[Risasi]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050609/D8AK6HKO2.html

What the hey, they're gonna get to the kids anyway. I'm taking as many as I can with me...

[Zundfolge]

...and one reason I don't have kids :fire:

[CAS700850]

I prosecuted child-protection cases for several years. A kid gets beaten purple, and the investigators take abuse for not catching the problem sooner. Step in like this, and the investigators take abuse for stepping in at all.

I'll be the first to admit that some of these investigators overstep their bounds. I recall a fight I had with one investigator about whether it was abusive to allow a ten year old to go target shooting. Imagine the look on the investigator's face when I picked up the phone and called an attorney friend/RKBA advocate and made the referral for the case while she was sitting in my office.

[Strings]

Ok... I'm neither a doctor nor a lawyer. But, if the facts are as presented, I'd have to say social services made a mistake here. Meaning: if the child's cancer IS in remission, then the doctors should've stood down

[Sindawe]

Blog spot by the familiy in this. http://prayforkatie.blogspot.com/ I told them they needed a search warrant and they said the court order was enough. They wouldn't wait any longer and forced their way into my house and completely searched it and meanwhile CPS took pictures of everything. Good thing I don't have children. Try this dren in my home, and the CPS thugs would be leaking their bodily fluids all over the front porch. :fire:

[Hawkmoon]

Ok... I'm neither a doctor nor a lawyer. But, if the facts are as presented, I'd have to say social services made a mistake here. Meaning: if the child's cancer IS in remission, then the doctors should've stood down.
Even if the kid's cancer is NOT in remssion, the doctors and the courts should stand down.

There are NO guaranteed cures for cancer. As a very old saying goes, "The only thing we know for sure about this life is that nobody gets out alive." I have a friend who is a retired oncologist. He retired from medical practice at least in part because he got tired of dealing with idiot doctors who try to fool people into accepting expensive, painful, disfiguring treatments even though they (the doctors) know damned well that the chances of those treatments working are less than 25%

The decision of how to treat an ill child should be made by the parents. Sometimes it's better for all involved to accept that not everyone survives cancer, and to die peacefully rather than undergo horrendous treatment protocols ... and then die anyway.

She wasn't a child, but my cousin faced this decision several years ago. She had a brain tumour, and because of the location in relation to the spinal chord & central nervous system much of it was inoperable. The doctors wanted her to take radiation and chemotherapy. She declined. Her parents supported her in her decision and allowed her to die with peace and dignity.

Don't get me wrong ... I love children, and if a CURE is a probability I think an operation or radiation or chemo is appropriate. But I also support a family'rs right to decide for themselves what is right for them. And I become incensed when doctors and courts insert themselves into matters that are none of their concern.

I believe that when a doctor or a hospital decides to go to court seeking permission to override a parent's instructions on how to care for a child, two criteria should be met:

(1) The doctor and/or hospital making the request must agree to assume ALL costs of treatment. Why should parents be forced to pay for something they don't want?

(2) The court should ask the doctor or hospital if they are able to GUARANTEE -- with 100% certainty -- that (a) the treatment they advocate WILL save the child's life, AND (b) that without said treatment, the child absolutely WILL die. (Not "might" die or "could" die, but "will" die.)

Unless those criteria can be satisfied, the doctors and hospitals should shut up.

And if a doctor or hospital is willing to make such a 100% guarantee that the treatment they advocate will save the child, and the child subsequently receives the treatment and dies, they doctor and/or hospital should be convicted of at least fraud and perjury, and perhaps with manslaughter.

Maybe then they'll stop trying to play God.

[neoncowboy]

This story scares the crap out of me.

Notice it isn't in a socialist, 'nanny state' state like Mass or Illinois...but in TEXAS!?

***?

I am right there with the original poster, this is exactly what 'high capacity magazines' and 'armor penetrating' ammunition are for. Come into my home to mess with my kid and you're going to have a fight.

[Atticus]

Notice it isn't in a socialist, 'nanny state' state like Mass or Illinois...but in TEXAS!?

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck....it's probably a duck.

