State seizes cancer-stricken girl - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cynthetiq · 06-10-2005, 01:33 PM

So who do you think it right and why?

Personally, the parents are the ones who have custody of the child. To pull some sort of "Amber Alert" nonsense is just that, nonsense. If the parents were Christian Scientists and they said firmly from their religious protections would they be equally eroded?

While I don't see this as yet another invasion of or intrusion of government policing. I see it as a simple thing as trying to do the right thing gone awry.

Quote:

State seizes cancer-stricken girl

CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas (AP) -- Child welfare officials seized a 12-year-old cancer patient from her parents, saying they were blocking radiation treatment that doctors say she needs.

During a court hearing Wednesday, Michele and Edward Wernecke asked that doctors be barred from giving radiation therapy to their daughter Katie until a hearing next week to determine whether she will stay in state custody.

They say their daughter's cancer is in remission and they object to her getting the radiation treatment after undergoing a round of chemotherapy. Katie has Hodgkin's disease, a type of cancer involving the lymph nodes.

Juvenile court Judge Carl Lewis said he would rule on the request Friday.

Last week, authorities issued an Amber Alert to gain temporary custody of Katie after receiving an anonymous tip about possible neglect. She was found with her mother at a family ranch, about 80 miles west of Corpus Christi near Freer, on Saturday.

She remains at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, where she is undergoing tests, officials said. State Child Protective Services says her life could be in danger without further cancer treatment.

Michele Wernecke was arrested on charges of interfering with child custody and was released Monday after posting $50,000 bond.

The Werneckes' three sons were placed in a foster home.

Speaking Thursday on NBC's "Today" show, Michele Wernecke said her daughter's illness is unique and should be treated as such.

"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."

The couple, members of the Church of God, have said they oppose blood transfusions unless they were from Katie's mother. But the couple's attorney, Daniel Horne, said religion wasn't at issue in the fight over cancer treatment.

Rather, they believe doctors haven't been upfront about Katie's care and have not answered all their questions about the side effects of the radiation.

"This issue is about parental rights, not about religious rights," Horne said. "They just want to be informed of her treatment. They want to be involved in this."

Katie was diagnosed with cancer in January. In a videotaped statement recorded by her parents, Katie said she's feeling better.

"I don't need radiation treatment. And nobody asked me what I wanted. It's my body," she said.

Officials on Wednesday reached an agreement to let Edward Wernecke and the couple's sons visit Katie on Friday, the day before her 13th birthday.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/09/ca....ap/index.html

Ustwo · 06-10-2005, 01:58 PM

I don't think her parents are cancer specialists.

I don't think parents are allowed to kill their children (after they are born).

As such I think the state did the right thing.

I am all for parents rights, and a lot of times the social workers are a bit insane on how badly they treat the parents, but in this case the life of the child was in direct danger.

MexicanOnABike · 06-10-2005, 03:14 PM

sometimes i wonder what goes on in the head of the parents... why would they say no to treatement? :s

Sweetpea · 06-10-2005, 03:21 PM

I understand that due to religious reasons they cannot seek medical treatment for their children or themselves. due to the fact that "god will heal" etc.

I respect their religious right, and if it was one of the adults who had cancer, i would say, let him or her die with their religious beliefs . . . but this is a child, whom they are inflicting THEIR religious beliefs upon they do NOT have the right to let their child die. the state was correct to intervene in this circumstance.

Sweetpea

Sweetpea · 06-10-2005, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mexicanonabike

sometimes i wonder what goes on in the head of the parents... why would they say no to treatement? :s

If i remember correctly, Due to the Christian Scientists religious beliefs, the followers are not allowed to seek medical treatment as their "faith and God will heal" is what they believe. Followers believe that To seek medical treatment is to not have faith in God's will.

Sweetpea

Cuatela · 06-10-2005, 04:38 PM

Regardless of their religious beliefs, is it not the parents' responsibility and privelege to do what they think is best for their children? And my question: what is the child's view on this? Yes, she's a minor, but she can still think and make decisions.

getwonk'd · 06-10-2005, 05:03 PM

Being a parent myself, I can totally understand how these parents feel. They are probably very scared and confused. They said they didn't feel the doctors were being upfront with them on the effects of the radiation. From the sounds of it, Katies parents are good people looking out for the best interest of their daughter. I can't say I blame them. Cancer treatmant is hard on the whole family especially when they are told their daughter is in remission.

As for the "Amber Alert", The girl was with her parents. She was not kidnapped. To use the "Amber Alert" system in that way undermines the whole system. When it is a real emergency, people won't listen. They issued the alert on an anonymus tip of POSSIBLE neglect, no proof.

It seems none of this would have even happened if the doctors would have answered the parents completely until they fully understood what was happening to their daughter.

