Court overrides teen-&-parent's decision to seek alternative cancer treatement.

T

Trip20

New member
I had a hard time finding decent coverage of this story. If you find better articles please feel free to introduce.

Click title of article to view its source.

Virginia Teen Loses Fight to Treat Cancer his Way
Jul 21st - 6:27pm

By SONJA BARISIC
Associated Press Writer


NORFOLK, Va. - 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.

(Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
Click to expand...

I think the boys father said it best in another article (bolding mine):

"What it boils down to is does the American family have the right to decide on the health of their child," Jay Cherrix said, "or is the government allowed to come in and determine that themselves and threaten one way or the other to split our family up?"​

I brought this story to TFL's attention in hopes of discussing the father’s comment/question above. I felt it was a legal issue and fit in this forum.

Considering the myriad of possible drivers behind a family's decision (i.e., religion, tradition, ethnicity,...etc), it seems to me the government should keep out.

I tend to want to draw the line on the side of freedom. The problem with this is, for example, I can begin to imagine a situation where a family is letting their child die from strep throat due to a belief that aliens will come down on a spaceship and deliver the antidote. The world over knows antibiotics will cure the child, yet because of the family’s seemingly wacky belief, society must back down and let the child die?

Where do we draw the line between the alien-believer types and the people such as in the article above (providing the line should fall 'between' them at all)? Does it matter how serious the ailment (i.e., cancer vs strep throat)? Does it matter how delusional the belief or reason?

Society's belief in it's protection of the children, clashing with parental rights, and the right to own oneself.
 
Yet another one of those things I researched long ago for an article and, once again, have blissfully forgotten most of. I do remember that yes, the State is of the official position your children belong to the government first and then to you. The State thus reserves the power to make fundamental decisions when it suits the State. I forget the specific case and I am too tired to go hunting it up but it IS out there.

As for the idea of alternative treatment, I am aquainted with two people who went to some clinic just a little South of the border. Both were told they were terminal, would be dead in a few months and encouraged to do the "conventional" treatment to prolong their lives a while(at great cost and probably in lousy condition). They chose the alternative and both lived to come home. One lasted a good five years, the other is still going, despite all his doctors said.

As such I am not automatically against alternative treatments, which I am betting is going to be a large part of the reaction you get here: "Alternative treatment?!?!?!? That's bunk! The State SHOULD do something!" Or some variation thereof. That misses the point, of course, but so it goes... The fact they named the kid "Starchild"(I did read that right, right?) isn't gonna lend the parents much credibility, either.

I wonder, if the kid runs what would the State do about it? Arrest him? Drug him? Physically force him to do it their way? As for where to draw the line, draw it at legitimate treatment. Legit meaning essentially any actual treatment as opposed to sitting back and waiting for magic sky monkeys to save a kid.
 
I have one lady friend dying of cancer, she is being "made comfortable".
I have a number of other folks that have gone through various cancers, and have either "beaten it" or doing very well.

There does seem to be a lot of truth of the Gov't "controlling" various Medical advances. Additionally the "control" of Insurance companies on patients health.

Not long ago members posted on TFL and THR of Locales "coming in" to check on the welfare of citizens. IIRC even the incentive of a gift certificate to various popular stores.

Just let the blood be drawn, and other accessments.

My gut is talking to me, I keep rememberng Hillary's Health Care Plan. I do not have a link to it anymore, still reading her proposal was downright scary!

Lady friend I mentioned at the beginning, her husband is wore out, illness , disease takes a toll on family members also. Two of his customers; a husband and wife , both retired Medical Doctors, both worked on Cancer Reasearch, the wife went through cancer treatment herself many years ago...

They shared, and the husband and I have no reason to doubt them, they would be involved in Research , let us say colon cancer. All of a sudden the Ad campaign is breast cancer, they were advised to stop and get on the breast cancer bandwagon with all the local adveritising, of marathons being run locally, coinciding with state and national marathons.

Insurance companies and Government seem to be in "cahoots" and pointed fingers shaking "no no" , would caution against the Medical Research being done abroad.

Another thread either here on TFL and THR some time ago shared the Politics of Gov't and Research of Drug companies. How some drugs are not approved by FDA, here in the US. How one cannot get Rx from Canada at a better price anymore.

Some drug companies are doing research abroad away from US and FDA "controls" .

Lady friend, and husband have had a time of it. Seems the "pill" doctor and the "chemo" doctor do not communicate. One seems bound by "this" and the other one "that".

Medical reaction, and fever of 106* F was a lot of fun that night and still causing problems with her.

Breast cancer all this time and with this fever and behavior, the brain was checked...not we have a "spot". Basically said "two days, two weeks, two months on the outiside".

