Posted on 08/16/2006 8:08:37 AM PDT by presidio9
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, Accomack County 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.
Tyler emphasized that the decree states that the parents weren't medically neglectful.
Abraham saw the doctor last week, and defense attorneys told the judge that the doctor has indicated that he thinks that Abraham can be cured.
After the short hearing, the judge looked at Abraham and said, "God bless you, Mr. Cherrix."
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 an alternative herbal treatment called 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.
Lawyers for the family appealed, and an Accomack County Circuit Court judge suspended that order and scheduled a new trial to settle the dispute. The judge scheduled the trial for two days but has indicated he would like to finish in one, said John Stepanovich, a lawyer for the parents.
Abraham is still on the Hoxsey method, but Stepanovich stressed that the family hasn't ruled out other possible treatments, such as immunotherapy or radiation treatment in small doses.
According to the American Cancer Society, there is no scientific evidence that Hoxsey is effective in treating cancer in people. The herbal treatment is illegal in the United States but can be obtained through clinics in Mexico, and some U.S. naturopathic practitioners use adapted versions of the formula.
Starchild...interesting
Good. He shouldn't have been forced to go through chemo a second time. I hope they find something that will cure him.
How generous of the state to allow him a conditional go at his favored medical treatment.
It's the parents' choice what treatment to use since Abraham is under 18. Period. The county needs to butt out.
Interestingly enough, I didn't know the kid had the weird first name, but I heard him interviewed on Hannity and he's a very well-spoken young man. He and his parents researched the alternatives and mutually agreed on this particular type of treatment, and so far, it seems to be working--or at least he's not getting any worse.
Gabz, this is in your neck of the woods, isn't it?
}:-)4
He'll be dead in a year.
I agree the choice is his and his parents, no one else's. I'm sure if the treatment he is on now is showing no improvement they will make the wise decision to do radiation or chemo again should need be to save his life. For now leave the boy alone and let them seek help however they so choose.
Great news! I pray for Starchild's complete recovery.
How does one illegally refuse chemo as opposed to what this kid is doing?
What you put into your body is one of the most important factors in health, but for the most part Western Medicine does not believe in diet. I guess they don't believe patients can actually stick to a strict diet and instead rely on presribing pills and treatments for everything.
That's a bit extreme. He has already under one round of chemotherapy, and is to be treated by an oncologist who is board-certified in radiation therapy, and has indicated he may undergo radiation therapy and/or immunotherapy. Yes, he might be dead within a year, but it's far from certain, and more chemotherapy wouldn't be a guarantee either, especially since he had an especially bad reaction to it the first time. Quality of life matters, and it's not clear that he won't get more of that by going his chosen route, even though he'd very likely get more quantity of life with the chemotherapy.
Yes, Moose, this is my neck of the woods.
Accomack County Social Services is devil incarnate as far as I'm concerned. They are also hypocrites. I'm aware of a case a few years ago where AC social workers offered to help a 15 year old get an abortion, without her parents knowing about it.
As to the young man's first name, it is possible it is a family name. On one of the other threads about this case it was brought up that Starchild is a common last name in some parts of Virginia, and giving a child a family name is not an uncommon practice.
I'm glad to see some common sense in the outcome of this for him and his family.
If a 16 year old wanted an abortion, the left would citing the right to privacy and that 'nobody can tell you what to do with your own body.'
It seems abortion gets favored treatment when it comes to privacy.
Might be a family name.
I posted on a thread a few weeks ago that there are three families with surname 'Starchild' listed as living in VA in an online phone directory.
The suffix '-child' or '-schild' on surnames is usually derived from Germanic words for 'shield.'
So it's not necessarily some hippy dippy name.
And even if it were, that's no reason to deny him --an obviously intelligent young man who's almost 18 years old-- his right to choose his own medical treatment.
Please see my comments in post #15 - they address your concern.
If he survives: more power to him. If he doesn't: he will have made his contribution.
I hope not. I can say that from what I've read about chemotherapy, I wouldn't personally take it for myself, either.
He was court ordered to report to the hospitol to undergo whatever treatment the doctors deemed necessary..........refusing that would probably amount to contempt of court.
That's what this was about James. The state took over when his parents refused on his behalf.
The cure rate for Hodgkins Disease is very high. Most patients survive the disease. Many patients who relapse after first line therapy are cured by second-line chemotherapy. So-called alternative therapies have no basis in science and are often peddled by frauds seeking to exploit the sick and desperate. I hope this person gets a second opinion from scientifically minded oncologists and receives proper care.
"He since has been using an alternative herbal treatment called the Hoxsey method, the sale of which was banned in the United States in 1960."
The "alternative treatment" to be provided by his board certified oncologist may work, but it's a big risk. It's going against the odds.
If we were talking about some senior citizen who had pretty much lived out his life I could understand it better but this is a 16 year old kid who could have a long life ahead.
Just my opinion of course but I'd rather my son have the 85% chance.
