Teen wins court battle to stop chemo

[Math Is Hard]

This is an interesting case I've been following on the news. I really wasn't sure which way it would go since he is a minor.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/16/cancer.teen.ap/index.html

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.

Last summer, the teen was diagnosed with Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymphatic system considered very treatable in its early stages. He was so debilitated by three months of chemotherapy that he declined a second, more intensive round that doctors recommended early this year.

He since has been using the Hoxsey method, the sale of which was banned in the United States in 1960.

After Abraham chose to go on the sugar-free, organic diet and take liquid herbal supplements under the supervision of a Mexican clinic, a social worker asked a juvenile court judge to intervene to protect the teen's health. Last month, the judge found Abraham's parents neglectful and ordered Abraham to report to a hospital for treatment as doctors deem necessary.

 

[Pengwuino]

That's a toughy... parents tend to know what's best for their kids.. ESPECIALLY when it comes to medical issues... but forcing say, a vaccination on a kid vs. forcing chemo on a kid doesn't really seem equivalent so I'm not sure either. I also don't agree (in spirit, as opposed to what the law says) with the judge claiming they were neglectful in the previous decision because it only would seem neglectful if they refused to let him get the treatment.

I guess its one of those "if it were my kid, no question but since its not..." deals for me.

 

[Math Is Hard]

I can't help but wonder if the fact that the kid's name is Starchild Abraham Cherrix had an influence on the first judge's decision. Probably saw the parents as wacky new-agers brainwashing their kid against traditional therapy.

 

[Pengwuino]

Oh wait, the parents were against the chemo?

 

[Math Is Hard]

The only thing I have heard is that the parents allowed him to stop the chemo and begin the Hoxsey treatments, which is what the young man wanted. A social worker intervened at that point, worried for his health.

His parents supported his choice despite the American Cancer Society's opinion that "there is no scientific evidence" that the Hoxsey method treats cancer effectively.

Together, a family believed that they might have found a less harmful answer to their problem and that they had the right to pursue it. It turns out they were wrong — at least in Virginia, where even your medicine and family structure may be regulated by the county.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...0,2233153.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

 

[Rach3]

Let no one ever again suggest that crackpots are harmless and never kill people.

 

[Math Is Hard]

I still think it's a pretty tough decision. If my 16 year old son was exhausted and sick and emaciated from months of chemo and didn't want to continue, I don't know that I could force him to do more of it against his will.

 

[Skyhunter]

This is the point I find relevant.

"It's all over. It's everything we fought for, everything we wanted to ever have, we've won. We got our freedom back,"

I find it ironic that the government would try and force this young man to undergo a medical procedure. And the same governement has allowed the poisoning of the air, water, and food supply that is the most likely cause of his cancer.

 

[Pengwuino]

I still think it's a pretty tough decision. If my 16 year old son was exhausted and sick and emaciated from months of chemo and didn't want to continue, I don't know that I could force him to do more of it against his will.

The more I think about this... the more i do see a similarity between vaccinations and chemo. Sure as a little kid, parents find it hard to see their kid cry and pull a tantrum but they know its in his best interest. It seems like the same thing here... except instead of crying and pulling a tantrum, he pulls an adult tantrum and gets the courts involved. And of course, the parents are wackos and don't want him to get chemo.

As far as the case go... let's get real, if the kid wanted chemo and the parents refused, it would be instantly declared child endangerment and the obvious argument is that they are endangering his life. Switch one irrelevant detail such as him not wanting it (and when you get down to the actual arguemnt of whether or not he's in danger, his opinion is irrelevant) and all of a sudden the argument that they are endangering his life disappears? So since he agrees with their hippy ignorance, all of a sudden he's not in danger? In a scientific society, there wouldn't be any question. It's more or less brainwashing.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I still think it's a pretty tough decision. If my 16 year old son was exhausted and sick and emaciated from months of chemo and didn't want to continue, I don't know that I could force him to do more of it against his will.

