Who Has the Rights to the Child's Health? The Parents Or the State?
And who decides? A very scary court decision has come down today, and I'm doing my best to interpret how this affects family law - but perhaps my esteemed legal-eagle cousin can come to my rescue with her own thoughts?
Starchild Abraham Cherrix (links to personal site blog), who goes by Abraham, has Hodgkins Disease. He'd been going through Chemo, the cancer went into remission, but then it came back. The doctors ordered another round of chemo combined with radiation. Abraham refused the treatment because it was so awful and he didn't feel like that solution worked the first time. Why try it again?
The definition of crazy is trying the same thing over and over again expecting different results. It seems to me that Abraham and his family were being responsible in looking for other methods.
Enter the crazy social worker and the crazy state of Virginia. They accused the parents of neglect, took half of the custody of their child and said the State had half custody and they issued a "decree" I guess is the best way to put it, ordering the parents to submit Abraham to the below treatment:
I would think the responsible thing to do would be to find alternative methods since this method has such a high fatality rate. 50-50? The doctor's couldn't do better than that?
But I'm wondering why Social Services even got involved. How did they get a call? Did a nurse tell them that they thought it was negligent of them to turn down the chemo? Did the doctor do that? Who got the state involved in a private family struggle?
The ruling that came down today says that Abraham can be treated by an oncologist of his choice as long as he's board certified.
But I don't like it. Why did a judge even look at this? Why did this even go to juvenile court? There's got to be more to this story. If my parents wanted to take me to sweden at 15 to have sinus injections done that weren't legal in the US, that's their business. Would the state get involved?
Over at the Huff Post there's this: Starchild Cherrix Case: "Alternative" Medicine V. "Quackery"? If only it were that simple. She goes on in her poorly formed blog:
Actually Maia, that's exactly what it's about. The right to choose your and your child's treatment. If, let's just say, there are two options for curing, oh I don't know, ezsema. Let's say option 1 is a steroid topical cream. It has some nasty side effects. Veracose veins, thinning of the skin, and it's not a cure. It'll just repress the symptoms long enought to where it might go away. But it could come back. Now option 2 is an herbal treatment from China that involves eating a better diet, using organic ointments. But no steroids. No nasty side effects. The symptoms may disappear but they will come back if you stop treatment, and treatment may not be affectual. Same as with option 1, except you don't have all the nasty side effects. The only difference between my example and the Hodgkins is one, the severity of the illnesses, and two, the Chinese treatment isn't illegal in the US, that I know of.
If these parents were not pursing any treatment than I could see a case for negligence. But even then, given 50-50 odds, do you really want your child to suffer through what could potentially be his last few months on earth? Or would you rather try a more hollisitic approach with a lower success rate but with a higher rate of mortality?
I do not like mandated treatments. It's my body. It's my temple. If I decide that I don't want steroids then I won't take them. If I don't want the antibiotics because I think my cold will pass, I'm not taking them. These things often do more harm than good if taken for the wrong reasons. And doctors these days are too quick to perscribe medicines that are not necessary. Now, I understand this Chemo was probably necessary. But these doctors weren't thinking outside the box. They weren't trying to find a more workable method for a probably very active 16 year old boy. Had I been the parent, I would have gotten a second opinion too. Mine wouldn't have been in Mexico - but how did the state even find out about that?
Which brings me to my question? Why did the state get involved?
Jessica Fraser, someone I do not know, has an article at Newstarget.com that says the American Medical Association is "out to get" alternative therapies like the one Abraham was trying to take. The Hoxsey Method, she says, has legitimate results and that the AMA has never tested them and simply labeled the creater of this method, Harry Hoxsey, a quack and forced him out of the country. I'm not into alternative medicines myself. I tend to like tried, true and tested. So when Wikipedia tells me that the Hoxsey Method kills children in some cases, I see why people may have raised eyebrows. And I also wonder where Jessica gets her stats to say the therapies work? And please, only stats circa 1990. The biggest stat working against Mr. H right now is that he got Prostate Cancer, and his own treatment didn't work, and he died.
But why did the state get involved? Who called them? Did the doctor order a review? Did the hospital social worker come down for fun?
Since when can a judge order you to take your medicine? I don't like this precedent, not one bit. Even if the parents took their kid south of the border against medical advice, the south of the border stats were just as good as the 50-50 the kid was getting in VA. I am against government intervention and I'm completely, compeltely against a police state that orders you to do things like this.
We are all in serious trouble if this is a sign of things to come.