[QuickDraw]

authorities issued an Amber Alert to gain temporary custody of Katie

I thought the "Amber Alert" was for finding KIDNAPPED
children,not children with their parents. :confused:

QuickDraw

[nico]

I reposted this above (it'll probably be merged or deleted soon enough). In all medical treatments, the patient has the RIGHT to refuse ANY treatment. The parents, being the child's legal guardians, have the RIGHT to make any and all medical decisions on her behalf. I think their decision is completely wrong as Hodgkins Limphoma is usually survivable if treated and almost universally fatal if left untreated. But, the government has no right to do what they did in this situation and I agree with the above poster who said the CPS people would be leaving with bullet holes.

Also note that they didn't just take the girl away. They took the couple's other three children AND arrested and charged the woman for obstruction. She's out on $50,000 bail and can't see her child on her birthday (which is today iirc).

[armoredman]

Touch my child and you WILL meet God.

[Mulliga]

IF YOU KNOW OF A CHILDREN'S ONCOLOGIST THAT IS VERY LIBERAL IN TREATMENT METHODS AND USES ALTERNATIVE METHODS PLEASE CONTACT US AT ONCE.

Says it all, methinks. I feel sorry for the family for having to put up with the Texas government (shame that it could happen there). Hope this all turns out okay.

[RavenVT100]

One of the major biological imperatives in all organisms is the protection of their young. Animals are at their most vicious when there's babies at stake. Try messing around with an Alligator nest if you don't think this is true.

It's no different with humans.

[Firethorn]

Man, this is messed up.

If they had tried this on me, I'd have probably treated it like a kidnapping. IE tried to run away (had parents and grandparents phone numbers memorized), kicked, bitten, and god forbid, gotten ahold of a knife. :uhoh:

I was an independant sort at that age, and my parent's reaction was to commit damage control. IE they taught me Evade & Escape. Even had an incident about that age with some guys offering me a 'ride' in a dirty white van. Didn't like the looks of them at all. It wasn't until I was an adult that I learned from my parents that a little girl my age had disappeared, and the last sighting was around a dirty white van...

[c_yeager]

There isnt nearly enough of anything in that article for my taste. I'm going to reserve judgement. This is either a case of woefull misuse of government authority, or a case of parents who are willing to sacrifice their children for an ideal. Both of these happen enough that i wouldnt be suprised either way.

[40cal]

CPS probably talked to the doctor, who ordered CPS to take the kid.

I remember as a city cop a mother gave birth to a child at home, which was where their other children were born, but this time there had been a complication and they called an ambulance.

We arrive with the ambulance. Mother is fine, baby is fine, so we are about to leave. The ambulance calls one of the docs at the hospital who orders the ambulance crew to bring the baby to the hospital.

The ambulance crew tells us what the doctor says, and we ask them if the child is in need of immediate medical attention, which they say no.

The kid stays with mom and if they want to go to the hospital they can, but you cannot force them to go.

Needless to say, the doctor is all up in arms over what the police are telling him but too bad...we are not going to allow the ambulance to take the child without the consent of the parents. Doc is pissed, but we had two words for the doc,

"POUND SAND".

[River Wraith]

:mad: Government at its finest. There are some CPS jerkoffs lucky to be alive right now.

[jefnvk]

What concerns me, though, is do you as a parent have a right to deny treatment to your child, knowing that it will probably kill them? The kid has no ability to go get treatment on their own, if they disagree with their parents ideals.

What I would also like to know, is how she came to this conclusion:
"I think they should treat her for what her body calls for and not standard protocol. Nobody will look at that," she said. "Not every cancer is the same. Nobody understands that. Her body is not standard, and her cancer is not standard."
Is she a medical doctor? Did another one tell her this?

And I sure don't think a 12 year old girl could come to this conclusion on her own:
"I don't need radiation treatment. And nobody asked me what I wanted. It's my body," she said.

Is it enought for CPS to take the kid away? Dunno. Looks like they made the right choice, now that the news has been released that she IS NOT in remission. But, I am probably going to have to go with yeager on this one.

[mmike87]

Step out of line and "The Man" come and take you away ...

This is why I laugh out loud whenever I hear someone say "Law abiding citizens have nothing to worry about."

Any of us could suddenly become a criminal overnight.

[Art Eatman]

I ran across a news squib somewhere today that said she is NOT in remission.

I went through the colon cancer deal through the latter half of 2003. I never at all felt bad; I'd not lost any weight. Had I gone by the reasoning of, "I feel good!", I'd be dead.

