fry the parents.
I don't think that's a good idea.
Bottom line: not treating the disease is a sure-fire death sentence for the child. The parents' withholding of treatment is a murder in progress, and any and all citizens have the right and duty to use any and all force necessary to prevent said murder. This, in turn, allows the government to intervene.
This is an innacurate analogy.
---
Did you read the whole thing? She hasn't even received the treatment for which she was kidnapped. She did the chemotherapy, she didn't do the radation and so was kindapped because the state erroneously believed she needed it to survive. Since in custody she hasn't had it.
It wasn't intended to be an anology, just another example.
Bottom line: not treating the disease is a sure-fire death sentence for the child. The parents' withholding of treatment is a murder in progress, and any and all citizens have the right and duty to use any and all force necessary to prevent said murder. This, in turn, allows the government to intervene.
---
This is not what happened. Read the link again. And even if it did I don't think government should be intervening.
"This is not what happened. Read the link again."
I read the link. That IS what happened. Hodgkins' disease is 100% fatal if untreated.
"And even if it did I don't think government should be intervening."
Why? Do you believe that a parent has a right to kill his or her children?
I read the link. That IS what happened. Hodgkins' disease is 100% fatal if untreated.
---
She was treated. No where is it said that her parents didn't want treatment for her.
They didn't want RADIATION treament for her, which, it turns out, isn't standard procedure, and infact, may even be more harmeful. They were not allowed to make that choice and their daughter was kindapped. She underwent chemo.
"Why? Do you believe that a parent has a right to kill his or her children?"
No, that is child abuse. But I don't think parents choosing what sort of medical proccedure to follow = killing their children. I think government forcing people to choose medical procedures, especially wrong ones, is a better definintion of killing because it is active and involuntary. But yes, parents should be allowed to choose 'wrong' medical treatments for their children because that is preferable to government telling us what the 'right' and 'wrong' treatments are.
Government does not exist to save lives, it exists to protect liberty.
It wasn't intended to be an anology, just another example.
She does need the radiation to survive, as combined radiation and chemotherapy are the therapy of choice for Hodgkin's. Her parents erroneously believed that she didn't need the radiation to survive. You need to read up on this. PET scans showed active cancer, and she received radiation treatment a few days after she was taken into foster care on her 13th birthday. Thanks to this intervention, it's likely she'll live to see her 14th.
I don't see what the point is in throwing out other examples that are so different from the case at hand that they are irrelevant.
Wrong. Radiation treatment is in fact the first-line treatment for Hodgkin's disease. Cases that are caught early enough can be cured by radiation treatment alone. More advanced cases require radiation plus chemotherapy.
She doesn't if her mother is going to deny her treatment she needs to beat the cancer
"They didn't want RADIATION treament for her, which, it turns out, isn't standard procedure, and infact, may even be more harmeful."
It is not "standard" in the sense that it is not used in every single case. However, this case apparently involved a later-stage or more aggressive variant of the disease, because (a) the attending doctors strongly recommended radiation therapy, and (b) the disease came back.
Score: doctors were right, stupid-a$$ parents were wrong.
"But yes, parents should be allowed to choose 'wrong' medical treatments for their children because that is preferable to government telling us what the 'right' and 'wrong' treatments are."
Okay, fine. In that case, the parents assume 100% of the responsibility for the outcome. If they choose the wrong treatment, and the kid dies as a direct result, then both parents get popped on Murder One and executed within ten days of the child's death.
"Government does not exist to save lives, it exists to protect liberty."
Including the liberty to murder your kids, I guess.
At that age, the girl is old enough to make her own decisions. I had cancer at the age of 15 and knew what I wanted to do.
She just turned 13. She's still a child. I would not trust a child that age to make the right decisions at that age.
She does need the radiation to survive, as combined radiation and chemotherapy are the therapy of choice for Hodgkin's.
---
This is why I asked if you had read my link. From US NEWS and world report by Bernadine Healy, M.D.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biz/interstitials/int.php?title=The%20Tyranny%20of%20Experts%20&pageURL=http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/050627/27healy.htm
"In Katie's case, the state mistakenly believed that the immediate radiation ordered by her doctor was a government-sanctioned and required treatment, part of the complete standard of care needed for her survival. Most pediatric oncologists would beg to differ."
It is not "standard" in the sense that it is not used in every single case. However, this case apparently involved a later-stage or more aggressive variant of the disease, because (a) the attending doctors strongly recommended radiation therapy, and (b) the disease came back.
---
Well then why would the USNews and world report doctor, who is a so-called 'expert' in this area and talked to other experts disagree? Do you want any doctor to have the power to kidnap children because the parents don't follow his advice? (see previous post for US NEWS article)
The fact that the disease came back is irrelavent because the state still hasn't forced her to undergo radiation, which is what they originally kidnapped her for.
Who decides what is the 'right' treatment? What if the state kidnaps someone to give the 'right' treatment, but in fact it's the wrong treatment and it kills you? Should the state get charged with murder?
This is why the US news and world report article ended with an attack on the 'Tyranny of standard care'. It is socialism and, infact, guarantees poor care.
There is no such thing as an 'expert'. Anybody can be an 'expert' in a certain area provided they approach logically and ask pertinent questions. A parent whose daughter has cancer can and should contradict their doctor IF THEY CHOOSE and if they think his/her advice is wrong.
