Teen Battles for Right to Refuse Chemo

[MDM4AU 332]

legal battle

Teen Battles for Right to Refuse Chemo

By Darla Sitton

CBN News

CBN.com – (CBN News) - When doctors and parents disagree about a child's medical care, who should have the final say? 

   

A Virginia teen with Hodgkin's disease is fighting for the right to refuse state-ordered chemotherapy.

   

Yesterday, his family won the latest skirmish in a hot legal battle over his medical care.

Sixteen-year-old Starchild Abraham Cherrix is elated over yesterday's decision.

"I feel like I've been released!" the teen said.

Starchild had been ordered by a judge to show up at a Virginia Hospital on Tuesday, to begin plans for more cancer treatments. But the teen went to court instead to fight for the right to choose the therapy he feels is best.

"He's articulate and he has made his decision, and if this is where we draw the line, then this is where we draw the line," said Attorney John Stepanovich.

When Cherrix''s lymphatic cancer returned, he and his parents decided to try an alternative medical treatment of natural foods and herbal supplements rather than conventional chemotherapy.

   

Cherrix said the first round (of chemo) was too hard on him.

"It tore me up a lot. It made me sick for at least three to four days where I would get up, and I would throw up at night," he said.

Last Friday, a circuit judge ruled that, as a minor he has no say in the matter.

The judge also gave the Social Services Department shared custody of the boy, calling the parents "neglectful" for not providing the needed chemo and radiation treatments that doctors felt would attack the recurring tumors in his head and chest.

"Let me caution all parents of Virginia -- look out, Social Services may be pounding on your door next, when they disagree with a decision you've made as a parent about the health care of your child," warned Stepanovich.

But yesterday, that ruling was set aside, and a trial has been scheduled instead. For now, the Cherrix family has full custody over their son and his medical care.

   

And if they need to, they'll fight on.

Dad Jay Cherrix said, "It's been real traumatic, this whole ordeal, but…we always say, if you're going to enjoy the sunshine, you've got to weather the storm."

LINK

Where does the right's of the patient or patient's guardians end as to what is best and the Governments rule begins?

[otterinbham 0]

Well, first of all, 16 isn't the age of legal consent on this stuff. So he pretty much has to follow the course of treatment dictated by his parents. Now his parents are complete nincompoops to allow this.

I am about the biggest libertarian on the planet (I oppose mandatory seat belt laws, for starters), but the government does have a clearcut precedent to protect those who do not have the maturity and the sufficient parental guidance to protect themselves. This kid is basically risking his life on some dubious course of treatment, and his parents are going along with it.

[saniflush 0]

Well, first of all, 16 isn't the age of legal consent on this stuff. So he pretty much has to follow the course of treatment dictated by his parents. Now his parents are complete nincompoops to allow this.

I am about the biggest libertarian on the planet (I oppose mandatory seat belt laws, for starters), but the government does have a clearcut precedent to protect those who do not have the maturity and the sufficient parental guidance to protect themselves. This kid is basically risking his life on some dubious course of treatment, and his parents are going along with it.

252527[/snapback]

Tough issue and no way to know which way is right until well after the fact in each case. Knowing then what I know now I would have NEVER advised my mother to take the treaments because of their lack of working and how badly and quickly they pulled her down. Unfortunately there is no way to know these things for sure. I say the decision still resides with the patient or the legal guardian. There is a VERY slippery slope being navigated no matter which side of this issue you fall on!

[Jenny AU-92 0]

We just went throught his in Houston. CPS actually took the little girl (age 12) away from her parents and forced her to undergo radiation treatments. Her parents had objected to radiation because it would most likely leave her sterile. It has been very ugly and very sad.

I don't know where I stand on this. As a parent, I want what is best for my child, but I feel it should be my decision. Why should the state get to decide that some horrible, debilitating treatment that will make my child suffer is in the child's best interests, especially when in some cases it does NOT work. THis goes into that quality versus quantity of life debate. I just pray I never have to be in this position.

[MDM4AU 332]

I have a question for anyone that can answer. This has really nothing to do with the post but it came up in a discussion I witnessed regarding this case.

Is chemo thearpy actually poison? Does it actually have the "scull and crossbones" on the packaging?

[Jenny AU-92 0]

I have a question for anyone that can answer.  This has really nothing to do with the post but it came up in a discussion I witnessed regarding this case.

Is chemo thearpy actually poison?  Does it actually have the "scull and crossbones" on the packaging?

252618[/snapback]

Good question. I think the answer is yes. According to many sites I read through, chemo came about from the effects of MUSTARD GAS on soldiers in WWI and WWII!! Link

Also, in 1943 a U.S. stockpile was bombed in Bari, Italy, accidentally exposing thousands of civilians and 628 friendly troops. It was noted by medical workers that the white cell counts of exposed soldiers were decreased, and mustard gas was investigated as a therapy for Hodgkin's lymphoma, a form of cancer. Study of the use of similar chemicals as agents for the treatment of cancers led to the discovery of mustine, and the birth of anticancer chemotherapy.