StormBerlin · 06-10-2005, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raptor226

Regardless of their religious beliefs, is it not the parents' responsibility and privelege to do what they think is best for their children? And my question: what is the child's view on this? Yes, she's a minor, but she can still think and make decisions.

I agree completely. Those of you who say that her parents don't have the right to choose whether she gets the treatment she may or may not need are probably the same people that say parents need to take more responsibility for their children when they misbehave, etc. Just an assumption.

Janie · 06-10-2005, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by getwonk'd

It seems none of this would have even happened if the doctors would have answered the parents completely until they fully understood what was happening to their daughter.

Yeah, it definitely seems like the doctors didn't fully explain what being in remission meant. I'm not educated myself in the matter, but wouldn't a cancer patient still have to undergo a certain amount of radiation therapy even though the cancer is in remission, simply to keep it that way?

Cuatela · 06-10-2005, 05:16 PM

In expansion of what I said earlier, I think parents should have complete control over their children, until such time as they are abusive to the point of intentionally hurting their children. Witholding possibly unnecessary treatment is not something I would count as intentionally hurting.

And patients are not required to do anything they haven't agreed to (via written and signed statement)

eribrav · 06-10-2005, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janie

Yeah, it definitely seems like the doctors didn't fully explain what being in remission meant. I'm not educated myself in the matter, but wouldn't a cancer patient still have to undergo a certain amount of radiation therapy even though the cancer is in remission, simply to keep it that way?

This gets interesting if you are current on recent advances in cancer treatment. There is currently NO consensus on the necessity of radiation in the treatment of Hodgkins. The recent trend, especially in kids, has been to try to omit radiation whenever possible because it has so many long term side effects. It's an area of very active debate in the cancer community now. So for the state to get involved in this way seems utterly overbearing. Of course, we don't know all the facts in this case, so I'm just offering an opinion based on what's in the article above.

Janie · 06-10-2005, 06:15 PM

In light of what you said eribrav, it seems to me like there are many well-intentioned people on both sides of the story but a general lack of the intimate details. I'm wondering exactly what this anonymous tipper knew about it.

ydouhauntme · 06-10-2005, 06:26 PM

I saw the parents on one of the morning shows today and they seem to believe that the doctors are recommeding the radiation simply because it is the standard procedure, not because their daughter necessarily needs it. They don't want her to have unnecessary treatments, treatments which could further lower her immune system. I sympathize with this. I think that the parents should be allowed the option of a second or even a third opinion before child welfare steps in and takes her child, because based on what I saw this morning, it is not that they don't want her to have treatment, it is that they don't want her to have treatment that she doesn't need.

MSD · 06-10-2005, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janie

Yeah, it definitely seems like the doctors didn't fully explain what being in remission meant. I'm not educated myself in the matter, but wouldn't a cancer patient still have to undergo a certain amount of radiation therapy even though the cancer is in remission, simply to keep it that way?

As I understand it, remission is the scientific was of saying it's gone. Relapses are possible (although they may be new cases caused by the same genetic predisposition or environmental factor,) so they can't say it's cured, but that's how I've heard the term used.

Ustwo · 06-10-2005, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Katie was diagnosed with cancer in January. In a videotaped statement recorded by her parents, Katie said she's feeling better.

"I don't need radiation treatment. And nobody asked me what I wanted. It's my body," she said.

I'm sorry but this is a red flag. Maybe the doctors didn't explain enough, etc, but this video tape thing is just silly showboating.

I deal with 12 year olds all day, and you don't ask them, you tell them. You can explain it if they want to know, you answer thier questions, but they have no choise in the matter.

Sweetpea · 06-10-2005, 07:44 PM

I guess the core issue is how can a child of only twelve that has been indoctrinated into a strict religion make sound choices for herself?
It's the parents who are guiding this issue, not the young lady making the choice.

Sweetpea

ObieX · 06-10-2005, 08:42 PM

From what i can tell from what is explained about the situation i'll have to go with the side of the parents on this one. It's their child. Imagine having having to watch your child go through chemotherapy, being extremely weakened, most likely losing all her hair. Dealing with that kinda of stuff every day, not knowing if she'll survive.. then finally it goes into remission and she's ok. Now the doctors want to put her back under radiation, which itself can cause cancer as well as kill it, and weaken her even more for no reason other than "standard procedure".

And if their religion is playting a bigger role in this than they let on then that is also their right. It's a passive religous practice, it's not like they're sticking their daughter on a slab and sacrificing her in a naked ritual in the woods on the full moon. |Either the parents should have control over what goes on witht heir daughter, or their daughter should be given the right to make her own choice, no matter what her age. If an early teen can be given the choice whether or not she is going to have an abortion (while in state custody), then this girl should be given the same choice about what to do with her own body.

If the state does end up with her, they had better pay for every cent of "treatment", and everything that is caused by that treatment, forever.