"Well then why would the USNews and world report doctor, who is a so-called 'expert' in this area and talked to other experts disagree?"
Because he's an agenda-driven hack? Or is that too f***ing obvious an answer?
"Do you want any doctor to have the power to kidnap children because the parents don't follow his advice? (see previous post for US NEWS article)"
"The fact that the disease came back is irrelavent because the state still hasn't forced her to undergo radiation, which is what they originally kidnapped her for."
Actually, it is EXTREMELY relevant. It's proof that the doctor was right, and the stupid-a$$ parents and their stupid-a$$ quack enablers (like you) are wrong.
"There is no such thing as an 'expert'."
In other words, you do not accept the idea that others may know more about a given subject than you do.
"Anybody can be an 'expert' in a certain area provided they approach logically and ask pertinent questions. A parent whose daughter has cancer can and should contradict their doctor IF THEY CHOOSE and if they think his/her advice is wrong."
Only if the parents are willing to bet THEIR lives in addition to their child's life. You game for that, sonnyboy?
Personally, I think this kid would have been justified in using deadly force against her parents.
We don't seem to be getting anywhere. I feel you are not reading the links im posting, or if you are reading, you are not understanding.
From US NEWS WORLD REPORT:
Most pediatric oncologists would beg to differ. James Nachman, a Hodgkin's expert and professor of pediatrics at the University of Chicago medical school, says standard treatment for advanced Hodgkin's is more like five to eight cycles of chemotherapy. And there's controversy as to whether children showing a complete response to that treatment--particularly after two or four cycles of chemotherapy--get any added benefit from radiation. "I would not hesitate," Nachman says, "to bring in child services to insist on cancer treatment that parents are resisting if it's a matter of life or death, but radiation for this situation is not one of them."
Toxicity concerns about radiation are real and counter some of its benefits. Long term, there is a threefold increase in fatal heart attacks and a 25 percent chance of having breast cancer or another malignancy in 25 years, rising 1 percentage point each year. Patients are pretty good at weighing these trade-offs. Look at the Web. There's an ongoing chat room on the topic of "Radiation or not?" One patient details her remission with six cycles of chemotherapy and says she is just not sure if she should opt for radiation or not. Her doc is giving her the choice. Another chatter tells her to do it; he's a five-year survivor but relapsed with chemo alone. Joe points out that the only consistent thing he has read is that overall survival is the same regardless of whether you get radiation or not. TC summarizes--accurately, I might add--recent findings from a medical journal. Simone's mom says: "We are working through this exact question at the moment. Thanks for asking it for me."
This brings to mind another young Texan and his mom. As almost everyone knows, before he was rich and famous and the winner of even one Tour de France, Lance Armstrong was hit with advanced testicular cancer. In his book It's Not About the Bike, he relates his encounter with an oncologist who said Armstrong's best chance to live was with him: "I'm going to kill you. Every day I'm going to kill you, and then I'm going to bring you back to life." And since one of the standard treatments would tear up his lungs, he should forget about his bike. In despair, Armstrong and his mom went off to Indiana University, where an expert there became his doctor. This doc was willing to work with Armstrong to modify customary care so he could race again. He replaced the lung-damaging drug. He preserved his mental and physical coordination by substituting neurosurgery for standard radiation to wipe out the cancers that spread to his brain. The first doctor focused on survival; the second on making him whole. At the time, Lance Armstrong was 25 years old. Had he been eight years younger when he got sick, sports history could have been changed: The state of Texas might have stepped in to impose on him the tyranny of standard care.
The liberal line is that people need to be told what to do by government (experts), that they are too stupid to figure it out for themselves. I disagree. This family disagreed. They were right. Their doctors were wrong. And as punishment the state kidnapped their daughter, took away their sons, fined them $50,000m, and they underwent relentless media assault.
"We don't seem to be getting anywhere. I feel you are not reading the links im posting, or if you are reading, you are not understanding."
I understand perfectly. Some agenda-driven quack with a "news reporting" job cherry-picked a quote from another agenda-driven quack and attributed that opinion to a never-surveyed, never-cited "majority" of pediatric oncologists.
Bottom line: you deliberately choose a non-recommended treatment for your kid, and the kid dies, then you can join your kid IMMEDIATELY. You want to gamble with your kid's life? Then you might as well gamble with your own while you're at it...
I don't know why you persist in saying that she has not been given radiation since being placed in custody. As I pointed out in my earlier post, she did receive radiation therapy last month. I believe it was the Saturday following the judge's decision to place her into custody so she could receive appropriate medical treatment--in other words, a matter of days later.
As I pointed out in my earlier post, she did receive radiation therapy last month. I believe it was the Saturday following the judge's decision to place her into custody so she could receive appropriate medical treatment--in other words, a matter of days later.
---
I thought you had not read my link when you said this. I don't believe the above is true. Where did you read this? The Werneke family states on their blog:
"CPS and the State of Texas has had custody of Katie for nearly 30 days and she has received no treatments that they said were necessary to save her life and used to justify taking her from her parents in the first place."
"there are more experts who say that she did."
Katie's original doctor(s) were the experts they cited and this US NEWS doctor obviously talked to a few 'experts'. Who are all these experts you are citing?
(and how many of them would opine that the child should be seized?)
And just the fact that 'experts' are disagreeing should be illustrative enough of why the state shouldn't be seizing children to enforce the rulings of some of them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.