Husband has been and I have assisted some, using the Internet and ideas from retired Medical folks mentioned above.

"What about a Port?" we inquired.

"Insurance says they won't pay for it"

"You did not hear me, will the port and meds assist?"

"Most likely, but the insurance company...".

"Do no harm, means I do not care what the Insurance company and Gov't says, put in the port and meds. We have run this race for 4 years and we are not going to stop now. One is to run a race flat out and drop after the finish line".

Port is working 'some' too soon to tell. Now what got he and family angry, me as well - besides everything else...
"Well if we word this "such and such" and that "so and so", we might get some of the insurance to pay, but there are regulations you understand".

"Ma'am , that lady in there is my wife, a human being, not a cut of meat wanting a USDA blue stamp on her butt"


Yep, sure feels to me and others, TPTB really want Socialized Medicine.

I have worked with Medical Folks that did Socialized Medicine in Canada, now they are US Citizens. They have 'felt" a shift.

Hillary's Health Care plan, IIRC had criminal penalties for , for instance, "without permission" seeing another Dr, and getting opinion / treatment.

I'll do a search for that...

steve
 
Every-now-and-then, the courts get it right. They got it right on this one. The parents should be in prison, just for what they named that poor child.
 
Every-now-and-then, the courts get it right. They got it right on this one. The parents should be in prison, just for what they named that poor child.
Click to expand...

Remember that when the same state decides it is not in the child's best interest to be taught to kill by you (i.e. taught to shoot).

Those who would parcel out freedom do not know what it is.
 
Ausser-
If you have kids, I certainly hope you're not raising them. It's a known fact that .gov will do a better job.
Come to think of it, if The State knows what's best for our kids, it must certainly know what's best for adults also.

Welcome to The Collective.
:rolleyes:
Rich
 
"Where do we draw the line"

In 2004, DHHS says that 872,000 children were taken by all levels of social services in all 50 states. In 2004, there were 73.3 million persons in the United States under the age of 18. That means that 1.2% of ALL children in the United States were confiscated by the government in JUST ONE YEAR.



I can't believe this is even being debated. My mom had colon cancer, she used alternative treatments. They told her she was a fool for not taking the chemo, but she's still around a decade later. Since then, she's helped at least a half dozen people from our church with cancer, and every single one of them has had better results than institutionalized medicine said they would.

And what is this crap about having to do something? Recently, at age 23, I had an eye problem similar to macular degeneration. Laser treatment was out, and the only options I was given by the "best experts" were to (a) inject the DNA of a mouse into my eye, (b) cut into my eye or (c) inject a toxic substance into my blood. With those options, there was a 1% chance I would go totally blind. Doing nothing, there was a 0% chance I would go totally blind. Needless to say, I chose to do nothing. Eventually, months later, I saw a "quack" in Arizona, and it actually improved my vision in that eye. The doctors said I made the wrong choice. I'm sure if I were under 18 they would have called CPS.

It seems exceedingly clear to me that in many cases like this, pursuing the course of treatment that the state wants you to is the MOST DANGEROUS AND MOST NEGLIGENT thing you could possibly do.



Children can be taken from the their parents for, among other things: spanking, slapping, yelling, refusing to attend public schools, domestic “violence” calls where no charges were filed and no convictions were made, breast feeding your child too long, GUNS IN THE HOME, etc.

A child can even be taken from his parents with the ONLY reason that there is no electricity in the home and, instead of giving the parent the money to pay the bill, the lives if the entire family are ruined. You’d think that the average kid in state care had been abused, neglected, etc. Instead, about 90% of snatched kids are from families below the poverty line. So, in the U.S., if you’re poor, you don’t deserve to have children.

There is no jury system for the state taking children. No group of 12 of your fellow neighbors and citizens gets to decide if you are a good parent or not. Instead the STATE social workers, backed by STATE psychiatrists and other “experts,” facilitated by STATE prosecutors and executed by STATE judges, gets to just decide that you can no longer have your child. No trial, no evidence, no verdict - just a decision. Sort of like the decision the pedophile makes to rape your 7 year old daughter. Except he doesn't call himself the state, so people consider it DIFFERENT.

Children in foster homes are 13x more likely to be abused, 11x more likely to be sexually abused, and 6x more likely to die than if they had remained in their own “problematic” homes. Some state foster homes have been shut down after reports of things as small as violence, drugs and gambling to things like organized gang rape and “hit squads.”

I heard a horror story about a single dad in the national guard who was forcibly called up for active duty and sent to Iraq. He tried to have neighbors and family take care of the children, but the state ended up with them and they went to a foster home. When he came home, they would not return the children. He is in the process of appealing.

