Posted on 07/24/2006 9:33:39 PM PDT by freespirited
A 16-year-old Virginia boy who suffers from Hodgkin's disease has been told by a state judge he must report to a hospital this week and accept treatment deemed necessary by his doctors. The boy and his parents have chosen to pursue alternative treatment. It consists of a sugar-free, organic diet and herbal supplements supervised by a clinic in Mexico.
On July 21, juvenile court Judge Jesse E. Demps ruled that the boy's parents, Jay and Rose Cherrix of Chincoteague, were neglectful and that they must continue to share custody of their son, Starchild Abraham Cherrix, with the Accomack County Department of Social Services.
I have heard Cherrix interviewed on the radio and he sounds intelligent, articulate, reasonable and capable of making such a major decision. Cherrix says three months of chemotherapy left him nauseas and weak and he prefers not to repeat that type of treatment. That a court would deny Cherrix and his parents such a choice prompted the family attorney, John Stepanovich, to say: "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."
In an age when we continue to debate "a woman's right to choose" when it comes to a girl aborting her baby and we are told that it is the girl's body and no one else should make decisions affecting it, a boy has no such rights. A girl can be given birth control by the school nurse and even abortion information without her parents knowledge or consent, but a boy can be prohibited from making decisions that affect his life and body. At least the courts are consistent. They forbid parental involvement in either case. In some states, though, parents are held responsible for their kids' illegal and anti-social behavior. Why is it that parents supposedly have power to keep their kids from committing crimes, but can be denied power when it comes to their child's health and welfare?
If a young child (say 10, or younger) is unduly influenced by parents who are members of a religion that teaches that faith alone can heal, or prohibits blood transfusions, then the state has an interest in stepping in to protect the child until he, or she, is old enough to make an informed choice. But in this case, the informed one appears to be Cherrix, who says he has studied his options, experienced the treatment given by his doctors and doesn't want anymore of it. He prefers "alternative medicine." That should be his and his parents' right to determine, not a social worker and a court.
The attitude of the state and culture toward the value of human life is in constant flux. Like the Dow Jones Industrial Averages, it is up one day and down the next. Some want to use embryonic stem cells for research into all sorts of afflictions and diseases, though no clinical tests have proved they are effective and stem cells from placentas and other sources, which cause no harm to human life, are available. Life in the womb - indeed life emerging from the womb - may be destroyed at any time and for any reason. There is pressure at the other end of life to euthanize the elderly and handicapped when they become "burdensome" to family members or "too costly" to the state.
Attorney Stepanovich says Cherrix's parents will appeal the ruling this week. Absent any additional information that has not been made public, which might prove neglectfulness and bad parenting, Cherrix and his parents should decide what is best for them and not the state of Virginia.
I did NOT say I thought the government should force these parents to subject their child to chemotherapy if they choose to reject it. I don't think a court should be able to do that any more than I think the courts should have been able to order a helpless woman to be starved to death. I was just expressing my opinion in light of a parent who would not want to see their child die when there is a high probability of his being cured with the available treatment.
Without reference to this particular case, but just in general: I thought that forcing an unwanted medical treatment upon a competent patient was considered assault. Can anybody supply more information on this?
Why is it more acceptable NOT to treat the condition rather than trying an alternative approach. They both carry the same penalty if they are not effective, right?
Also, he has opted out of the traditional treatment because of his previous experience with it. That makes this an informed choice, IMO. Maybe not the right choice, but informed nonetheless.
Perhaps you missed the fact that this young man has already undergone chemotherapy, which did not work. Your statement, above, therefore is predicated on a fallacious premise.
If they were refusing based on ignorance or rumors of issues with chemo, I would have a different opinion. But they have already undergone a horrific course of chemical poisoning, and do not wish to repeat it.
You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to demean these parent's authority because "you know better". That is EXACTLY what you did. Or were your remarks made at the "height of irresponsibility"?
I did NOT say I thought the government should force these parents to subject their child to chemotherapy if they choose to reject it.
I understand . In part it's why I chose to put forth the government-power versus individual-rights issue.
I don't think a court should be able to do that any more than I think the courts should have been able to order a helpless woman to be starved to death.
A government that wields the power to force a person to not take a drug -- as is the case with prohibition of some drugs, also known as the WOsomeD -- wields the power to force a person to take a drug. What do you think about government coercing parents to put their elementary-school-age children on Ritalin?
Rhetoric from the supporters of public-school say that if public schools were eliminated in favor of the free market providing schooling that private schools would not take bad kids. I doubt it would be even a small fraction as many kids as public schools coerce "bad" kids to take Ritalin.
Standard operating procedure for the FDA is to let five, six, ten or more people suffer or die from lack of medication or therapy rather than grant FDA approval for a drug or therapy that causes one person to suffer or die from the drug or therapy. That's government/FDA forced prohibition of life saving, suffer-reducing drugs.
Are you for or against the WOD? Consistent to principle I am against the government forcing prohibition of drugs and against the forced ingestion of drugs. The common denominator is force. Specifically, the initiation of force.
Without reference to this particular case, but just in general: I thought that forcing an unwanted medical treatment upon a competent patient was considered assault. Can anybody supply more information on this?
You're right. Even when the government does it, it's a crime. More so because when politicians and bureaucrats do it they are also in violation of their oath of office. Continued in post 47.
I can't speak with any authority, but I assume the concept of informed consent applies only to adults who are of sound mind.
Normally, parents give informed consent for their children. Here the state is intervening because it doesn't like the parents' decision as to what they will and will not consent to for their child.
Amen! I beginning to think that we are two "voices in the wilderness" on this thread.
Ditto.