I went through some 28 radiation "burns". All I got from that was a sunburn--and not all that bad. ("'Scuse me, ma'am, are you SURE it's not supposed to tickle?" :D )

What's being violated is the parents' constitutional right to be dumber'n hammered dirt. If the parents have their way, and if the doctors are correct, this twelve-year-old is dead. She just doesn't know it, yet.

Art

[johnster999]

To make decisions about the care of one's own child is a basic human right.

999

[c_yeager]

To make decisions about the care of one's own child is a basic human right.

Having access to health care regardless of the idiocy of your parents is also a basic human right. When two rights are at odds things get complicated.

[nico]

One of the stories I saw said that the child seemed to be in remission when she was taken away and that the parents wanted a second opinion. The more I think about this story, the more I'm unsure as to what I think. But, nothing I've read justifies taking the people's other 3 kids away.

For the people who think this is absolutely justified, would you say the same thing if the child belonged to a religion that didn't allow such treatments?

[Risasi]

Well all I know is that there are two differing views here. One side on this board thinks that the children are the ward of their parents. The other believe the children are the ward of the state. This is the legal issue at stake here.

As for remission or not, all I know is this; I know people who haven't been to the doctor in years. Me included. Then I know many who have gone and are dead. And if they haven't died they are on various life support systems like Darth Vader, or on all sorts of meds. And can no longer function. Let me put it bluntly, they exist, but they have no life to speak of. I have decided a long time ago if I have (insert medical problem here) I'm generally not going to the doctor. I might go to get a diagnosis, but I'll treat it myself thank you. What does it matter anyway, we all have to die. Even you Art, though it is nice to have you around. But even you have to admit, you are no spring chicken anymore, I'm sure you can probably feel death's cold hand reaching for your throat now and again.

You brought something to mind with your story. I have some friends who had a child born with osteogenesis imperfecta. The doctors were under the delusion THEY were keeping that child alive. That's problem number one. When you think you are keeping a person alive you are a very arrogant person. The doctors gave him mere hours to live. What they point blank told the parents was there was no way to save the child, so we'll just pull the life support plug and you can hold him in your arms while he dies. Scan forward nearly two years later, the child was still alive after numerous medical and legal fights. The doctors are embarrassed the kids is still alive. And due to THEIR mistake the child dies. So there you go, a case in stark contrast to this one. The parents fighting for medical treatment, and doctors trying to deny it.

I asked a doctor friend once how many accidental deaths there were in the medical system. He said they can't be counted. It goes unreported. What does go reported though is somewhere between 80,000 and 150,000 wrongful deaths due to misdiagnosed problems, wrong prescription, or outright negligence. I haven't seen the stats lately, but I believe there have only been about 25,000 homocides the past few years? That means you are many more times likely to die by the hand of your doctor, than you are to die by murder. By that logic the libs should be putting a five day waiting period on doctors. And trying to ban high capacity hospitals :D

Anyway, I'd rather not discuss the medical establishment, after all we could get into the abortion subject next, but that's a pretty hot topic. I'd rather not let this thread fall into "locked" status. But I see it heading there next if we continue down this medical path.

Rather I would hear your arguments as to why you believe the state should be able to butt into the lives of family when they feel like it. BTW: Where do you see it's the constitutional right of an individual to have medical treatment? Life liberty and pursuit of property? Obviously you know my take in this incident from the thread title. I have more of my own thoughts on this, but I'll wait to hear from you first.

Excuse me now, I just got up and have to take my Prozium...

[cortez kid]

Supposedly the cancer is not in remmision. The gubmint may have dodged a bullet there. Who is going to deside the course of treatment? The gubmint of course. Again the feds have applied the Randy Weaver dept of family enforcement for the good of the children. By the way, these same people, have the right to withdraw treatment to your child. Just went through this with a woman in Texas. The child wasn't worth the try, so they let it go. I'm not sure, but I think they Schiavo'ed it. Im pretty sure the fact fact it was a poor black child had absolutly nothing to do with it.
kid

[nico]

I see what you're saying Risasi. My grandfather had lung cancer and had to have a section of his aorta (the major artery in the lower half of the body) replaced after receiving chemotherapy. He had a lot of complications after the operation and one doctor even told my father that he was being cruel by not taking my grandfather off life support. Within a couple days my dad had him transfered to another (better) hospital. My grandfather was out of the hospital in a few weeks and lived relatively normally for another four months. Never once did any member of my family, or my grandfather think my dad made the wrong choice.