Here's some other stuff I found on a Google search - Ididn't post links, because they all said pretty much the same thing.

On a basic level, chemotherapy is the very careful administration of poisons to kill cells. Most of the drugs used for chemotherapy are cytotoxic, meaning they have the potential to kill any cell. As one would expect, this poison sometimes goes out of control. Doctors can trace the causes of the most common side effects of chemotherapy directly to unintentional results of poison.

Most of the cells in our body are in the process of growing, dividing and dying off.  The rate of growth of a cell is regulated by a number of genes in the cell.

In the case of cancer, the growth regulating genes in the cell have mutated, often because of some outside carcinogen such as cigarette smoke, and no longer function to control the growth of the cell.

This causes the cell to grow and divide very rapidly, compared to a normal cell, and a tumor is formed which eventually invades surrounding tissues.  Since these cancer cells are growing and dividing much more rapidly than normal cells, they take in many more nutrients than the normal cells in the body.

This is where chemotherapy comes in.  Basically the idea behind chemotherapy is to give the patient poison in doses that are toxic but low enough not to kill the patient.

Since cancer cells are growing so rapidly and taking more nutrients in from the surroundings than normal cells, they are also taking in higher doses of poison than the other cells.  If we're lucky, the chemotherapy will kill the cancer cells and cure the patient.

[saniflush 0]

I have a question for anyone that can answer.  This has really nothing to do with the post but it came up in a discussion I witnessed regarding this case.

Is chemo thearpy actually poison?  Does it actually have the "scull and crossbones" on the packaging?

252618[/snapback]

In my expereince it seems to be a fair amount of witchcraft at best. They just do not know going into it how well it will work. I have known people who had limited side effects from it and it put the Cancer in complete remision. Then there are others that who ended up being killed by the cure so to speak. In the end you are trading one poison for another and it just depends on what your body chemistry makeup is as to how you will react.

[Tiger Al 0]

The kid and his family should have the right to accept or refuse any medical treatment. At 16, while not legally an adult, he's still old enough to make a rational decision with his parents. If it were a 5 yr. old then I'd probably have a different opinion.

[MDM4AU 332]

My problem here is, where do you draw the line with where the government can step in?

Where do the parent's rights end and the Governments hand begins?

[MDM4AU 332]

Teen wins court battle to stop chemo

ACCOMAC, Virginia (AP) -- A 16-year-old cancer patient's legal fight ended in victory Wednesday when his family's attorneys and social services officials reached an agreement that would allow him to forgo chemotherapy.

At the start of what was scheduled to be a two-day hearing, Circuit Judge Glen A. Tyler announced that both sides had reached a consent decree, which Tyler approved.

Under the decree, Starchild Abraham Cherrix, who is battling Hodgkin's disease, will be treated by an oncologist of his choice who is board-certified in radiation therapy and interested in alternative treatments.

The family must provide the court updates on Abraham's treatment and condition every three months until he's cured or turns 18.

"It's all over. It's everything we fought for, everything we wanted to ever have, we've won. We got our freedom back," Abraham said outside the courthouse after the hearing. ...

Entire Article at CNN.com (LINK)

[channonc 466]

I am totally with the parents and teen on this one. We have more important issues to be tying up our Courts with, and this is definately not one of them.

Based on other articles I have read on this story, the teen had already gone through "traditional" treatments and put the cancer in a temorary remission. Now that the cancer has returned, the teen and his parents have no interest in pursuing what was a painful treatment for him, again, unsure of the results.

Its highly possible that he will die, but at least he will die being much more comfortable than he would be with the chemo.

[CCTAU 3,325]

I am totally with the parents and teen on this one. We have more important issues to be tying up our Courts with, and this is definately not one of them.

Based on other articles I have read on this story, the teen had already gone through "traditional" treatments and put the cancer in a temorary remission. Now that the cancer has returned, the teen and his parents have no interest in pursuing what was a painful treatment for him, again, unsure of the results.

Its highly possible that he will die, but at least he will die being much more comfortable than he would be with the chemo.

I am now loading the gun. ....

I agree with channonc. (What an I saying? pull the trigger. pull the trigger, now)

There are many groups out there who do not believe in modern medicine and the government cannot touch them. But since these guys tried it once, then it must be the right choice again? Hogwash. My mom is going through this now. Yes. Chemo is poison. It kills all it can without actually killing you all the way. It take your body to its lowest in hopes of it healing itself by producing "good" cells to replace the bad/dead ones. My wife says that in 100 years we will look back on this the same way we do blood-letting now. So to force anyone to go this route is insane. Doctors only know the science that is KNOWN. They are not Gods, but they play one every day. This decisin can be made by and individual who knows pain and knows that they do not want anymore. Until you have been through the pain and the hell that is chemo, you should never choose it for someone else. (too late, I'm still here. Must live with the humiliation)

[channonc 466]

I am totally with the parents and teen on this one. We have more important issues to be tying up our Courts with, and this is definately not one of them.

