# Virginia teen fights for right to pick Hodgkin's treatment



## Ping898 (Jul 12, 2006)

The upshot of this article is a 16 year old kid is having a relapse of his cancer, but doesn't want chemo and his folks back him.  So I am wondering, at what age are you old enough to make a decision like that.  We (as a society) seem to say 16 year olds are not mature enough to decide major life things for their own, but at the same time, if we can charge a 12-year old child as an adult for a murder, why can't a 16 year old be old enough to make his own medical decision?  

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-07-11-herbal-remedy_x.htm



> Abraham Cherrix, 16, went through chemotherapy for Hodgkin's disease that left him so weak that his father carried the 6-foot-1 youth from the car to the house. Doctors tell him he needs a second round of chemo to get rid of the cancer that reappeared in February.
> Abraham says no, and his parents are backing him up.
> Now the Virginia family is in juvenile court, the parents are charged with medical neglect and the Accomack County social services agency has joint custody of Abraham. The agency asked the court to order the boy to undergo chemotherapy.
> A court hearing continued Tuesday. Each side plans to appeal an adverse ruling, family lawyer Barry Taylor says.
> ...


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 12, 2006)

So he doesn't want it, and his parents don't want it...  But someone is trying to force him to undergo it?

I'd give my opinion, but I don't think the language filter could handle it...


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 12, 2006)

I need to think on this a bit.  There's a lot of facets to this issue.


----------



## rutherford (Jul 12, 2006)

What if they said God told them not to get Chemo?


I strongly support his right to choose his treatment options.


----------



## Ping898 (Jul 12, 2006)

I am not entirely sure how I feel, but I do think the fact that he has gone through this before and relatively recently (not like when he was 3)  should work in favor for his right to choose.


----------



## Ping898 (Jul 12, 2006)

rutherford said:
			
		

> What if they said God told them not to get Chemo?


 
That may not matter, if you read through the full article they cited a case where a 17 year old girl was forced to have a blood transfusion after a ski accident despite that it was against her religion and that of her family.


----------



## OUMoose (Jul 12, 2006)

So DNRs and living wills are already out the door (Terry Schiavo), and now the gov't can tell me what treatments I "need" when I'm still lucid?  It just goes to show that in today's world, your parents don't even get the final say in your life.  Sure, if they were abusive or in some other way deficient, I'd cast a questioning eye.  These people sound fine, and the kid is trying to do what he thinks is right.  If he dies, he knows he did the wrong thing, but that's his right.  

Personally I'd like to see the Accomack County social services agency take the money they were going to put into this case and put it into Cancer research instead, since Chemo is *NOT* a cure, only a speed bump on the road to death.  Not only that, you get to live the rest of your days in weakened pain, instead of some sort of enjoyable life (albeit a bit shorter).  Let the boy have peace and do his thing.  Who knows, he may get better from the researched treatment.  I don't know.  I DO know that the state has no place in this matter.  Period.  

I'm disgusted... *sigh*


----------



## still learning (Jul 15, 2006)

Hello, Something to think about?  Should Doctor's make the choices for medical treatment for everyone?  and you have NO say on this?

What about the medcial cost to the families?  If doctors say you have to have the treatment.

Whay about our own decision to say NO...let us die? or should the doctors make this choice to keep you alive?

A sixteen year old....UM?  ....I think he know's?  and if he does gets treatment...what happen when he get's to 21 years old?  ...will it be his choice for more treatment?

Everyone should have the right to choose...just my thoughts on this...Aloha


----------



## BrandiJo (Jul 15, 2006)

his body his right to choose, if his parents back him all the better. Now if it where an 8 or 12 year old that would be different they do not understand (sometimes) how choices affect long term out comes​


----------



## Sam (Jul 15, 2006)

It really would depend on the person. I'm 17 and I feel like I'm a lot more mature than many of my peers, but I have a 14 year old friend who blows me out of the water.

However, from the way he speaks, and the fact that his parents back him up, I think that is probably a decision he could make on his own.

Whether or not he IS old enough, though, the state doesnt belong in the mess.


----------



## Swordlady (Jul 15, 2006)

I have quite a few opinions as a social worker, but I want to think about this situation a little more before responding...


----------



## ginshun (Jul 18, 2006)

16 is old enough to know what what is good for you, and the parents support his decsision.  I personally think the doctors and the court can go **** themselves.  There is no way that they should be able to force this kid into a treatment that niether him, nor the parents want him to have.

