parents vs. the state: what is right for the child

[wiegie]

Thoughts on this ruling? (I can think of excellent arguments on both sides.)

Teen loses fight to use alternative cancer treatment

Friday, July 21, 2006; Posted: 7:53 p.m. EDT (23:53 GMT)

 

NORFOLK, Virginia (AP) -- 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 that 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, Virginia, 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.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/07/21/sick.teen.ap/index.html

Edited July 22, 2006 by wiegie

[AtomicCEO]

If the family wants it and the kid wants it..... why fight to make them?

 

Right to die, beeeeatch.

[Chavez]

On a general basis, I agree with Atomic that culling the herd is never a bad thing..

 

But the devil's advocate in me feels obligated to point out that in the case that a child/nascent adult has been sheltered/brainwashed to the point that simplen and easy cures that are extant are unknown to him/her, shouldn't they be informed?

 

Then again, telling someone they "need" to be "cured" at the end of a lawsuit doesn't seem to be good medicine.

 

To close my coherent arguement, a doctor should lay out the odds and options; deep down, it's the patient's choice, as long as s/he is able to consent (and IMO 16 is more than old enough)

[wiegie]

I wonder if the fact that the parents gave their kid the first name "Starchild" prejudiced the judge and social workers in this case.

[AtomicCEO]

But the devil's advocate in me feels obligated to point out that in the case that a child/nascent adult has been sheltered/brainwashed to the point that simplen and easy cures that are extant are unknown to him/her, shouldn't they be informed?

 

 

Are you questioning my constitutional right to brainwash my children?

 

That's kind of a joke... but is the fed required to step in if a parent teaches their kids that black people are all criminals? What if they force them to bow down to an invisible man and perform some simulated cannibalism ritual every week? Should the state protect H8Tank's kids if he teaches them that Brooks and Dunn are talented?

 

Live and let die, I say.