Starchild Abraham Cherrix (links to personal site blog), who goes by Abraham, has Hodgkins Disease. He'd been going through Chemo, the cancer went into remission, but then it came back. The doctors ordered another round of chemo combined with radiation. Abraham refused the treatment because it was so awful and he didn't feel like that solution worked the first time. Why try it again?
The definition of crazy is trying the same thing over and over again expecting different results. It seems to me that Abraham and his family were being responsible in looking for other methods.
Enter the crazy social worker and the crazy state of Virginia. They accused the parents of neglect, took half of the custody of their child and said the State had half custody and they issued a "decree" I guess is the best way to put it, ordering the parents to submit Abraham to the below treatment:
Doctors then recommended a higher dosage of chemotherapy combined with radiation and culminating in stem cell treatment, offering Abraham less than a 50% chance of survival under this treatment.
I would think the responsible thing to do would be to find alternative methods since this method has such a high fatality rate. 50-50? The doctor's couldn't do better than that?
But I'm wondering why Social Services even got involved. How did they get a call? Did a nurse tell them that they thought it was negligent of them to turn down the chemo? Did the doctor do that? Who got the state involved in a private family struggle?
The ruling that came down today says that Abraham can be treated by an oncologist of his choice as long as he's board certified.
But I don't like it. Why did a judge even look at this? Why did this even go to juvenile court? There's got to be more to this story. If my parents wanted to take me to sweden at 15 to have sinus injections done that weren't legal in the US, that's their business. Would the state get involved?
Over at the Huff Post there's this: Starchild Cherrix Case: "Alternative" Medicine V. "Quackery"? If only it were that simple. She goes on in her poorly formed blog:
This is not about the right to choose treatment-- it is about the right to choose no treatment and potentially risk one's life. As the doctor-blogger at Respecful Insolence points out, Cherrix' parents and the court would hardly be respectful if a sixteen-year-old boy had made a similarly informed, considered decision to take methamphetamine, based on glowing reports from its users and dealers.
Actually Maia, that's exactly what it's about. The right to choose your and your child's treatment. If, let's just say, there are two options for curing, oh I don't know, ezsema. Let's say option 1 is a steroid topical cream. It has some nasty side effects. Veracose veins, thinning of the skin, and it's not a cure. It'll just repress the symptoms long enought to where it might go away. But it could come back. Now option 2 is an herbal treatment from China that involves eating a better diet, using organic ointments. But no steroids. No nasty side effects. The symptoms may disappear but they will come back if you stop treatment, and treatment may not be affectual. Same as with option 1, except you don't have all the nasty side effects. The only difference between my example and the Hodgkins is one, the severity of the illnesses, and two, the Chinese treatment isn't illegal in the US, that I know of.
If these parents were not pursing any treatment than I could see a case for negligence. But even then, given 50-50 odds, do you really want your child to suffer through what could potentially be his last few months on earth? Or would you rather try a more hollisitic approach with a lower success rate but with a higher rate of mortality?
I do not like mandated treatments. It's my body. It's my temple. If I decide that I don't want steroids then I won't take them. If I don't want the antibiotics because I think my cold will pass, I'm not taking them. These things often do more harm than good if taken for the wrong reasons. And doctors these days are too quick to perscribe medicines that are not necessary. Now, I understand this Chemo was probably necessary. But these doctors weren't thinking outside the box. They weren't trying to find a more workable method for a probably very active 16 year old boy. Had I been the parent, I would have gotten a second opinion too. Mine wouldn't have been in Mexico - but how did the state even find out about that?
Which brings me to my question? Why did the state get involved?
Jessica Fraser, someone I do not know, has an article at Newstarget.com that says the American Medical Association is "out to get" alternative therapies like the one Abraham was trying to take. The Hoxsey Method, she says, has legitimate results and that the AMA has never tested them and simply labeled the creater of this method, Harry Hoxsey, a quack and forced him out of the country. I'm not into alternative medicines myself. I tend to like tried, true and tested. So when Wikipedia tells me that the Hoxsey Method kills children in some cases, I see why people may have raised eyebrows. And I also wonder where Jessica gets her stats to say the therapies work? And please, only stats circa 1990. The biggest stat working against Mr. H right now is that he got Prostate Cancer, and his own treatment didn't work, and he died.
But why did the state get involved? Who called them? Did the doctor order a review? Did the hospital social worker come down for fun?
Since when can a judge order you to take your medicine? I don't like this precedent, not one bit. Even if the parents took their kid south of the border against medical advice, the south of the border stats were just as good as the 50-50 the kid was getting in VA. I am against government intervention and I'm completely, compeltely against a police state that orders you to do things like this.
We are all in serious trouble if this is a sign of things to come.
Comments