Last summer, Abraham Cherrix, 16, was diagnosed with Hodgkins Disease, a cancer of the lymphatic system. In the fall, he underwent three months of intense chemotherapy which left him nauseated, weak and so debilitated his father often carried him in from the car. Tests in February revealed the cancer still active; doctors ordered more chemotherapy and added radiation as well. Abraham turned down the treatment, opting for an alternative treatment known as the Hoxsey therapy. Abraham’s parents supported him in his decision. That’s when Social Services got involved. They asked the court to order Abraham to conventional cancer treatment for his own well-being.
On Friday, Judge Jesse E. Demps of Accomack County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court agreed with Social Services and said Abraham ’s parents were to deliver him to CHKD by 1 p.m. Tuesday and give their consent to whatever treatment the hospital deems necessary.
“They are devastated but not surprised,” said Stepanovich, who practices in Virginia Beach. Stepanovich and Barry Taylor, an attorney representing Abraham, will file an appeal Monday and a motion to stay the judge’s order pending the appeal, which will be heard in Circuit Court.” — Norfolk Virginian-Pilot
In May, the same judge found the Cherrix’ guilty of medical neglect and divided custody between the parents and the Department of Social Services. Similar rulings have been made across the United States, including a ruling in Texas which removed 12 year old Katie from her parents for five months to force her into conventional therapy.
While there has not yet been any change in custody in Abraham’s case, it is a very real concern. In an interview with Ann Curry on NBC’s Today Show, Curry asked Abraham if he was willing to go to jail in order to fight the decision.
Yes, I’m willing — I am to do that because I obeyed the law by what they say. At least I try to as best as I can. If they want to put me in a juvenile detention, there’s really nothing I can do about it, and I will — I will have faith that my parents will get me out. And if they take my parents away, then I will do everything in my power to help them. — The Rebelution
So who has the right to determine Abraham’s treatment options? Abraham? His parents? The state? In 1997, President Clinton formed an Advisory Commission On Consumer Protection And Quality in the Health Care Industry. Among other things, they determined the rights and responsibilities of the patient. Among others is the right to participation in treatment decisions: “You have the right to know all your treatment options and to participate in decisions about your care. Parents, guardians, family members, or other individuals that you designate can represent you if you cannot make your own decisions.”
The Supreme Court has also ruled in favor of parental rights in medical decisions.
Simply because the decision of a parent is not agreeable to a child or because it involves risks does not automatically transfer the power to make that decision from the parents to some agency or officer of the state. The same characterizations can be made for a tonsillectomy, appendectomy, or other medical procedure. Most children, even in adolescence, simply are not able to make sound judgments concerning many decisions, including their need for medical care or treatment. Parents can and must make those judgments. Here, there is no finding by the District Court of even a single instance of bad faith by any parent of any member of appellees’ class. We cannot assume that the result in Meyer v. Nebraska, supra, and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra, would have been different if the children there had announced a preference to learn only English or a preference to go to a public, rather than a church, [442 U.S. 584, 604] school. The fact that a child may balk at hospitalization or complain about a parental refusal to provide cosmetic surgery does not diminish the parents’ authority to decide what is best for the child. — Parnham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979)
Ironically, this treatment is agreeable to the child. While it harbors risks, conventional treatment does as well. Abraham has researched the treatment options and determined he is willing to take the risks associated with his alternative treatment plan. His parents have determined him competent to do so and have supported him in this. Where does the state have the authority to intervene in the health decisions of individuals?
Hat tip: Spunkyhomeschool
Update: For the moment, Abaraham will not have to undergo the chemotherapy he wishes not to repeat. A judge found that he should have the right to the appeals process prior to treatment.
A circuit court judge has suspended the orders from a lower court requiring Accomack County teen Abraham Cherrix to report Tuesday to Children’s Hospital of the King’s Daughters in Norfolk for mandatory therapy to treat his cancer.