Then there is alwasy what OUMoose brought up.  Chemo *is not  *a cure for cancer, only a treatment that sometimes works and sometimes doesn't.  

How exactly do they plan on making this kid go to chemo if he doesn't want to?  Are they going to get 3 or 4 attendants to drag him in kicking and screaming, strap him down and start shooting him up?  Are they going to traqalize him and knock him unconsceous first so that he can't fight them?

The government even suggesting forcing him into these treatments is deplorable. 

Whats next?  Forcing *everyone  *to undergo any treatment that a doctor deams neccessary?  No thanks, take your dictatorship someplace else.


----------



## Kacey (Jul 18, 2006)

I have to agree - if the boy's family were of some religious persuasion that did not allow medical care, this would not be an issue - and he is certainly old enough, and experienced enough in what going through chemo does to him, that he should be able to make the determination for himself.  Chemo or not, the prognosis for treating cancer the second time is not good.

This is, I think, part of a larger issue.  This country spends an amazing amount of money prolonging life at both ends (infancy and age/deathly illness) and gives very little thought to the quality of the life being thus extended.  For myself, I would rather live a quality life (relatively free of pain, illness, intrusive medical care, etc.) for a shorter time than live in constant pain, with constant nausea, in a hospital, or any other form of chronic discomfort.  This is the choice that this young man is making, and I think society needs to respect that.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 18, 2006)

If both parental units are in agreement about not doing a certain treatment, then if the 16 year old was treated as a child, they have their rights.  For what if it was a religous issue and they could nto have invasive surgery or techniques performed upon their body? 

Yet, there would be some that would say this child abuse, or that the parents do not wish to cough up the money to pay for this, even if it means loosing their house and bankrupting themselves. 

Hence, why I believe the 16 year old is persuing a legal issue that a 16 year can choose their own treatment, for they have an understanding of cause and effect and the consequences of their choice. 

The issue with this, is that some will understand and might be going with the parents wishes or what they believe is the parents wishes. 

The problem with arguing that the parents have convinced the child it is the best course to proceed with and that this is bad, then this means now people can challenge religious issues, for I personally think that the young are indoctrinated (* Read Brain washed *) into a religion, no matter what the religion may be. So if it is bad in one, then could it be bad in all? The answer would be most likely yes.

Yet, this all falls back "Others" or "Society" thinking they know what is best for the individual. So if they were not allowed to interfer and people had to take responsibility for their actions no matter what the age (* Of course punishment should be in accordance with age and understanding *) then this would not be an issue. 

The problem is that these issue come up and no one (* Healthy Member of society *) wants to see a child die. 

It is a small group of well meaning people trying to "Help" or "Save", and think they should be able to influence others or impose their norms upon others. What if I was to impose my norms upon these well meaning people? Would they not disagree and want to fight it? Would they not cry persecution? They and aswer to them all is Yes they would not want someone else to TELL THEM WHAT TO DO.

But that is exactly what people need to tell , they need to stay out of other's people business. (* Yes, True child abuse, such as beatings and no food, and living in feces, etcetera *) Even though I might not agree with a couple that raise their child a certain way, and this child does not get the "BEST" medical  assistance because of their beliefs, I respect that this is their wishes for themselves and their family. 

Yet, it seems that respect of others, has gone by the way side, and no really cares, they are just out to push a cause or make a point. 

And ON that note, I wish the 16 year old the best and hope that what ever path is chosen he has the best life he can. :asian:


----------



## Ping898 (Jul 21, 2006)

Apparently....they lost...I hope they keep fighting in as many courts as they can

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060721/ap_on_re_us/sick_teen;_ylt=A9FJqaf2bcFEne0AoQas0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MjBwMWtkBHNlYwM3MTg-

Judge orders teen to cancer treatment
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.


----------



## Kacey (Jul 21, 2006)

That really sucks.  Yes, medical care should be available - but it should also be possible, in the circumstances given, to reject care that didn't work the first time.


----------



## phlaw (Jul 22, 2006)

If you don't want the treatment, just tell the hospital you don't have insurance...

I bet that would change their mind pretty quick!


----------



## ginshun (Jul 25, 2006)

> Judge orders teen to cancer treatment
> 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.