In this case, as I said before, I'm not so sure anymore. Hodgkin's Disease responds very well to radiation and chemotherapy and patients who receive a few courses of those treatments have very good prognoses. The flip side, is patients who don't receive treatment universally die in a short period of time. There are abusive parents out there who would deny their child life-saving medical treatment out of pure negligence. That doesn't seem to be the case in this situation, but it is a case of almost certain death vs. almost certain life.

[jefnvk]

But, nothing I've read justifies taking the people's other 3 kids away.

I am in complete agreement there.

If the parents were going to get a second opinion, that is what they should hae done. But, the statements that she was in remission, and the videotape of the girl saying she didn't need treatment, leads me to believe that they wern't seeking a second opinion, but just going to ride it out.

For the people who think this is absolutely justified, would you say the same thing if the child belonged to a religion that didn't allow such treatments?

I dunno. As one person said, when two rights get in the way of each other, that is where things get tricky. Should the child die because of the parent's beliefs? I know a few people who want nothing to do with their parent's religion. If they are in a life or death situtation, should they die because their parents refuse to treat them?

[thereisnospoon]

Who gave y'all the idea we had any rights when it comes to our own children? Only the Gubmit knows what is best for our yungins, thats why they school um, to learn um all those really great ideas like sharing your stuff with others, albeit at the end of a gun. :barf:

[GhostRider66]

Having access to health care regardless of the idiocy of your parents is also a basic human right. When two rights are at odds things get complicated.

I'd have to take issue with this. Having access to health care is hardly a human right. A good idea? Social responsibility? Perhaps. Life has always been regarded as one's own and in the case of minors, that of the parents/guardians as are decisions regarding such. We certainly like to take issue with issues regarding the state's interference when it comes to things like abortion, end-of-life issues, etc. but when it comes to this all of a sudden it's ok? I don't see the difference. Yes, it is sad that some parents choose to ignore medical advice to the detriment of their own offspring but this is certainly a slippery slope. Howabout we decide to remove any overweight children from their homes and put them in a diet camp? The medical experts are there to offer opinions and advice. They may be more educated ones than those of the parents but not necessarily always right and to go and trump paternal rights based on this is very dangerous ground.

[Risasi]

Ah Ghostrider,


Now you are hitting upon the question I asked in response to c_yeager's statement. I am curious to know where he believes it is a human right. Is this based constitutionally? (Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness?) Or is this some unnamed right, that would fall within the scope of the 9th Amendment? Or is this some other guarantee of rights?

Quite frankly the constitution, including the Bill of Rights grant us NO rights. They only acknowledge those that should be inarguable.

I am not saying one way or the other whether or not I consider it a human right.
The answer can open a whole can of worms. And cause all sorts of other questions to pop up. Which will lead to some rather emotional responses. Which likely would get this thread locked.

[GhostRider66]

Interestingly enough, I would hardly argue with whether one item or another is a human right in and of itself but I do think that there are some basic items that need to be considered when trying to make the determination. First off, I go with the notion that a right (basic, human for this argument) to be a right, cannot require the taking of any property from anyone else (Oh, I know the arguments and I'll get to those). For instance, you have the right to "bear arms". That is inarguable (at least by most in this forum). This doesn't mean that you have the right to have arms given to you or provided for you by someone else including the government and certainly not forced upon you by the government. Also, would anyone argue that the right for a minor child to have a weapon or not, cannot be trumped by the will of the parents.

This has been twisted as far back as I can see but it doesn't really diminish the fact that it should hold true in almost all circumstances. The most obvious contradiction to this is the right to an attorney (state-provided if you can't afford one). I think it may be a right provided to you under our current system of laws but I really don't think that someone would actually stretch this to say it was a human right. At least I hope not.

I am not hardly inflexible enough to argue that parental rights are always the trump card but it would seem basic enough to say that, like with the taking away of any other right there should have to be some sort of abbrogation of parental responsibilities having taken place and proven in a court of law (and by this I mean criminal charges and a conviction). If the courts want to take these extreme measures, the hurdles, in my opinion, should be pretty high.