In addition, the judge suspended the order requiring that Cherrix’ parents share custody over Abraham with Child Protective Services. — WAVY
His battle is not over, but at least he will not be subjected to the forced chemotherapy while he waits for his appeal in the circuit court. According to Abraham’s web site, the appeal is set for August 16.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Karl Marx would love the popular moves among politicians in various state governments and the federal government to ban so-called "junk" food in schools, and to "put healthy food in" convenience stores and on the tables of those they define as poor. It's a very elitist and arrogant mindset that promotes this ideology, and it needs to be addressed.
Ultimately, the war supporters in Congress prevailed in the vote on the resolution. Still, the vote was significant because it places every member of Congress on the record as supporting or not supporting the unconstitutional, costly, violent occupation of a country that never attacked us. This vote should serve as an important reminder to the American people of where their representatives really stand when it comes to policing the world, empire building, and war.
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Video published by this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling+ license.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
Spunky
Jul 24, 2006
In the post you said, While there has not yet been any change in custody in Abraham’s case, it is a very real concern.
There has been no change in physical custody but there has been a change in custody. The parents now share custody with the state due to the finding of medical neglect. That was the first decision rendered by the judge. The second decision was whether he would have to go through chemo. The judge said he must and directed him to report for evaluation tomorrow (Tuesday). Should the parents defy the court, they could lose complete custody.
Dana
Jul 24, 2006
Yes, that is mentioned. In May, the same judge found the Cherrix’ guilty of medical neglect and divided custody between the parents and the Department of Social Services.
But perhaps I didn’t make it clear enough that that statement applied to this ruling. The custody remains the same (split between the parents and the state), and presumably will change only if the order is defied or there is some other decision rendered in the appeal.
mr.ed
Jul 24, 2006
A little perspective from someone who’s actually been there:
We have helped with the care of several relatives. We rely on the trained professionals in the field to do the right thing. They tend to know more than we do. They’re judged on the survival statistics of their patients. They don’t try unproven procedures very often and have the record of success to back up their opinions.
The parents don’t have to answer to a state medical board or face suit from their own family (usually) in court if their choice of treatment is a bust.
I think that too many people get their medical training from TV. Ben Casey and Dr. Kildare are imaginary, like Murphy Brown. Get over it.
Kevin Fields
Jul 24, 2006
However, we live in a free society, where “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is the prevailing spirit by which our lives are guided. It meight be one thing if the child was hopelessly sick and the parents were avoiding doctors at all cost. However, in this case, the child in question appears to be completely capable of participating in his own healtcare and has made an active decision. This may not be with the wishes of the doctor, but it is the doctor’s duty to maintain the beest interest of the patient. In the case, the patient has made it clear what he feels his best interests are, and that should be respected. The only person who may be harmed by this decision is the patient himself. In the end, we are not dealing with life and death statistics or a God-complex, we are dealing with one human being, who is now having to take a stand to defend his life.
Dana
Jul 25, 2006
I agree, Kevin. I tend to trust my doctors, as well, and would hope they know more about the disease than I. But this situation isn’t about whether the doctor knows his stuff or whether this alternative therapy is superior or even equal to the chemotherapy, but whether Abraham and his parents have the right to make their own medical decisions.
Even if he just decided that it wasn’t worth it to try chemo again and just wanted to die peacefully and with nothing more than perhaps pain management, would that not be his right?
Mr. Ed, I really don’t understand your reference to TV doctors. Maybe I’m missing something, but I’m certainly not accusing the doctor of anything. I assume he is acting according to his knowledge of the subject. But I also think that in a liberal society, individuals have the freedom to take the advice of the doctor, question it and even reject it whether it out of personal conviction or personal preference. Medical care should be a service to the patient, not a ruler over him.