There is a couple in California who brought in their newborn baby to the emergency room with a bump on its head. The baby has been confiscated and the couple are facing charges of abuse. For a bump on the head. Because babies don’t bump their heads. Because some airhead social worker thought that the parents looked shady.

And then there’s this one: “Judge Bernard Zimmerman of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, in civil rights case number C 01-1546 BZ, upheld the fourth and fourteenth amendment rights of Berkeley, California homeschoolers. The nine-year-old twin boys, who were being successfully homeschooled by their mother as registered students with the Berkeley Unified School District, Independent Study Program (ISP), were illegally removed from their home on April 20th, 2000 by armed police and Alameda County CPS worker Carolyn Black, without a warrant and in violation of their civil rights. When she removed the children Black claimed they were in imminent danger of emotional harm due to social isolation caused by homeschooling. Social worker Carolyn Black repeatedly testified such statements, as "We don't get warrants." "We don't assume every case needs a warrant." "It's not standard child welfare practice to obtain a warrant." Black further testified, "Obtaining a warrant was not a requisite for removing a child."”

Not to mention the fact that telling a parent how he must care for his child is one step removed from telling an adult how he must care for himself. The only hurdle from one step to another is the fact that adults are allowed to legally be armed.




These parents have one of three options:
1) Let Leviathan MURDER their child.
2) Flee (and probably get caught, only delaying the murder).
3) Stand at the door with an AR15 (which will probably get all the children killed).

Those sound like options for the Jews in Nazi Germany if you ask me.







Welcome to America, land of the free.
 
Playing devils advocate..............................................
If the govt shouldn't decide you are giving substandard healthcare to your child, should they also butt out when you decide your kid needs a good beating to get them back in line?
 
Hodgkin's disease has one of the better rates of success using the standard medical treatment. It's up in the 90+% range these days. You can look it up.

John
 
Who defines "good beating"? To some a mere smack on the ass qualifies. For me, I was whipped with a belt as a kid. I've never done it to my kids but I wouldn't presume to judge someone who did. So for me I'd say yes, the government needs to butt out unless there is demonstrable physical injury, at least.
 
"Hodgkin's disease has one of the better rates of success using the standard medical treatment. It's up in the 90+% range these days. You can look it up."

This kid was given a 25% or a 50% chance to live by his doctors. I think it was 25%

"If the govt shouldn't decide you are giving substandard healthcare to your child, should they also butt out when you decide your kid needs a good beating to get them back in line?"

My post discussed the lack of jury trials. If you want to bring criminal charges against a parent for assault and battery, etc., and have 12 other parents who do not have a vested interest in taking the child decide that abuse in fact was committed, that is entirely different than a judge and a social worker who get together for golf decide that they, in black robes and all their godliness, deem you unfit as a parent because you did not pay your electric bill.
 
v8fbird said:
I can't believe this is even being debated.
Click to expand...

Why should there be no debate?

I felt the line was crossed in the above-mentioned case and wanted to discuss the same with the TFL membership. I believe the kid and his parents have the right to choose here.

v8fbird said:
And what is this crap about having to do something?
Click to expand...

Society should intervene in some situations, but not others. Where that line is drawn is worthy of debate, if not a touchy subject.
 
"Why should there be no debate? I felt the line was crossed in the above-mentioned case and wanted to discuss the same with the TFL membership. I believe the kid and his parents have the right to choose here."

I wasn't criticizing your posting the story, I think it's incredibly important and people need to get quite literally up-in-arms about it. But I can't understand the people who basically feel that "yes, the state needs to kidnap this kid and kill him."


"Society should intervene in some situations, but not others. Where that line is drawn is worthy of debate, if not a touchy subject."

Everyone is going to have a different opinion, and everyone is going to want government to get behind their opinion. That's how this whole mess started in the first place. Like I said, if they want to bring things like this up before a jury with criminal charges filed, I'm ok with that. Because no jury of sane, decent citizens is going to convict this kid's parents of anything. But as it is now, they don't get that chance. The state just does what it will and will shoot the parents if they resist.
 
In this case the childs cancer came out of remission in less than a year, when a cancer does that the chancs of survival goes down dramaticly. The chance of survival in that case is about 50% at best and closer to 25-35% with standard treatment.
 
"This kid was given a 25% or a 50% chance to live by his doctors. I think it was 25%"

I call BS whenever stuff like this appears.
No oncologist I have ever met makes these kinds of statments.
They are all well aware of the variability in patients and their diseases.