Not just "these people have a minority medical opinion" but "they're legally mentally incompetent"?
The irony being that the problem Abraham had with the chemo is one that is often alleviated by using marijuana: incessant nausea.
No one seems to talk about that.
To overrule the parents, wouldn't the court have to have some kind of psychiatric determination or a hearing (with witnesses, evidence, cross-examination, etc.) and a finding of that they were not "of sound mind"? ...Not just "these people have a minority medical opinion" but "they're legally mentally incompetent"?
I would think so too.
I'm going to assume that Judge Demps truly has Abraham's best interest in mind. To do that I also have to assume that Judge Demps is naive or ignorant on three issues.
Politics of the FDA. An FDA researcher or the person that gives final approval of a drug or therapy, acting on their own self-interest isn't going to approve a drug that causes one death for every two lives. Or, saves five or ten lives for each death it causes. The stigma of approving a drug that causes death is too much to overcome. News reports of drugs or therapies causing injury or death are fairly common Common compared to virtually no news reports of the injury and death caused by not having access to life-saving drugs or therapies.
Another naiveté on Judge Demps part is the politics and cost efficiencies of pharmaceutical companies. For a pharmaceutical company to adhere to FDA regulations for drug approval it cost the pharmaceutical company hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars. That's the politics of it.
The cost efficiency is a measure of profitability, not politics. A plant or herb that grows naturally cannot be patented. Without the ability to patent a plant a pharmaceutical company (call it ACME) cannot protect its half-billion-dollar investment (cost efficiency) that the FDA demands (politics). Once the plant or herb is approved by the FDA competing pharmaceutical companies would immediately begin processing and selling it. Yet they didn't have to invest a half-billion dollars to get it to market and ACME would most likely never recoup its investment.
The Hoxsey method has had much criticism bordering on attacks from the American Cancer Association and pharmaceutical companies.
"In 1968 the influential American Cancer Society (ACS) reported in its list of Unproven Methods of Cancer Management (which amounts to a blacklist of alternative approaches) that it “does not have evidence that treatment used at the Bio-Medical Center, including. . . the Hoxsey method. . . is of objective benefit in the treatment of cancer.” Mildred observes, and the Cancer Society confirms, however, that no representative of the ACS has ever actually visited the Bio-Medical Center nor investigated the Hoxsey approach....
"Over time, the positive reputation of the Dallas clinic spread nationwide. But the large and powerful orthodox cancer Establishment disapproved of alternative approaches. In particular, the Hoxsey treatment -- inexpensive and simple compared to surgery, radiation, and drugs -- became a favored target of organized medical groups. Charged repeatedly by medical authorities with practicing medicine without a license, using unapproved therapies, and other violations, Harry spent much of his time in court. Interestingly, the legal proceedings were never initiated by any of his patients." The Hoxsey Herbal Therapy by Peter Barry Chowka
A third naiveté on Judge Demps part is taking for granted what the established medical community, AMC and previous court rulings had rendered rather than investigate the Hoxsey method for him/herself.
If I am correct in my assumption that Judge Demps is watching out for Abraham Cherrix's best interest he/she is, IMO, in reality unqualified to be acting in Abraham Cherrix's best interest.
"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," he says. "I studied. I did research. I came to this conclusion that the chemotherapy was not the route I wanted to take...
Another round, at higher doses, "would kill me, literally. No joke about it," Abraham says. "The first round of chemo almost killed me in itself. There were some nights I didn't know if I would make it." USATODAY.com - Virginia teen fights for right to pick Hodgkin's treatment
Has Judge Jesse E. Demps agreed to be held personally accountable and liable if Abraham Cherrix dies from chemotherapy?
Somehow I doubt it.
It's equally probable that Judge Demps is not naive or ignorant on the above three matters, but rather, is intentionally carrying the torch for the trio--FDA, AMC and pharmaceutical companies. Believing that Judge Demps is acting in Judge Demps' best interest, first. Second interest is in the trio. Third interest is Abraham Cherrix.
I strongly suggest that persons interested in this case and it's related issues read: The Hoxsey Herbal Therapy by Peter Barry Chowka -- a reputable third party.
The irony being that the problem Abraham had with the chemo is one that is often alleviated by using marijuana: incessant nausea.
The side effects for Abraham were worse than nausea. I do know what you mean. I intentionally chose not to mention medical marijuana so as to focus on the larger issues.
No one seems to talk about that.
IMO, the silence of many people is that they don't want to debate their side of the issue because theirs isn't anchored/underpinned by honest principle. Worse than hypocrisy.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent
the government from wasting the labors of the people under
the pretense of taking care of them"
I guess my concern is because a relative of mine died for exactly the same reason. She was told by her doctors, though, that since she lived in a college town, she could probably help herself by having her kid get some pot on campus. Needless to say, she wouldn't allow that. She refused further treatment, went nto a hospice where she could, at least get pain meds and died.
Forever changed my view toward drug laws.
If the Circuit Court upholds the lower court's ruling, Cherrix' parents may be held in contempt of court. That means Cherrix' parents could face additional charges or perhaps jail time. Abraham's father, Jay Cherrix, is prepared for the consequences of violating the court order. "I'm not going to be an obstacle to my son. If a judge wants to throw me in jail, then he's going to have to do that." "I should be concentrating on my recovery," Abraham said. "This case is taking me away from that."
We can all come up with anecdotes about chemo to suit our argument which ever side of it you are.
The real issue is why is the Goverment allowed to force an individual to undergo a dangerous procedure with an uncertain outcome against their will?
The government refused to intervene on behalf of Teri Schiavo who faced certain death yet the they jump in with both feet to make medical decisions from the judges bench in this case.
Go figure.
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.