Oh ya?  Or what?  What exactly is this dip**** judge going to do if he doesn't show up?   Are they going to arrest him and drag him kicking and screaming into the hospital for his chemo?  He is probably going to die without it, exactly what punishment do they think they will impose that is worse than *death?*

Thats why this case is so ridiculous, how do you force a 16 year old guy to go to the hospital for a treatment he doesn't want?


----------



## Ping898 (Jul 25, 2006)

Looks like for now, things have changed a bit...

Story



> Judge lifts order for cancer treatment
> By SONJA BARISIC, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 15 minutes ago
> 
> ACCOMAC, Va. - A judge ruled Tuesday that a 16-year-old cancer patient who has refused conventional medical treatment does not have to report to a hospital as previously ordered and scheduled a trial to settle the dispute.
> ...


 


> *"What the department is interested in is this young man being cured of cancer," Bundick said*.


See now personally I would like the department to be interested in stopping cases like the two girls found starved by their stepmother as posted in another study thread.....


----------



## OUMoose (Jul 25, 2006)

> *"What the department is interested in is this young man being cured of cancer," Bundick said*.


 
Hope the department has some SERIOUS money to cough up then, or that department just got made to look like something not appropriate for a public forum. 

I have to agree with Ginshun here. What good will the next trial do? Are they just postponing the inevitable? Chemo is not a pleasureable experience from what I've witnessed and heard first-hand, so could this be considered cruel and unusual punishment since it will be court-appointed and against the boy's (and his LEGAL guardian's) will?


----------



## ginshun (Jul 26, 2006)

Last time I checked, chemo was not a cure for cancer, if it was, we wouldn't be spending millions every year looking for a cure.

Now if this was a case of the kid taking a pill and him being cured 100% of the time, that would be one thing, but that is not the case.  The government is trying to force a person into an extremely painful treatment that has no guarentee of working. 

Hodgkins is special in that the cure rate is very high for younger people that are diagnosed with it, so that may have played into the disision, but still, IMO its the families, not the courts place to diside what treatment (if any) an individual should recieve.


----------



## Marginal (Jul 27, 2006)

Is the herbal diet is just as effective as chemo, seeing as how it's not a cure either? Seems to me I remember reading about a lot of people going with, and dying with that particular route. 

Push the cancer into remission, or die chugging herbs?


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 27, 2006)

Here's the deal:

Once you go through one round of chemo and regress, your prognosis for longevity and chance of a second remission drops a lot.  The article originally referenced didn't indicate what stage of Hodgkin's the boy is in.  If he's in stage three or higher, his chances of surviving the next round of chemo and radiation (or for much time beyond it) are minimal.

For the medically minded, here are some research abstracts and articles on hodgkins, aggressive allopathic treatments and prognoses.

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Blood - Journal of the American Society of Hematology

Hematology - American Society of Hematology Program Book

American Journal of Clinical Oncology

Happy reading ....


----------



## OUMoose (Jul 27, 2006)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Is the herbal diet is just as effective as chemo, seeing as how it's not a cure either? Seems to me I remember reading about a lot of people going with, and dying with that particular route.
> 
> Push the cancer into remission, or die chugging herbs?


If he wants to die chugging herbs, and his LEGAL GUARDIANS are ok with it, who are you to tell him otherwise?  No one is arguing that the herbal supplement is any better, however the choice should be his, not the courts.  Period.


----------



## OUMoose (Jul 27, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Here's the deal:
> 
> Once you go through one round of chemo and regress, your prognosis for longevity and chance of a second remission drops a lot. The article originally referenced didn't indicate what stage of Hodgkin's the boy is in. If he's in stage three or higher, his chances of surviving the next round of chemo and radiation (or for much time beyond it) are minimal.
> 
> ...


That doesn't answer the question at the root of the issue.  He could be in stage 1, 2, 3, or 8987234987124 for all we know.  :idunno:  Going by that logic, should someone in stage 1 have more or less rights to their own body than someone in stage 2 or 3?

If it's more, what happens to the more progressed patients?  Are they going to be systematically stripped of their dignity and personal preference? Do we say "Oh, you're in stage 1?  You've got a decent chance so do what you like.  Stage 2?  Oh crap, you don't know what you're doing and we'll take over..."

If it's less, what does it say about us?  "Stage 1?  You have the best chance of survival so we're doing everything we can whether you like it or not!  Stage 2?  Pfft.  You're a gonner anyways so good luck..."