Ustwo · 06-10-2005, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ObieX

If an early teen can be given the choice whether or not she is going to have an abortion (while in state custody), then this girl should be given the same choice about what to do with her own body.

Are seriously suggesting that 12 year olds should be expected to make adult decisions?

Sweetpea · 06-10-2005, 08:53 PM

i had a friend in my teens who had cancer . . . went through chemo and then had almost a year of radiation . . . we even took her to her weekly treatments . . . radiation is widely held in the medical community to keep cancer from returning .. . that was 10 years ago and she is still cancer free today, because she and her doctors took every precaution, as this young lady should do also.

why on Earth would you not want to make sure your child didn't recieve this extra bit of medical help in staying healthy . . . it's only common sense.

Sweetpea

martinguerre · 06-10-2005, 09:11 PM

what i don't understand is why the other children were placed in foster homes. do they have cancer? or is this just standard procedure gone wrong?

other than that...i think it's proper that the state protect minors from parents.

spectre · 06-10-2005, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct

As I understand it, remission is the scientific was of saying it's gone. Relapses are possible (although they may be new cases caused by the same genetic predisposition or environmental factor,) so they can't say it's cured, but that's how I've heard the term used.

From what I was told (note: I am a former cancer patient), remission occurs 5 years after there has been no sign of recurrence. But, this is a different form of cancer so I can't say for sure what the definition would be.

Ustwo · 06-10-2005, 10:36 PM

I think we all missed something key here...

Quote:

They say their daughter's cancer is in remission and they object to her getting the radiation treatment after undergoing a round of chemotherapy. Katie has Hodgkin's disease, a type of cancer involving the lymph nodes.

THEY say her cancer is in remission. The parents, NOT the doctors. We don't know what the doctors think here at all. Basicly no real judgement can be made on this without more information.

thalakos315 · 06-10-2005, 10:57 PM

i'm going to have to side with the parents on this one, for now.. she's in remission correct? so essentially she's doing ok? if this is the case, then i can completely agree with the parents, she was sick, she sought treatment, she's doing better now, why go through possibly unnecessary procedure?

i've seen what chemo can do to a person, at some points you honestly believe that it might be worse than the disease itself. would you put YOUR child through something like that? especially without concrete proof that she would relapse without this treatment?
i can totally understand the parents on this.

i think the govn't overreacted on this one big time. the only reason i could understand child services getting involved in something like this.. is if there was a prior history of abuse in the family. or if they rejected treatment for their child in the beginning when cancer was first discovered.

i'm not a big fan of the social/child services departments. from my experience, they act on stupid things, and let the real abuse slide under the radar..

jorgelito · 06-10-2005, 11:30 PM

This is another example of uneccesary governmetn intrusion into people's lives. More nanny state action.

The poor parents. The amber alert etc was a gross misuse of the system and placing the other kids on foster homes is completely out of control. Very un-American (of course my opinion is based only on the info from the article).

The government definitely over-acted in this case.

meembo · 06-11-2005, 01:47 AM

No easy answers

I can't imagine which is worse -- being scared of the diagnosis of such an awful disease in your child, or authorizing devestating therapies of that disease to be waged inside the body and brain of your child.

The courts and the police didn't over-react in regards to Katie. They followed law based on a good deal of precedent, and the law fundamentally and ultimately advocates for the child's health, except in terminal cases. That's what most people want to see -- except they never imagine it in their own families, of course.

Sadly, her cancer is back. That was confirmed Friday, and the parents quickly agreed to the radiation therapy, and they expect to get custody of Katie back soon. The family is already receiving "ample visitation time" with Katie, and they received custody back for the other children in court on Friday. The others were taken away after a visiting social worker declared the home in dangerous condition for the other children. The parents say that was a pretext only for the state to force compliance upon the parents. The parents also say that their decisions regarding Katie were not based on religious beliefs. (All of this is from the NEw York Times this Saturday morning.)

The process stripped concerned and loving parents of the dignity and rights of being a parent and an advocate, and that is troubling to me. The parents had every right to ask for additional medical opinions. I don't think that flight with the child was a good idea, though, and the hand of the court and police had to be played out once the family chose to run and hide. Although I don't like it, I can't see that the state agencies could have acted much differently in regards to Katie's welfare.

I think that taking the other kids away was wrong and over-reaching, though.

raeanna74 · 06-11-2005, 06:42 AM

After hearing this story I looked up info on the little girls disease. What I found would make any parent agonize over what kind of treatment plan to take. Asking for other opinions is completely reasonable. There are newer treatment plans out there that require lower levels of radiation. The younger the child the more devistating the radiation is to them. Some are so retarded because of it that they cannot read or write or do many things that they were even able to do before and they will never learn it because the radiation destroyed cells in their mind. It's a terribly sad thing - I cannot imagine telling my child's Dr - "OK, go ahead and do something to my outwardly healthy child so that they might never be able to finish school or possibly even talk to me again. Ruin their mind so they can live a live as a mentally handicapped person the rest of their life."