TheMan
Jul 25, 2006
America is no longer a “FREE” nation. As I mentioned in a previous comment I have been around the world. Live in China and seen what life really is like here. While nobody can say that China is without issues I do feel in the case of personal responsibility and choice they generally don’t get involved. Unlike “Free†America.
At issue here is if a 16 year old can make his own decision about his medical care. With or without the blessing of his parents. In this case he has it. I don’t know anything about this treatment. But the other day I read the comments about Toyota being forced to remove an airbag switch most being you have to save the children. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t give the government the mandate to save children at all costs and then selectively say well not in this case.
I don’t know about current legal decisions but when I was 16 I had a friend who divorced his parents and was granted independence. He was not made a foster child he was allowed to work and take responsibility for himself technically he could have dropped out of school the day after the divorce was final. So I don’t really understand what grounds the judge can maintain this ruling. I hope the parents get a hold of the ACLU and fight for their son’s rights.
But on a broader perspective this is just more of American’s own doing. You live very much in a country of your design. If you don’t like what has happened maybe you should have listened to the many people like me who shouted as loud as we could about what was going to happen.
Too many people see this as a good thing. Personal choice = bad, big brother = good. I don’t mean big brother in the conspiracists’ notion either. Too many people have decided it is good to not be allowed personal responsibility. If they had to take responsibility for their decisions then they couldn’t sue, they couldn’t play victims. Although I agree with much of the conspiracists’ logic I disagree fundamentally about their being a conspiracy. Because the government and big business have told everyone what they are going to do. You can’t complain because you woke up and noticed you couldn’t decide what medicine you want to take anymore. Or that there are paramilitary forces in black at your DUI checkpoint asking you who you are, where you’re going, and what you’re doing. That you can’t walk out into your national parks and camp anywhere because the UN has mandated them World Heritage Sites. It can’t be a conspiracy if they tell you they are going to do it, they get you to vote for them to do it and THEN THEY DO IT! Where is the conspiracy I ask?
Too many people want the government to legislate morality, and personal choice. To bad they think it selectively doesn’t apply to them or their causes. People see something they think is bad, demand the government does something about it never thinking that it has more to do with personal choice and point of view than public interest (such as gay marriage, many are against it and work hard to prevent it.) Next thing you know they are crying fowl because their own issues are being trampled on by the same people they thought were on their side (such as anti-gays screaming about gun legislation.) I personally don’t care what two people do in their bedroom. It is none of my concern. What I do care about is what happens in my house. It really burns me up to see so many people wanting to take away my rights while saying their own are being violated.
My sister is an alcoholic, she has become destructive to herself, the community, and my poor mother has done everything trying to get her treatment. The same government that won’t let the boy choose what treatment he wants for his chronic condition allow my sister to check her self out of the hospital, behavioral clinic, and anything else my mom has tried. She has been arrested at least four times for drunken driving spent a few weeks in jail. The last couple of times (she lost her license mind you,) they take her to the nearest hospital the doctors hold her until she is no longer “legally drunk†then set her free. My mother has tried to get her committed, they will hold her until she is no longer “legally drunk†and if she signs the release paper she is back out on the streets driving drunk. She is of age, but now families are no longer able to help someone that is suffering from a mental disease or addiction. Yet on the TV you hear people complaining about how nobody is doing anything about drug addiction. YOU LEGALLY CAN’T!
Until all the little special interest groups see the forest through the trees there is no chance of reform. Too many women’s and gay groups are anti-gun and too many gun groups are anti-gay. Until those groups and many like them agree to stay out of each others homes and respect the others right to choose neither will have the freedom they seek and will only aid in the destructions of more freedom and liberty. (I am neither anti-gay nor anti-gun they are just two of the most common groups with opposing views.)
Stop thinking your point of view is the only “Right†point of view. Don’t worry what other people are doing unless it is something that affects you directly and then don’t always think the government is the answer. Your fathers fought government expansion for many years until everything started falling part in the seventies and eighties. Stop thinking that only people that have something to hide have a problem with not agreeing with you. Because most often tomorrow you will be the one defending something you don’t think the “public†needs to know. You can’t look at everyone and think “If your not with us your against us.†Because many of “us†really don’t give a flying f*** about you, or your self centered delusions of importance.