[johnster999]

Having access to health care regardless of the idiocy of your parents is also a basic human right. When two rights are at odds things get complicated.

Disagreeing with the doctors in one aspect of their child's care doesn't make the parents idiots. The treatment might work or it might not. There are no guarantees. The state is unqualified to make these kinds of calls on complicated family health matters.

[corncob]

Having access to health care regardless of the idiocy of your parents is also a basic human right.

So suppose my 16 year-old parents, possessing a high degree of idiocy, neglect to use birth control while expressing their young love in the back of a Camaro and produce me. Then my idiot father takes the only job he can get, having such a high degree of idiocy, as the fish squeezer at Long John Silver's, which pays minimum wage and doesn't include health insurance. When I get sick, do I have the "basic human right" to come to your house and demand you write me a check to cash to cover my doctor bill?

[corncob]

Then have you violated my "basic human rights" when you refuse?

[Randy in Arizona]

I see good points for both sides of the argument.

That said, even after having had the training required by the State of Arizona for potential adoptive or foster parents, IF CPS came to get my kids they better bring body bags. Lots of them. :fire:

On the other hand, if they were dumb enough to come get them, say while I was at work - in a few days they would be begging me to take them back. :uhoh:

The Ransom of Red Chief (http://www.classicshorts.com/stories/redchief.html)

Not trying to hijack the thread, but why aren't the wetbacks that haul their kids through the desert in the summer charged with Child Abuse? :confused:

[c_yeager]

When I get sick, do I have the "basic human right" to come to your house and demand you write me a check to cash to cover my doctor bill?

Its called "public assistance" and it happens every time you get a paycheck, get used to it.

Disagreeing with the doctors in one aspect of their child's care doesn't make the parents idiots.

yep

I'd have to take issue with this. Having access to health care is hardly a human right. A good idea? Social responsibility? Perhaps. Life has always been regarded as one's own and in the case of minors, that of the parents/guardians as are decisions regarding such.

By this logic a parent would not be commiting a crime by dropping their child down a well and leaving them there. Like it or not, children are people independant of their parents. Parents do not OWN their children, they are their custodians untill a fixed time, if they fail in this the childs safety and health trumps the unholy hell out of the parents' "right" to mess up their kids.

[Jeff]

By this logic a parent would not be commiting a crime by dropping their child down a well and leaving them there. Like it or not, children are people independant of their parents. Parents do not OWN their children, they are their custodians untill a fixed time, if they fail in this the childs safety and health trumps the unholy hell out of the parents' "right" to mess up their kids.


Well said.

[cracked butt]

do not OWN their children, they are their custodians untill a fixed time, if they fail in this the childs safety and health trumps the unholy hell out of the parents' "right" to mess up their kids.

Right. I agree to the extent if the parents make their kids live in filth, do not feed their kids, beat their kids, or neglect them. I draw the line at experimental treatments by people who 'practice' medicine. Yes, to allow a kid to have strep throat untreated until it becomes a life threatening condition is different from keeping a kid from a doctor who is selling his expensive snake oil treatment that will severely sicken the child and very likely will not cure anything. What's next? Will we have holistic healers demanding that children be taken from their parents so that they can try to cure them from disease using leaches, incense, and incantations?

Cancer runs in my family. I have had several relatives die of cancer. Chemotherapy may have prolonged their lives by a few weeks, maybe months but it certainly degraded the quality of that life. My own grandfather refused chemotherapy after being diagnosed with terminal cancer, instead of spending time in the hospital getting radiation and chemotherapy that would have destroyed his body just as fast as the cancer, he spent his last healthy days with family and friends, and taking me fishing.


If my child had cancer, I would go to the ends of the earth to save his life. If it were terminal cancer, and he no longer wanted treatment, I certainly wouldn't force it upon him and I would instead cherish the numbered days that I had left with him.

[corncob]

Its called "public assistance" and it happens every time you get a paycheck, get used to it.

Get used to it? It's called gun control, get used to it. It's called genocide, get used to it. It's called child molestation, get used to it.

Just because an evil thing is routinely done, that makes it no less evil.

[slowworm]

Its called "public assistance" and it happens every time you get a paycheck, get used to it.

It appears we have a closet rabid socialist statist here. Do you wish to come out into the open about it? I am sure we can be very understanding here and help you through it.