Based on other articles I have read on this story, the teen had already gone through "traditional" treatments and put the cancer in a temorary remission. Now that the cancer has returned, the teen and his parents have no interest in pursuing what was a painful treatment for him, again, unsure of the results.

Its highly possible that he will die, but at least he will die being much more comfortable than he would be with the chemo.

I am now loading the gun. ....

I agree with channonc. (What an I saying? pull the trigger. pull the trigger, now)

There are many groups out there who do not believe in modern medicine and the government cannot touch them. But since these guys tried it once, then it must be the right choice again? Hogwash. My mom is going through this now. Yes. Chemo is poison. It kills all it can without actually killing you all the way. It take your body to its lowest in hopes of it healing itself by producing "good" cells to replace the bad/dead ones. My wife says that in 100 years we will look back on this the same way we do blood-letting now. So to force anyone to go this route is insane. Doctors only know the science that is KNOWN. They are not Gods, but they play one every day. This decisin can be made by and individual who knows pain and knows that they do not want anymore. Until you have been through the pain and the hell that is chemo, you should never choose it for someone else. (too late, I'm still here. Must live with the humiliation)

Wow!!! Is this a sign the apocalypse is coming???

[otterinbham 0]

My problem here is, where do you draw the line with where the government can step in?

Where do the parent's rights end and the Governments hand begins?

I think that we as a society recognize that a person's ability to make rational, informed decisions begins at the age of 18. However, at the same time, we all recognize that the parent has a duty to ensure the safety and well-being of their children.

Case in point? Child safety seats. I'm sure you have all seen a parent driving down the road with his/her small children bouncing around the back seat and suppressed the urge to stop them and give a roadside lecture on reckless endangerment of children.

Or if a parent is starving a child, we all would be outraged if the state didn't step in to stop matters.

The same would be true if parents made no attempt to educate their children, or treated them with cruelty.

I'm about as Libertarian as they get. However, I side with the state on this one. Essentially the parents have brainwashed their son into using an unproven, medically dubious treatment program, and he will die as a result.

That's not saying that chemotherapy and radiation are not difficult, sometimes dangerous, regimens. However, in the past 10 years alone, survival rates have skyrocketed as we better understand the physiology of cancer and how best to fight it. So despite the misery of cancer treatment, it represents a fighting chance for the kid. Under the parent's "treatment" the boy's odds plummet to zero.

So it's really the state trying to save a child's life. Not just from cancer, mind you, but from the abject stupidity and recklessness of his parents.

[ChattanoogaTiger 0]

I have a question for anyone that can answer.  This has really nothing to do with the post but it came up in a discussion I witnessed regarding this case.

Is chemo thearpy actually poison?  Does it actually have the "scull and crossbones" on the packaging?

252618[/snapback]

In my expereince it seems to be a fair amount of witchcraft at best. They just do not know going into it how well it will work. I have known people who had limited side effects from it and it put the Cancer in complete remision. Then there are others that who ended up being killed by the cure so to speak. In the end you are trading one poison for another and it just depends on what your body chemistry makeup is as to how you will react.

A little more than witchcraft. Without therapy the mortality is about 100%. With "poisons" (chemotherapy) the 15 year survival rate is 85%(for this age group). Even relapses are generally responsive to treatment.

The downside is the possibility of secondary malignancies in 5th to 6th decade. Patients are monitored for the duration of their life.

Is this ideal?. no Is it an acceptable alternative? I would say yes. You make the call

The real question (and this topic went off on a medical bashing tangent) is patient's rights. As a physcian I would honor the 16year olds request if the parents were in agreement and I document carefully that I had presented all the facts (for my legal friends out there)

[Aubie16 1]

My problem here is, where do you draw the line with where the government can step in?

Where do the parent's rights end and the Governments hand begins?

I think that we as a society recognize that a person's ability to make rational, informed decisions begins at the age of 18. However, at the same time, we all recognize that the parent has a duty to ensure the safety and well-being of their children.

Case in point? Child safety seats. I'm sure you have all seen a parent driving down the road with his/her small children bouncing around the back seat and suppressed the urge to stop them and give a roadside lecture on reckless endangerment of children.

Or if a parent is starving a child, we all would be outraged if the state didn't step in to stop matters.

The same would be true if parents made no attempt to educate their children, or treated them with cruelty.

I'm about as Libertarian as they get. However, I side with the state on this one. Essentially the parents have brainwashed their son into using an unproven, medically dubious treatment program, and he will die as a result.

That's not saying that chemotherapy and radiation are not difficult, sometimes dangerous, regimens. However, in the past 10 years alone, survival rates have skyrocketed as we better understand the physiology of cancer and how best to fight it. So despite the misery of cancer treatment, it represents a fighting chance for the kid. Under the parent's "treatment" the boy's odds plummet to zero.

So it's really the state trying to save a child's life. Not just from cancer, mind you, but from the abject stupidity and recklessness of his parents.

You summed up my feelings on the issue pretty well.

I mean the kids name is "Starchild".

[Bottomfeeder 244]

The government's intrusion stops where we say it does. Real conservatives do not allow overreaching executive and judicial powers.