Posted on 07/21/2006 5:00:44 PM PDT by Huntress
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.
Related threads:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1665104/posts
and
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1664416/posts
....but I also think the choice as to treatment should be up to this kid and his parents, as opposed to the state.
-----
The kid is a juvenile and the responsibility of his parents, not the state. Agreed.
16 is old enough to make up one's own mind. Earlier rulings have allowed 12 year old Jehovah's Witnesses the right to refuse blood products-I fail to see how a judge can rule a near adult can be forced to accept medical treatment against his will. The courts need to be reminded that citizens are not state property.
The government should not be doing this. It's not like the kid's parents are abusing him.
The State Almighty...horse pucky.
Your body is property of the state. Should you not care for it as they indicate, they will take matters into their own hands.
Never mind that doctors of 25 years from now will likely regard current treatments for cancer as barbaric.
This is not a matter of gecernment. They have over-stepped their bounds.
There are millions of people who have had successful 5FU treatments who would disagree with that.
'De Judge in this case is merely exercising the age old power of the state to protect the property of the King, which includes the bodies of the King's subjects.
:-(
A person's body is not the property of the state. While the treatment is stupid, the government has no right to refuse to allow the kid to go through with it so long as his parents consent.
I watched an interview with this boy and his father. Neither one came across as a 'nut case' and frankly, I don't think this is any of the government's business in this case. If the boy was two years older, would we even be having this discussion?
I'm also concerned about the precedent being set. If we accept that the government has the right to order treatment, then I think there's a danger that we have implicitly acknowledged the government's right to deny treatment if it wishes to do so.
They already did that when they named him "Starchild". No wonder he wants to check out.
It's all we have right now though.
This is just plain crazy!! How terrible that the government can force this on its citizens.
I have read many good things coming out of those clinics not to mention several friends who are doing great after going through the programs at several clinics in Mexico. That also goes for several clinics in Europe, too.
A friend with lung cancer and a friend with colon cancer are free of cancer after going the alternative route in Germany and in Mexico. This was years ago and they are both still doing great. Another little guy who was 3 when diagnosed with cancer was taken to Mexico and followed the program and he is fine. Another friend is doing well after following the treatment program from a Mexican clinic. Another friend went through everything the US had to offer, went down to Mexico as a last resort and he died anyway. So, you never know...but these 'officials' are WAAAAYY out of line!
Anyone who thinks that there is nothing to alternative medicine certainly hasn't done a lot of investigating into it. Including that moron judge.
This is more about the rights of the state to control medical care, than the right of a child to live.
In truth no matter what the parents had chosen, if it is not the position of the state, it would be wrong. This would not normally be a moral conundrum, for we assume that there are certain rules made to protect the lives of children. But that is not the case any more; many parents who wish their ill babies to receive the best of care are being told that their babies must die because of "quality of life issues". So it is not about protecting the life of this child, it is about state control over health care.
Had this young man's parent's wished him to live in spite of chronic disability or condition, the state might decide that it would be "in the child's best interest" to take away "life support" or medical treatment that constitutes "heroic measures". Likewise, if the subject were a pregnant teenage girl, the parents would be told that they have no right to know or influence the child away from an abortion. So the moral conundrum in this case is nullified - this young man is not taking the official state mandated health care regarding his choices for his own life, so alternatives are forbidden.
This is about state control of health care, and about the will of parents and patients being ignored.
Let's see....age 16.....if female, could have an abortion....could drive and put lives at risk, could decide which parent to live with if they were divorced....could come out as a homosexual at school, could have sex and make babies.....but the ALMIGHTY STATE knows which DOCTORS he should see for this.....how special. It's called a CHOICE, but ONLY when the STATE agrees!
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.