Here's a news flash for you. Just because it happens it doesn't make it right. It's that attitude that is killing this country with the death of 1000 cuts.

[GhostRider66]

By this logic a parent would not be commiting a crime by dropping their child down a well and leaving them there. Like it or not, children are people independant of their parents. Parents do not OWN their children, they are their custodians untill a fixed time, if they fail in this the childs safety and health trumps the unholy hell out of the parents' "right" to mess up their kids.

You will notice that I said:

I am not hardly inflexible enough to argue that parental rights are always the trump card but it would seem basic enough to say that, like with the taking away of any other right there should have to be some sort of abbrogation of parental responsibilities having taken place and proven in a court of law (and by this I mean criminal charges and a conviction).

Is it too simple to say that there should be some additional checks and balances here before deciding to take the parental rights away when there are no allegations of abuse, etc?

Also, Slowworm, please take heed and do not engage in personally directed comments such as this. While we may agree or disagree on the point at hand, but I'm sure you will agree, taking the High Road is always the best option.

[GhostRider66]

...

[c_yeager]

It appears we have a closet rabid socialist statist here. Do you wish to come out into the open about it? I am sure we can be very understanding here and help you through it.

Here's a news flash for you. Just because it happens it doesn't make it right. It's that attitude that is killing this country with the death of 1000 cuts.

Funny, i dont recall saying it was right. My statement is that its a reality. Which, oddly enough, you seem to agree with once you get through with your pre-packaged politcal rant. For the furure i would suggest reading what people say without inserting things arent there, doing otherwise makes one look a tad one-dimensional.

[BioDemon]

How can some still claim "It's a free country" if no one can make any decitions. Some one with a stong opinion up on some high horse will force there personal opinion on you when there opinion should be just that an opinion. Do we have a right to personal opinions and beliefes any more?

[jefnvk]

How can some still claim "It's a free country" if no one can make any decitions.

I'm all for making your own decisions, until you start endangering other's lives with your opinions.

And there is a difference between being able to afford the care, and denying your daughter it, and not being able to afford the care, and expecting the gov't to pick up the tab.

[Sindawe]

By LYNN BREZOSKY, Associated Press Writer
55 minutes ago

CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas - A judge ruled Thursday that the state will retain custody of a 13-year-old girl who was taken from her parents after they refused to continue her cancer treatments and the cancer, which appeared to have been eliminated, returned.
ADVERTISEMENT


Katie Wernecke, who has Hodgkin's disease, will remain with Child Protective Services pending another hearing late next month, juvenile court Judge
Carl Lewisruled. Katie was scheduled to see doctors at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston on Thursday.

Katie's parents tried to convince Lewis during a custody hearing that they would not resist efforts to resume her treatment. But he refused to return the girl to their care, noting that Katie's mother had previously fled with Katie and her father had rejected several doctors' findings.

"I really don't have a parent that I can say I can return the child to without putting that child in danger of her health," Lewis said.

The girl was diagnosed in January after she was taken to an emergency room with what her parents thought was pneumonia. She received chemotherapy, and doctors recommended it be followed with radiation.

Her parents refused though. Edward Wernecke said he feared the radiation would put Katie at a heightened risk for breast cancer, stunt her growth and cause learning problems.

Earlier this month, Child Protective Services officials took custody of Katie after doctors said the Werneckes were risking their daughter's life by refusing the radiation therapy. A scan last week revealed the cancer had returned, and Katie's former doctor testified he thought its return was linked to the family's refusal to go forward with the radiation.

Attorneys for the Werneckes said it was never the family's intention to deny necessary medical treatment. Michele Wernecke testified she was willing to follow doctors' recommendations, and her husband testified that Katie needed to be with her family.

The case has drawn national attention as a battle between parental rights and the state's charge to protect children from abuse or neglect.

"This is a disappointing ruling," said Daniel Horne, a family attorney. "The parents love their child. This is just a situation where the parents weren't neglecting the child — maybe they were doing too much."

Edward Wernecke said he had been "hoping that the judge would return her to our care." But, he said, "I am glad that they did allow her to go to M.D. Anderson and to get a full evaluation."

Edward Wernecke had said the dispute was simply a misunderstanding. He said Dr. Nejemie Alter, who diagnosed Katie's illness and testified at the hearing, had led him to believe four rounds of chemotherapy were enough.