I certainly do not disagree with you.
I think just having the stress of this nonsense over with will be good for his health.
I'm in total agreement. I've been on this young man and his family's side since the get go.
This is a rare example of a case where government intervention worked well, with everyone behaving reasonably. It was not unreasonable of the social worker to seek court intervention, given the basic facts of the situation, nor was it unreasonable for the court to intervene. After all, while parents have a right to raise their children as they see fit, both common sense and the law recognize that this doesn't extend to the right to torture them or withhold obviously life-saving medical treatment or restrict them to bizarre diets which guarantee ill health long into adulthood and even risk death prior to reaching adulthood. Hopefully, everyone here can agree that the parents who killed their adoptive daughter by following a kook therapist's advice to subject her to "forced water drinking therapy" as "treatment" for "attachment disorder", had no right to pursue that method of child-rearing.
The court took all the information into account, giving proper weight to the right of parents to govern their children's lives within reason, and the natural (though not legal) right of a legal minor who is old enough and intelligent enough the situation to have a say in his own life-and-death decisions, and to the demonstrated sanity of both the parents and the child. The parents, notwithstanding the kooky name they gave their son, have behaved rationally all along -- they did have him undergo the mainstream recommended treatment of chemotherapy, rather than ignore reality and run straight to some "alternative" practitioner (the sort whose patient rosters are heavy on people with names like "Starchild"). The parents also didn't refuse to deal with the court system, and grab the kid and disappear. Neither the parents nor the child are rejecting all further mainstream medical treatment out of hand, but rather are just rejecting the single one they tried already and decided from experience wasn't worth it.
Too bad this sort of process and outcome is so rare when government authorities intervene in family matters.
Just watch my 23 year old child die in 6 months after 26 days of radiation and 4 rounds of chemotherapy. I'd say in 6 months time he had a total of two weeks where he felt really good.
I'm all for the kid choosing a higher quality of life for however long his life will be-- and avoiding another round of chemo. It's barbarism.
It doesn't however change the statistical facts about the success rates of standard treatment in this type of cancer.
I have to agree. I'm not prepared to say it is a "conspiracy", but the role of the nutritionist in the cancer fight of my child was pathetic. You cannot tell a young person to "eat whatever they want"-- the presumption then is that nutrition then plays no role in the fight (i.e. Drink ensure or boost).
We were at a comprehensive cancer center, and the consideration given to nutrition was criminal.
The "alternative treatment" might just work. A lot of what makes the body of official medicine came for the "alternative" side. Many medications are derived (purified or synthetic) from natural/herbal medication.
There are many examples of how the "alternative treatment" could be superior. Until the first half of XX century the East European peasants were mocked for their method for curing infected wounds: they were putting the molded bread on them. After the discovery of penicillin this example of peasant superstition disappeared from the handbooks.
The exception would have been had he illegally refused chemo.
A government that can prohibit certain drugs or therapy can force persons to ingest certain drugs or therapy. Happens quite often with the WOD and Ritalin.
Every person breaks the law several times a year, Yet, with all that lawlessness society has not plunged into self-destruction. It didn't last year, a decade ago, fifty years nor a century ago. At the rate of 3,000 new laws and regulations created at the federal level each year how is it that persons and society don't run headlong into destruction without the new laws to come next year and each year thereafter -- yet in reality persons and society increasingly prosper despite not having the supposed benefits of future laws and despite massive lawlessness?
Politicians and bureaucrats are parasitical elites. They feed/leech off the working man and working woman. Without the workers of the world, value producers, the parasitical elites would perish because they are net value destroyers.
You aren't the kid and the state has no role in it.
It is to be a personal decision. Would I choose Chemo if the success rate was 80%+, sure.
This is his second time. Given my fictitious numbers, I guess he was in the 20% the first time? If the first drug didn't work, and I presume they used the best coctail against it-- the second best coctail might do less. It could do more...
That's why it's a hard decision. The state can bugger off.
The government had no business intervening in this situation to begin with.
Please read my comments regarding social workers in Accomack County at post #15.
Wow, wax philosophical, wouldja? That was pure honey-drippin' to read, I tell ya. I bet you and I would have the same interpretations of the metaphor and allegory in The Matrix...
Not to go off on a tangent, but this issue kind of points out something that I think a lot of people don't consider. There is a perception among many, subconscious most of the time, that equates the law with morality. That was more true in times past than it is now. Just because the law says something illegal, doesn't mean it's immoral and just because the law says something is legal doesn't make it moral by any stretch of the imagination.
I like what Zon has said more or less in this vein. I would argue that laws were created to rein in on those who lack some of the finer aspects of morality. Theivery comes to mind.
People don't realize that Ritalin prescribed = enhanced funding for reclassing the child as special ed. It's a racket.
They're doing it to my step-grandson. I wish they would listen to me. There were posts here last week about it, that [female] teachers can't handle normal little boys.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.