This focuses on the issue from a personal perspective and an emotional one, and it is entirely how the issue should be considered I think, oddly I'd go with the rational non emotional reasoned approach in most legal cases, but this is another kind of animal.

This is an absolute moral minefield, do we take away a patients right to chose his treatment, or force it on him to save his life, what implications does that have? If we make a precident will this mean that many famillies will chose to forgo treatment, and conversely will this lead to a more black and white decision making process with less freedom if he is given the choice, and where do we draw the line on either side. Do we go so far as to ask if a person has the right to chose a 75% mortality rate over a 25% mortality rate? This is the sort of question you should include in a philosophy paper, and frankly, I wouldn't know whether I came down for or against, too many variables, and too many issues.

I can boil it down to two simpler variables from the morasse.

The right to choice.

The right of the government or institution to force a greater good onto a patient, to help said patient despite himself.

Trouble is as soon as I do it raises all the same questions as I had before. My answer: who knows? Speaking rationally I'd say this should be a decision of Dr's, Do no harm seems so clean cut, but then... ack, no way to chose, and I would of hated to be the judge on this one. As soon as I start to think rationally I say save the boys life( and it is based on emotion) When I say let him chose, I start to think of the lack of reasoning, surely it is best from an emotional perspective to save the familly from potentially greater emotional suffering( and here we are back at emotion) This is a fine no win situation, whatever way I think about it, there seems no correct answer.

Speaking on a personally emotional level, I'd say give the boy the best chance at life, but this also seems to be a reasoned one? It's just I can't reason it out. It's not like a simple equation where a definitive answer is produced. It's more like a probability wave equation where minimal harm is a broad spectrum of a possibilities. There are too many hidden variables here.

If I've confused anyone with odd arguments, it's because I am simply confused myself, which is the state of the matter as far as I can see.

 

[Evo]

Although I disagree with holistic medicine, it should be the patient's choice if he/she wished to be treated at all. No one should be in the position to force someone to undergo any medical treatment. Of course we have to consider that in the case of a minor, the child cannot make that decision. I believe in this case it was the fact that he is a minor and the parent's were being held responsible for his welfare. I don't know of a case of an adult being forced to undergo treatment against their will as long as they were not legally in someone else's care (mentally incompetant, for example).

 

[Cyrus]

The more I think about this... the more i do see a similarity between vaccinations and chemo. Sure as a little kid, parents find it hard to see their kid cry and pull a tantrum but they know its in his best interest. It seems like the same thing here... except instead of crying and pulling a tantrum, he pulls an adult tantrum and gets the courts involved. And of course, the parents are wackos and don't want him to get chemo.

A childish tantrum?

According to a recent story on Cherrix in USA Today, chemotherapy rendered the 6-foot-1 teenager so weak that he couldn't walk from his car to his home. He felt deathly ill after treatment and feared at times that he wouldn't make it through the night.

Pengwuino, stop posting nonsense.

I sure as hell do not want to government telling people what to do. The FDA is a sellout to the pharmaceutical compaines. They should stay far, far away from telling anyone what to do.

 

[Rach3]

Where does 'right do die' fit into this? These people do believe they're saving his life, using herbs to cure Hodgkin's, because they're utter idiots and have the critical-reasoning ability of fruitbats. This is not an informed 'decision to die' in a terminally ill case; these people never indicated they want death here, so that shouldn't even enter the discussion. It's a simple case of crackpot frauds taking the place of legtimitate medicine, and it will likely cost this kid's life if child protection doesn't supersede these idiots' right to astrology.

Now if this were a terminally ill minor, who preferred quick death over artifically prolonged life, there I have no idea. That's not the situation.