"After we finished with the four chemos, we thought that's all there was," he said.

Darrell Azar, a spokesman for CPS, said Katie would remain with a foster family and that the goal was to eventually reunite her with her family.

"The department is very pleased with the ruling primarily because it's a win for Katie," Azar said. "We have to do the prudent thing and make sure we see through this treatment."

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20050616/ap_on_re_us/medical_battle

[corncob]

"The department is very pleased with the ruling primarily because it's a win for Katie," Azar said.

I wonder if Katie shares that sentiment. I also wonder if the judge will allow her to be with her parents while she dies, and whether her parents will then be charged with murder based on the testimony of the doctor mentioned above. I am guessing not--a jury would never convict--but it was enough for "the department" to feel good about taking her from her parents now. We would certainly all be lost if not for the wise and beneficient state.

There are so many things wrong with this.

[jefnvk]

Her parents refused though. Edward Wernecke said he feared the radiation would put Katie at a heightened risk for breast cancer, stunt her growth and cause learning problems.

As there are many problems with that. We are going to let her die, because the treatment may hurt her :rolleyes:

But she should be turned back over, with the knowledge that if the parents take off and refuse treatment again, they are going to be locked up.

[corncob]

One of the problems is this: when the state is tasked with taking away the kids of parents who don't meet some specified level of care, who writes the specification?

[cracked butt]

As there are many problems with that. We are going to let her die, because the treatment may hurt her

But she should be turned back over, with the knowledge that if the parents take off and refuse treatment again, they are going to be locked up.

The type of cancer the girl has is Hodgkins lymphoma which is usually treated very successfully with nothing more than chemotherapy. Unless the disease is at a very late stage, radiation shouldn't be necessary. What the doctor is basicly compelling the girl and her family to do is to be an involuntary subject in medical study. They do such studies where they give some patients chemo only, others radiation only, and a third group give both treatments to determine mortality and recovery rates. The girl is very likely being used as a laboratory rat. :fire:

University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center- what do you think they do there other than try to cure cancer and experiment on patients with different curing regimens?

[c_yeager]

The type of cancer the girl has is Hodgkins lymphoma which is usually treated very successfully with nothing more than chemotherapy. Unless the disease is at a very late stage, radiation shouldn't be necessary. What the doctor is basicly compelling the girl and her family to do is to be an involuntary subject in medical study. They do such studies where they give some patients chemo only, others radiation only, and a third group give both treatments to determine mortality and recovery rates. The girl is very likely being used as a laboratory rat

Radiation therapy is STANDARD treatment for early detection of Hodgkins disease. The typical treatement is 3-4 rounds of chemo followed by radiation therapy to ensure remission.

http://www.swedish.org/13400.cfm

It is folly to say that the radiation was unnecessary since the girl has already had a recurrence of a disease. It is true that that the radiation treatment itself can cause secondary forms of cancer. However when you are discussing survivability in terms of 5 years, getting cancer in 30 years becomes an acceptable risk.

With radiation therapy following Chemo, this girl WOULD have had a 90% chance of surviving the next five years. Now that she has undergone chemo and is having a reccurance that chance plummets drasticaly. They might as well give her back to her parents for the short time that she has left now.

[cracked butt]

I've read that there is no significant difference between recovery rates using Chemo+radiation versus Chemo alone. Both hover right around 88% chance of recovery. If it were late stage cancer, radiation along with every other trick in the book would be needed, but at that point the patient should still be able to choose or refuse treatment.

At any rate and eitehr way, the parents and the child should, at the very least, be entitled to a second opinion from another doctor. Last time I checked, we live in a country where we can still choose which doctor we go to.

[corncob]

If it's been a while, maybe you should check again....

[cracked butt]

Good point. :mad:

[AirForceShooter]

the part that really gets me is they took ALL the kids.
Somebody explain that to me.

AFS

[Art Eatman]

"Katie's parents tried to convince Lewis during a custody hearing that they would not resist efforts to resume her treatment. But he refused to return the girl to their care, noting that Katie's mother had previously fled with Katie and her father had rejected several doctors' findings."

So we have non-medical folks believing they have better knowledge about cancer than the doctors. Duh? And they've run off and hidden her before, denying her the necessary medical attention.