Start spreading the word.
Dana
Jul 25, 2006
Some points, in no particular order:
Emancipation from the parents may have been an option before the state took partial custody. The state will not give up this right, now, so it is no longer an option.
I agree that we can’t have it both ways, and I’m not sure whether you are addressing this comment about Toyota to me personally or to America in general. A large segment of our population does see it as the government’s responsibility to provide for the public good, and then the two decisions are consistent. The government intervenes in the safety of cars to a questionable end and the government intervenes to “protect” this child from himself.
But it is not the government’s responsibility to provide for the public good, only to protect the public good. There is an important difference. I can provide for my own good just fine if my rights and safety are protected.
This isn’t about my personal point of view but about the protection of basic rights which were at one time protected by our constitution. Yes, our current situation is of our own doing. We have allowed it by 1) passive acceptance and 2) active involvement. There is only one way to rectify the problem: through changing how we view government. When we realize that it is not the government’s job to “do good” but only to “protect the good” we will have come a long way. It is my personal responsibility to do good.
I happen to be in the conservative Christian camp, but I do not particularly believe in activism, ie., asserting my will through the powers that be. For me personally, the issues you raise are of no concern to the government and I would not seek to have them legislated. They are issues of the heart. So long as they do not infringe on the rights of life, liberty and property, it is not for the central government to intervene.
We need to focus solely on rights, and not on our specific agendas. That is why I take the stance I do on this issue with Abraham. I disagree with the parents, but that certainly does not mean that I have any right to assert my will for Abraham through the courts or anything else.
The most effective means of doing this is through public discourse. The nation will not be changed on a national level, but through the changing of individual American’s minds. When individual Americans cease tolerating the constant intrusion on our basic rights and freedoms, the intrusion will stop. But more often than not, we ask for it.
And your dates are a little off. This started long before the 80’s and 90’s. It goes back at least to the mid-1800s, increasing incrementally for over a century as we as a people have increasingly looked to the government as a solution to society’s problems.
TheMan
Jul 27, 2006
Dana,
While the message wasn’t directed specifically at you certain parts were response to your message. While in this reply you are basically agreeing with me, your posts from what I have seen disagree with this point of view. To be honest you seem to be one of those people who think the government needs to legislate your ideas of moral conduct. As I mentioned in my reply a number of replies about the Toyota were the government has to save the children first, yours as I recall was one of those voices.
The rest of the message was my part in engaging in public discourse trying to get people to see the bigger picture. Or at least the people that take the time to read it. But much like years ago I was telling people that the H1B visa program was going to be abused and everybody was too busy with .com this and .com that to notice. Then all of a sudden wham all US nationals were laid off and H1B were working even harder for even less money just to have the chance at staying and possibly getting a green card. (My view was and still is if we are going to create a worker program like H1B then it would need a tremendous amount of oversight in order to prevent abuse. Since that amount of oversight is near impossible the program should be scrapped and it should be replaced with an immigration program designed to bring the best and brightest to America as citizens. Since they don’t have deportation hanging over their head they will not accept the poor conditions and pay many H1B holders have suffered. Also this prevents business from laying off the nationals only since they are all nationals. I would prefer even more if we had the ability to change the world and completely get rid of passports and notions of citizenship all together. It is just a form of racism. Based on the fear that brown people from there would come and take white peoples jobs here.) Very few people listened to me then, and I doubt very many will listen now. Of those that listen most will simply nod their head and agree but few if any will in turn take on the challenge of voicing their concern in public discourse.