 

[Rach3]

Don't forget that this Hoxsey stuff (hoaxy?) has been banned in the US for half a century, this kid is fleeing to Mexico to get away from US law.

http://documents.cancer.org/6516.00/

 

[Cyrus]

Where does 'right do die' fit into this? These people do believe they're saving his life, using herbs to cure Hodgkin's, because they're utter idiots and have the critical-reasoning ability of fruitbats. This is not an informed 'decision to die' in a terminally ill case; these people never indicated they want death here, so that shouldn't even enter the discussion. It's a simple case of crackpot frauds taking the place of legtimitate medicine, and it will likely cost this kid's life if child protection doesn't supersede these idiots' right to astrology.

Now if this were a terminally ill minor, who preferred quick death over artifically prolonged life, there I have no idea. That's not the situation.

Or maybe his parents are desperate and can't stand to see their son being treated by a method that is literally killing him in the process. I think you and pengwuino should show them a little bit more respect.

Will his flight to mexico cure him? 99.9% chance it wont. Is kemo helping him, the obvious answer is clearly no as well.

Maybe he comes to his senses and resumes the kemo, maybe he needs to stop for a while before it kills him. Either way, it's his and his parent's call.

The government should take a hike.

 

[Pengwuino]

I sure as hell do not want to government telling people what to do. The FDA is a sellout to the pharmaceutical compaines. They should stay far, far away from telling anyone what to do.

Utter nonsense on your side there. The government can come and take your kid away if a neighbor says you punch him for not cleaning his room. Do you REALLY think the government should just let children be beat up, molested, and neglected just so you have this strange all-important satisfaction that the government didn't get involved in someones life (even though the very fact that you can post online is the government's will)?

I suspect the next time someone steals from you, you won't call the police because you don't want the government telling you or the criminal what to do right? Of course not! Governments... by DEFINITION, get involved in citizen's lives.

 

[Cyrus]

Utter nonsense on your side there. The government can come and take your kid away if a neighbor says you punch him for not cleaning his room. Do you REALLY think the government should just let children be beat up, molested, and neglected just so you have this strange all-important satisfaction that the government didn't get involved in someones life (even though the very fact that you can post online is the government's will)?

What does this have to do with what were talking about?

I suspect the next time someone steals from you, you won't call the police because you don't want the government telling you or the criminal what to do right? Of course not! Governments... by DEFINITION, get involved in citizen's lives.

And what does this have to do with what were talking about?

 

[Pengwuino]

You said "I sure as hell do not want to government telling people what to do.", i showed you why that's a non-sense idea.

 

[Cyrus]

You said "I sure as hell do not want to government telling people what to do.", i showed you why that's a non-sense idea.

With respect to this case, pengwuino. So stop going off on wild tangents about kids being molested unless you have something better to say. Or maybe you just want to continue spouting off on how a kid too weak to walk from chemo is throwing a 'childish tantrum'...

GROW UP.

 

[Rach3]

(even though the very fact that you can post online is the government's will)?

How did you reason that out?

 

[loseyourname]

I sure as hell do not want to government telling people what to do. The FDA is a sellout to the pharmaceutical compaines. They should stay far, far away from telling anyone what to do.

County social services and the juvenile courts are not the FDA, and they are not in the pockets of big pharmaceutical companies.

 

[devil-fire]

something to keep in mind is that chemo is an Extremely difficult treatment to endure. there are thousands (millions maybe?) of people who are taking a less intensive chemo treatment program (or none at all) then the one recommended by doctors as the most effective way to beat cancer. there are thousands of people who are trying to take their chances with chemo instead of amputating limbs. to compare this court battle to a Court battle regarding giving a child a vaccination is like comparing the removal of a wart to amputation of limbs, sure there is a similarity, but the difference in magnitude is vary significant.

any time chemo is even considered, its in a situation when the patient has to consider the lesser of two evils. if the child and the parents want to take a less dramatic treatment, then that is their choice. however it has been my experience with cancer that it is better to take an aggressive treatment early on as to have a high chance of curing the illness in a short period of time

 

[Cyrus]

County social services and the juvenile courts are not the FDA, and they are not in the pockets of big pharmaceutical companies.

Yes, you are correct; however, those doctors that he will be forced to see will get their drugs from the FDA. And that's why I mentioned them.