It appears we are back to another balancing game between the governments desire to protect a minor child from parental actions and their perceived right to do whatever they want.
Screaming about the government being able to raise you children better is not productive or applicable. The discussion is about a particular case, not government oversight of child raising in general.
For the most part by the time they get involved a lot of crap has come and gone.
Should parent’s religious beliefs trump medical care for minor children?
Is the government intervening in every case involving minors?
Missing from al the coverage is how the case came to the attention of the government.
Reported by a doctor? While a minor has limited legal standing (life decisions are not the strong suite of youth) is he making free and un-coerced decisions? Who is going to check?

Reminds me of the bleeding victim I encountered as a paramedic many years ago. He refused treatment but was to injured to move under his own power fromthe scene. In about 5 minutes he bled out enough to become unconscious. Doctors said to treat him then. We did. He lived.
Many thanks later at discharge from the hopital.
 
"I call BS whenever stuff like this appears. No oncologist I have ever met makes these kinds of statments."

Call whatever you like. It was on NBC news about 10 days ago.



The rest of your post is truly idiotic. You think that since one person's rights are being violated, that it's just one case and doesn't affect the rest of us. So we shouldn't talk about it.


"Then they came for the children with cancer, but I did not have a child with cancer so I did not speak out."
 
Yeah, Rich, I do have kids and have pretty much raised them unassisted. Remarkably, they all turned out pretty well. And no, there have been no cases where I've acted so irresponsibly that the courts had to step in and take over my responsibilities as a parent. Anybody who'd name a child "Starchild" doesn't deserve the right to parent, in my humble opinion. :) I don't think it'd take much of an investigation to reveal what kind of lowlifes the parents in this case are. The courts make decisions regarding the health and welfare of neglected/abused children every day. Nothing new here.
 
"Anybody who'd name a child "Starchild" doesn't deserve the right to parent, in my humble opinion."

First time you said it, I thought you were joking. Now that I think you're serious, I think YOU are the joke.




You know what I think, Ausserordeutlich? I think that if you don't meet my standards for proficiency with whatever firearm you own, you don't have a right to own it. And I think if you don't meet my standards for intelligence, you do not have the right to exist as a human being.

Would you be happy to submit yourself for examination to determine your worthiness?
 
Gov't meddling when the meddling is about "gov't control" is the debate.

Example have been given above - to go a bit off topic, recall how all these Sex Offender listings were going to make everyone "feel safer"?

Recall some jurisdictions have various definitions of "sex offender". One definition is "putting hands on a child" and the situation where an adult female pulled a "child" out of the path of a vehicle to keep from being hit. By definition she was a "child sex offender" .

Common Sense should never be regulated - especially by the Gov't :D

Religion, I will skirt this subject on TFL in the context of how applies to Medical Care. When I worked in the main OR , some beliefs did not believe in using the "cell saver" during surgery.
Similar "beliefs" in regard to organ donation, or the deceased body and how handled, cared for and time elements as in being released to be buried according to belief/ culture.

I can respect this, the COTUS and BoR I grew up learning "respected" this. I am wondering when this "new" COTUS and BoR was written - I did not get the memo, and did not get MY copy in the mail. ;)

Leaders of respected belief systems had to make special considerations. Sometimes due to a investigation, or perhaps learning that a family member's bone marrow for instance might be used to heal another family member.

To me, this is a family and that families belief systems decison - not the Government's.

My copy read "Freedom of...."
Not "Sometimes if we .gov feel like giving you freedom of..."

Common Sense, I mean if a person is denying themselves or family prudent care because the "voices in their head" says different, well yes we had some Schizophenia patients that needed some special attention and considerations.

Again not the Government's job, more the Ethics and Standards of the Medical Community. Sometimes not being able to find family , decisions a reasonable/ prudent human being would make have to come into play - called common sense.

One does not always know, or have the time when a unconcious patient is wheeled in to find out they don't do cell saver.

---

Help.

I did a search on Hillary Clinton's text of her Health Care Act. I was not able to find a transcript. All I found were web pages of various person's all over the Political Spectrum and I did / don't want to cite those as a reference.

I want to show the transcript as is, staying neutral about any personal beliefs in regard to the Clintons.

This would have been 1993 , and my brain remembers reading "criminal penalties" for some breech of acts by individuals. Best recall , one was "seeking another doctor's advice or medical care outside the limits the Gov't had established".

Cancer patient J.Q. Public , seeks to get attention - or -NOT get attention and a criminal penalty is imposed?

Never got the memo , much less this "new" COTUS and BoR, as I stated before, according to the one I grew up learning - criminal penalty for not doing as "directed" falls into Meddling and Control to me.

Help me find that transcript please. Relevant to thread I feel.

Steve
 
"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.
Click to expand...
When you get a chance, research some of the court battles involving Jehovah's Witnesses and their refusal of blood transfusions. You'll see a lot more evidence of the government trying to step in and take control.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top