About the dates, while a small amount of erosion happened before most of it happened from the 80s to today and the rate is increasing with one exception all the changes that occurred as a result of “The New Deal.” I fear that you are wrong about Americans stopping it. Many people said the same about Nazism, and Stalinism. All that happened is oppression became worse. If not for American intervention at that time the world would look much different today. But now America is doing the oppression, I don’t see any country ready to lead a fight against it. Americans themselves mostly think they are “Doing Good” not realizing they are being oppressed and lied too also.
Dana
Jul 27, 2006
Your comment is very difficult for me to answer. Yes, in essence I agree with you, as per my previous comment. But your assertions that I “seem like the type” or that, “as you recall” I was one of “those voices” demanding government involvement are too vague for me to defend myself or my beliefs. Please show me specifically in any of my posts or any of my comments where I have advocated the governnment to legislate my ideas, my morality or anything of that matter.
Predominantly, I have posted about why the central government needs to get out of education. I have not proposed any additional legislation in any post that I can recall. If you disagree with that, please point me specifically to what you are reading, because I really don’t know what you are reading. I did state that I don’t have a problem with seat belt laws, and something about laws already existing to prevent certain things, although they didn’t seem to be working. I don’t see that as advocating increased governmental involvement or responsibility for anything.
I have not said that Americans will stop anything. I don’t know. We seem to be going the way of the rest of the world, enthusiastically adopting increased socialism at every level in every aspect of life. I do, however, maintain that it is possible. We do not have to sit by and passively allow it to happen. We have a voice. Legislating it won’t help because it is only more of the same problem. It is an issue with the heart of America.
Dana Hanley
Jul 27, 2006
by the way, this isn’t really that important, and I may have just misinterpreted exactly what you were talking about when you mentioned this occuring in the 80’s and 90’s. You are right about the government taking seeming unprecedented control in all aspects of civil life occurring in this time period, increasing (and perhaps prepared by?) the New Deal. But I was talking more about a shift in the way Americans view government and an increasing tendency to view government as a solution to every day problems which occured in mid-1800s. That is when our nation’s educational philosophy began to shift with Horace Mann and others. What is happening now could never have happened without this shift in attitudes.
Erik
Jul 30, 2006
The Hoxsey “therapy” is given at the Hoxsey Clinic in Mexico. According to Hoxsey’s website, the “Hoxsey treatment” is “a liquid… mixture of herbs and several topical salves” that treats “most types of malignancies”. (Remember Steve McQueen?) Perhaps they’re in Mexico because they can’t get away with it here? I am disappointed you posted this article as if were government abuse. I suppose on first blush it may have seemed abusive to you, but the clinic in Mexico offers only death. Maybe the judge recognized the parents didn’t know what the heck they were doing — understande under such trying circumstances — and made the call. If the child and his parents make a truly informed choice — and that choice is death — then ok. But going for bogus cures is only making it worse.
From Hoxley’s page:
“The Cancer Cure Foundation does not recommend the abandonment of conventional therapies in favor of alternative therapies. That is a matter of personal choice based upon one’s view of the nature of cancer.”
Think about that wording: “Cancer Cure”. Cure? No M.D. or cancer clinic or PhD Researcher or Hospital or biochemist (or veterenarian) EVER intimates they have a cure. Ever. Treatment, prevention (let’s hope we see more emphasis there), and care — true compassion — are the best we can do. It’s frightening. But it would be wrong to permit the Hoxley’s and their ilk to exploit that fear. Thank you for reading.
Michael Hampton
Jul 30, 2006
There have always been quacks with bogus cures for anything that ails you. People in every age have been just stupid enough to keep most of them in business — at least long enough to get out of town quickly.
But that’s beside the point.
The point is, exactly who has the right to make medical decisions?
Freedom is nothing without the freedom to make the wrong choice and accept the consequences of a wrong choice. The ruling in this case makes a mockery of the freedom our brothers and fathers died for in many bloody wars.