Plus, after re-reading the article (and granted, I might have missed it), who's footing the bill for this treatment?  are they forcing the parents to pay?  Are the taxpayers picking up the tab?

This boils down to the state interfering in a family issue that they really have nothing to say about.  If the parents were neglecting, beating, or abusing the kid in some way, sure, step in and help.  This is not such a case.


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 27, 2006)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> That doesn't answer the question at the root of the issue.  He could be in stage 1, 2, 3, or 8987234987124 for all we know.  :idunno:  Going by that logic, should someone in stage 1 have more or less rights to their own body than someone in stage 2 or 3?
> 
> If it's more, what happens to the more progressed patients?  Are they going to be systematically stripped of their dignity and personal preference? Do we say "Oh, you're in stage 1?  You've got a decent chance so do what you like.  Stage 2?  Oh crap, you don't know what you're doing and we'll take over..."
> 
> If it's less, what does it say about us?  "Stage 1?  You have the best chance of survival so we're doing everything we can whether you like it or not!  Stage 2?  Pfft.  You're a gonner anyways so good luck..."


I was really posting the articles in the interest of introducing things this family may have read which indicates his chances aren't the best anyway and may have shaped his decision.  His choice should be his and his family's choice.



> Plus, after re-reading the article (and granted, I might have missed it), who's footing the bill for this treatment?  are they forcing the parents to pay?  Are the taxpayers picking up the tab?


Most likely the parents since they're financially responsible for him.



> This boils down to the state interfering in a family issue that they really have nothing to say about.  If the parents were neglecting, beating, or abusing the kid in some way, sure, step in and help.  This is not such a case.


The real problem is who gets to decide what abuse is.  Is allowing the boy to make his own researched but young opinion which could end his life tantamount to neglect and, hence, abuse?  I'm sure that the tack taken will be somewhere along those lines.  Or is forcing this boy to endure much higher dosages of radiation, chemotherapy and other allopathic cancer treatments which he may or may not survive and which may or may not successfully treat his cancer tantamount to abuse by the medical establishment and governmental powers?


----------



## Marginal (Jul 28, 2006)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> If he wants to die chugging herbs, and his LEGAL GUARDIANS are ok with it, who are you to tell him otherwise?


 
So basically, if his parents are cool with him sticking a gun to his head, why should anyone criticise them?


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 29, 2006)

Marginal said:
			
		

> So basically, if his parents are cool with him sticking a gun to his head, why should anyone criticise them?


So are you equating an informed choice on one's own cancer treatment with a psychologically damaged state?


----------



## Ping898 (Aug 3, 2006)

Marginal said:
			
		

> So basically, if his parents are cool with him sticking a gun to his head, why should anyone criticise them?


Yes, well for all we know the state is sticking a gun to his head as well.  What it seems like keeps getting ignored is although the chemo/radiation may be the best medical treatment, there is no garuntee that he won't die anyways and have a lot worse time of it that if he followed the treatment plan he's choosen.


----------



## Marginal (Aug 3, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> So are you equating an informed choice on one's own cancer treatment with a psychologically damaged state?


 
I don't beleive for a second that everyone that kills themselves is in a psychologically damaged state.


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 3, 2006)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Is the herbal diet is just as effective as chemo, seeing as how it's not a cure either? Seems to me I remember reading about a lot of people going with, and dying with that particular route.
> 
> Push the cancer into remission, or die chugging herbs?



You believe in the Government's right to make Motorcyclists wear helmets, and Car drivers wear their seatbelts, don't you?


----------



## Marginal (Aug 4, 2006)

Don't forget cell phone using drivers. They need bannage with a quickness. 

I would call it a governmental obligation instead of a right. If people are too stupid to do things that prevent them from serious bobily harm, and potentially push the burden of their future care onto the public at large, then they've already demonstrated that they're incapable of reaching an informed decision on their own. Why would you want to leave it up to them at that point? Far better usage of our collective will towards nannystate-ism vs regulation of gay marriage and flag burning amendments. 

But really, I just wanted to scoff at herbal voodoo cancer treatments.


----------



## OUMoose (Aug 4, 2006)

Marginal said:
			
		

> I would call it a governmental obligation instead of a right. If people are too stupid to do things that prevent them from serious bobily harm, and potentially push the burden of their future care onto the public at large, then they've already demonstrated that they're incapable of reaching an informed decision on their own. Why would you want to leave it up to them at that point?