"The girl was diagnosed in January after she was taken to an emergency room with what her parents thought was pneumonia. She received chemotherapy, and doctors recommended it be followed with radiation."

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

"Her parents refused though. Edward Wernecke said he feared the radiation would put Katie at a heightened risk for breast cancer, stunt her growth and cause learning problems."

Dubious fears for a 13-year old's future, seems to me. One of those "possible, but not necessarily likely" deals. What I'd expect from folks who well might believe "The China Syndrome" was a documentary.

But without the combination of chemo and radiation, she's dead.

"Earlier this month, Child Protective Services officials took custody of Katie after doctors said the Werneckes were risking their daughter's life by refusing the radiation therapy. A scan last week revealed the cancer had returned, and Katie's former doctor testified he thought its return was linked to the family's refusal to go forward with the radiation."

All this hollering about "rights": Do parents have the right to just let the kid die? The right to let the kid die, even though had they followed through with the initial treatment, she'd truly be in remission or possibly even cured?

cracked butt, where in the world did you find this idea of "lab rat"? I'm no expert on Hodgkin's Disease (only skin cancers and colon cancer), but several folks have linked to what seem to be fairly standardized courses of treatment. It's not like this is some and new, not-before-known type of cancer...

Art

[corncob]

Do parents have the right to just let the kid die?

I must say "yes" even though I think the parents made a poor choice in this case. The fact that they went through the chemo shows that getting her killed was not their goal. And no one can say for sure she would be better off had they gone through with the radiation. As parents, it is no one's decision but theirs.

As far as slippery slopes go, this one is pretty bad. As things exist currently, parents' prerogative in the medical treatment of their kids comes in a distant second to that of the state, and that gives me the willies. I'm not denying that every day lots of children suffer and die as a result of their parents' bad decisions or bad intentions--I'm just saying that government intervention causes more problems than it solves, and sets us up for really (really) bad stuff to happen in the future. What scares me even worse, is that so many people don't get the willies from this case.

[2nd Amendment]

Do parents have the right to just let the kid die?

Depends. if the subject is starving or beating the kid to death then I'd have to say no. The state has an interest...if there is more to go on than an anonymous tip or a bruise some idiot public skool teacher doesn't like. But when the subject is medical treatment and what should or should not be done and what does or does not work, yes, the final decision needs to be with the parents.

And where did this idea come from doctors are all knowing? So they disagree with the physicians, so what? The physicians are just average intelligence Joes like anyone else with what we hope is an at least slightly above average education. The number of deaths and injuries from medical mishaps every year attest to the fact this is not always(often) true.

The doctors said all thru my childhood I was an asthmatic with no chance of living a completely normal life. I told the folks the doctors were nuts years before I turned 18. When I turned 18 I ignored the doctors and did things my way and even after smoking off and on for 20 years I am far healthier NOW, at 40, than I ever was as a teen under "doctors care". The only thing the miserable quacks managed to do was ruin any hope I had for an Air Force career.

I have great respect for parents willing to stand up to doctors, teachers and other "professionals" who supposedly have ultimate knowledge and the final word in our society today. I wish to hell mine had. And if the parents turn out to be wrong? Well then they're just like doctors and others: Wrong sometimes. That doesn't give the state thugs the privilege of wrecking the rest of the family.

[Art Eatman]

2A, your anecdote about your own asthma is fine--for you. I'm not sure it would apply to that percentage of all asthma sufferers whose doctors did not err in their diagnoses.

Overall, I'll trust the judgement of a pro over a lay person; I play the odds unless there is some serious reason not to. Since those here with some apparent specific knowledge of Hodgkin's Disease state that chemo and radiation is a *standard* treatment--which apparently is the belief of the girl's doctors, I can't agree with the parents' notions.

Texas hospitals which have any specialty in cancers "brain-pick" on M.D. Anderson in Houston, the world's #1 cancer treatment center. I was content with the Archbold Med Center in Thomasville, GA, for my own cancer treatment because of their affiliation with MDA.

I'm just really dubious about "Hmmm, I wonder if...?" sort of reasoning on the part of the doctors in this case.

And, my personal belief coincides with that of the State in this instance: No treatment, dead; with treatment, life. I don't believe the parents have a right to withhold treatment and thus condemn the girl to death.

Art