Dana
Jul 30, 2006
Yes, I’m aware that this center is located in Mexico. And I don’t know that I agree with the parent’s decision. But the circuit court seems to think there is significant enough of a case to grant an appeal and stop the chemo order until the case is heard. And he reversed the order that custudy be shared between the state and the parents. I don’t know how much can be inferred from that, but there is other precedent from higher courts that the state does not have the right to intervene in these types of decisions.
It is always difficult to support the right of someone to make a decision you feel is wrong and potentially even harmful. But it is Abraham’s body. And he has gone the chemo route before and feels it almost killed him then. He doesn’t wish to repeat it. So we would support him if he were to just give up and die peacefully, but not in the ability to seek out an alternative treatment?
In the transcript, the father seems to indicate that Abraham was given a 25% chance to live by his doctors. Not a great chance. He doesn’t seem to think it is worth it. Do we have the right to force that on him?
Dana
Jul 30, 2006
Um, yeah. What Michael said. If we can’t make a bad decision, we can’t make any at all. There is a time for outside intervention…but not in my personal medical decisions.
Kevin Fields
Jul 31, 2006
Remember – if we allow a government agency to make a choice for somebody else, they can and will one day make a choice for you – whether or not you agree with it.
Aug 01, 2006
Carnival of Liberty LVI - Homeland Stupidity
TheMan
Aug 04, 2006
There have been shown a number of alternative therapies that send cancer into remission for some patients. It will not work for everyone just as Chemo the “TRADITIONAL THEARAPY” doesn’t work for everyone. I have extended family and a couple of friends that have gone through it and it is not a walk in the park by any means. YOU ARE KILLING YOURSELF by taking Chemo. You just **HOPE** that you kill the cancer before you kill yourself. While certain medications help to prevent the cancers growth during treatment many people have what the medical community wants to term as “Relapses” or in other words they didn’t kill it all and some was growing back.
While alternative treatment such as Traditional Chinese Medicine and anything based on nature usually don’t kill you in dealing with a disease. Sometimes these treatments are not effective also but that should not discount them. But as was stated in the article the boy has gone through Chemo once and it wasn’t effective.
Actually the word “Alternative” is wrong. It is psycholinguistics used by the medical community to prevent people from seeking advice beyond their skill set. Many people used to call Chiropractic alternative and in some places it is still considered. While I personally prefer to get a good massage instead of having someone pull my bones in ways they weren’t designed to go it helps many people I know.
Now when someone chooses to go to a doctor that isn’t approved by the AMA he is one of those bad people seeking alternative medicine. The judge looks at the legal brief and sees the word Alternative and immediately discounts the treatment. But because we have given unprecedented power to the government they can TAKE YOUR CHILD AWAY for seeking a different treatment. Nobody I know who was on Chemo would recommend it if there was a different option. They all say it was the worse experience of their life. This situation isn’t someone saying they will pray for healing. But alternative medicine is seen as many as nothing better than prayer even though it has been clinically proven to treat many diseases.
I don’t know anything about this clinic or its treatment. But if the boy has already undergone chemo and the cancer came back statistically a second treatment will not kill it either. But his body is much weaker from the treatment and he might not make it and/or because of his weakness allow the cancer to grow faster.
The bottom line has already been said. Regardless of whether this treatment is good, or if someone wants to pray for healing it is their choice. When you take that choice away from one family regardless of it being prayer, alternative medicine, or even a less popular conventional therapy you set a horrible precedent others can use to take away even more of your choice.
Dana
Aug 04, 2006
Well said, TheMan. This is purely anecdotal but makes me curious,nonetheless. Those I know that has sought “alternative” treatment (admittedly a very small sample) has done so after “traditional” therapy has failed, or after doctors have said that there were no treatment options but pain management. If that is at all typical, it would dramatically skew any research in favor of traditional forms of treatment. If I remember correctly, my grandma’s husband lived longer than expected although the cancer still killed him in the end.