Yes, because we know the gov't knows exactly what's good for us.  *rolls eyes*

As has been repeatedly stated, the kid knows what's going to happen.  He's been through chemo once, and it did go into remission.  The disease came back, so he wanted to try a different route.  He researched it, his parents were ok with it, and they were footing it.  If it didn't work, it's natural selection at work.  If it did, all the better.  Nowhere in that line of thought do the words gov't or social services come in at all.  

Try putting yourself in that kid's shoes.  You have a terminal illness.  The established treatment has failed.  You research an alternative treatment, because you're really just beginning your life and don't want to give up.  You reach a decision and commit to it, and the government steps in from out of nowhere and says you have no choice in your treatment, and that you have to subject yourself to a painful and debilitating procedure against your will that you know is futile.  

Does that sound like a "good" idea to you?  The thing cancer patients need most is hope, and it saddens me greatly to think that "the man" can swoop in and crush it so carelessly and on a whim.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Aug 4, 2006)

_
You believe in the Government's right to make Motorcyclists wear helmets, and Car drivers wear their seatbelts, don't you?_

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but I don't.  : )

I'm not a suicidal idiot; I wear my seatbelt every single time I'm in a vehicle and if I rode a motorcycle I would wear helmet, but I don't think the Goct. should make itr a law requiring one to do so


----------



## Marginal (Aug 4, 2006)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> Yes, because we know the gov't knows exactly what's good for us. *rolls eyes*


When it comes to using a helmet while on a motorcycle, it's a no brainer. (Unless you prefer to crack your skull, which is plainly stupid.)



> As has been repeatedly stated, the kid knows what's going to happen. He's been through chemo once, and it did go into remission. The disease came back, so he wanted to try a different route.


 
The treatment did make the disease go away for a time. The herbal treatment can't even claim that much. 



> He researched it, his parents were ok with it, and they were footing it. If it didn't work, it's natural selection at work.


 
I'd nominate him for a Darwin award yes, but that's hardly an example of natural selection. 



> Try putting yourself in that kid's shoes. You have a terminal illness. The established treatment has failed.


 
Interesting spin. The treatment didn't fail. It worked just as the doctors said it would. There's always a chance that the cancer will return. 



> You research an alternative treatment, because you're really just beginning your life and don't want to give up.


 
So you choose a nutjob herb shack. Obviously, this was carefully researched.


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 4, 2006)

Marginal said:
			
		

> So you choose a nutjob herb shack. Obviously, this was carefully researched.


 
Ok, so I take it then you are of the school that says herbalizm = quackary.


----------



## Marginal (Aug 4, 2006)

It frequently is. (In the case of the Mexico clinic, their treatment has not demonstrated any capacity for pushing cancer into remissions etc.) Along those same lines, I suppose that the lady that suffocated that girl in a blanket during "rebirthing" or the guy who killed his cancer patient with hydrogen peroxide injections really should get a free pass though since it was the "right" of the people involved to do meticilous research and come up with the very best treatment options they could find.


----------



## OUMoose (Aug 5, 2006)

Marginal said:
			
		

> It frequently is. (In the case of the Mexico clinic, their treatment has not demonstrated any capacity for pushing cancer into remissions etc.) Along those same lines, I suppose that the lady that suffocated that girl in a blanket during "rebirthing" or the guy who killed his cancer patient with hydrogen peroxide injections really should get a free pass though since it was the "right" of the people involved to do meticilous research and come up with the very best treatment options they could find.


You seem to be focusing on a non-issue.  The treatment in question is not the problem.  The fact that the gov't attempted to enforce a decision they had no right to, is.  Malpractice is always an issue, and should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.  A government is there to represent its people, not _think_ for it.  

Also, I have seen first-hand what chemo and radiation does to a person.  I had an immediate relative die from hodgkin's.  I would not wish that pain and suffering on my worse enemy, let alone a 16 year old kid I don't know from Adam.  

Just think about your point of view when big brother comes for you in your golden years because they don't like the way you've been keeping yourself...


----------



## Marginal (Aug 5, 2006)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> Just think about your point of view when big brother comes for you in your golden years because they don't like the way you've been keeping yourself...


 
Just from watching my grandparents die last year, it's clear the state's protections on self-cognizance (even when both of the golden agers are riddles with dimensia, and incapable of caring for themselves anymore.) the state's more than happy to let you kill yourself. and drag your spouse down with you.


----------