Julie
Aug 15, 2006
I am absolutely outraged by our government and it’s officials. The are
taking over the role of God, or trying to anyway. I was diagnosed
Multiple Sclerosis a few years back and I DID NOT DO WHAT MY DOCTORS
TOLD ME! I AVOIDED THE “MS” DRUGS ALTOGETHER AND I REVERSED MY “MS”
WITH ALTERNATIVE THERAPY!
I AM JUST SOOOOOOOOOOOOO SICK OF HEARING THIS CRAP! The doctors and the
RX companies and now the Judges are all in cahoots together??? They are all
back scratchers??? Are we safe anywhere??????
I think what Abraham is doing is the SAFEST thing a young man can do! He has
a brain and damn it, he can think for HIMSELF! Shame on our government
, shame on these bloody doctors and SHAME ON SOCIAL SERVICES!
Where are the parents’ rights in this???? Where is Abraham’s rights?
I know if my daughter ever comes home sick, I am NOT taking her to a
doctor. I will take her to a nutritionist. Someone who actually CARES!
When you are dealing with doctors and Rx’s, you are dealing with
part human and part robot. They don’t really care what happens to the
human, all they care about is the $$$$ and the money that goes into their
bank account. The kickbacks.. The trips… the $. It’s all about
money to them. Not saving a life!
How long have we been trying to “find a cure” for all these “disease”????
TOO LONG. I have the cure for a lot of these “diseases” and it’s not found in
drugs!!!!! It’s found in NUTRITION!
I AM ALL FOR WHAT ABRAHAM IS DOING! IT’S ABOUT TIME WE ALL STAND UP AGAINST THESE MONEY-HUNGRY BASTARDS! YOU ONLY GET YOUR HEALTH ONCE IN THIS LIFE!
DON’T LET ANYONE MESS WITH IT! ESPECIALLY OUR GOVERNMENT!
I love my country! Don’t get me wrong. I just do NOT trust our government!
One life lost is too many! And that is what our children are doing!
Losing their lives because our GOVERNMENT uses them as guinea pigs!
You will never convince me otherwise!
GO ABRAHAM! I SUPPORT YOU!
Deep Toad
Aug 16, 2006
Abraham and his family head back to circuit court today. Let’s hope the courts do the right thing and let this guy control his own body.
Kevin Fields
Aug 16, 2006
http://www.newstarget.com/020008.html
The family reached a compromise with the state, judge ordered Abraham to be treated by a state-certified oncologist with interest in alternative therapies, and to start conventional radiation treatments rather than chemotherapy.
Unfortunately, IMO, I think this still represnts a major loss for this young man. Let us pray that he remains strong enough.
Dana
Aug 16, 2006
Yes, I saw that. I agree that Abraham shouldn’t have to consent to updating the court. If his parents are not guilty of medical neglect, why is there still oversight?
However, this was a compromise entered willingly by both parties and the family seems content with the decision for the moment. I have an update pending.
Aug 16, 2006
Abraham Cherrix and Social Services settle chemotherapy issue - Homeland Stupidity
Sep 09, 2006
A government of our choosing - Homeland Stupidity
joe almodovar
Aug 15, 2007
i have been diagnosed w/t melanoma cancer on my back.i have been trying to re locate the hoxley clinic to no avail .i seem to be blocked by internet blocks.can anyone let me have their adress or phone number. Thank you.
Kevin Fields
Aug 16, 2007
Joe, here’s the info you are looking for:
Contact information:
Bio-Medical center
615 General Ferreira, Colonia Juarez
Tijuana, B.C. Mexico.
Mailing Address:
PO Box 433654
San Isidro, CA 92143-3654
Tel: 011-52-664-684-90-11
Fax: 011-52-664-684-9744
Kevin Fields
Aug 16, 2007
On a side note, today is August 16th, 2007. This marks the 1 year anniversary of the courts recognizing Abraham’s rights to choose his own medical treatment.