Also before they withdrew her from the radiation they videotaped their daughter talking about her condition. She talked about how some people can decide not to have certain treatment for themselves because they'd rather live their lives as normally as possible and die earlier than live handicapped and die slowly.

So often this disease comes back anyway - are the Dr's gonna force her to go through treatment again if it comes back?? What are they gonna say if this doesn't work and she only lives a little while longer as a retard? Why do this to her when her parents just want to enjoy what time they have with their daughter.

This story makes me so angry with the Dr's for doing this. The least they could have done is to offer the parents some alternative therapy. I read enough to know that the lower doses of radiation aren't that rare. If the Dr's don't know about it then they need to go back to school. Granted I don't konw the whole situation but why wouldn't they bring in other Dr's for the parents to consult with? It's deplorable and disgusting that the state and Dr's would cooperate to force this kind of thing.

Here is one link that was informative.

I really hope the hospital is providing sufficient support persons for the family because the kind of treatment for this little girls type of cancer is one of the most intensive kinds and consequently the mots stressful for her and her family emotionally and mentally as well. Alientating the parents like this cannot be good for this little girls mental health. She did not want the treatment. Can you imagine her state of mind now? If she's begun treatment again and her parents are not allowed access to her as much? The Dr's are her enemies in this scenerio and they really need to be her advocate at this time. I hope they are doing their utmost to care for her emotions and mind or she may never recover despite all their medical treatment.

ObieX · 06-11-2005, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Are seriously suggesting that 12 year olds should be expected to make adult decisions?

A 12 year old is far from stupid, especially these days. And i would imagne, after all this girl has been through, that she has grown up rather quick. So yes, i am suggesting she be allowed to say what is to be done with her own body if she were placed into state custody. There was that case with (i think) a 14 year old girl who was in state custody and wanted to get an abortion. The courts ruled in her favor, it was her body. 12 is only 2 years removed from that. If she were to say "yes" to treatment against her own parent's wishes would you still think she shouldn't be allowed? Or is it only because she wouldn't want it that you have an ojection? Not that it really matters much now, as she'll be getting treatment.

jorgelito · 06-11-2005, 11:13 AM

Very well said Meembo, very thoughtful and better articluated than what I has said. One minor disagreement: I still thought the state over reacted. I am uncomfortable with the state acting in this manner (without, IMO, due cause).

Ustwo · 06-11-2005, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ObieX

A 12 year old is far from stupid, especially these days. And i would imagne, after all this girl has been through, that she has grown up rather quick. So yes, i am suggesting she be allowed to say what is to be done with her own body if she were placed into state custody. There was that case with (i think) a 14 year old girl who was in state custody and wanted to get an abortion. The courts ruled in her favor, it was her body. 12 is only 2 years removed from that. If she were to say "yes" to treatment against her own parent's wishes would you still think she shouldn't be allowed? Or is it only because she wouldn't want it that you have an ojection? Not that it really matters much now, as she'll be getting treatment.

I'm saying she has no voice in this period.

I work with 12 year olds all day, its about the average age for my patients. They are in no way adults, they are easily swayed, and don't think beyond the short term. Yes every now and then you can find a very mature 12 year old, but even then they are still only 12.

Marvelous Marv · 06-13-2005, 12:16 PM

I'll skip the really tough question, and like someone else, ask what gave the state the right to take away the other kids?

THAT'S what I want details on. "Do what we say, or we take away your kids?"

pan6467 · 06-13-2005, 12:41 PM

This sets precedence again for government to take children away.

If indeed it is religious (Christian Scientist).... sorry but I'm sure parents agonize beyond anyone's dreams over their decision.

If it is that they don't have all the info and the Dr.s are not forthcoming with statistics and facts...... It is the Dr.s fault.

I do not believe a government has any right to take children away from their parents, unless there is abuse. There doesn't seem to be abuse here just parents confused scared and unsure of what is best.

Government interference is wrong and shall always be wrong in cases like this. Educate the family, talk to them give them other dr.s opinions but don't take their kid.

What I find funny is there are people saying the government is right who also argue government is involved in far too much.... can't have it both ways.

As for a 12 year old having a voice, if I had a child who had cancer and they knew what their choices were and they made a decision and could explain it to me in such a way that I knew, they knew what they were talking about.... I would honor my child's wish no matter how old.

Ustwo · 06-13-2005, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

What I find funny is there are people saying the government is right who also argue government is involved in far too much.... can't have it both ways.

I assume you mean me

Sorry but when you are only getting one half of the story, (the parents) and we are talking about a life threatening illness I see the parents wishes as secondary. Apparently the girls cancer HAD returned, no treatment = death.

I don't advocate letting parents kill their children...at any stage of their development.

pan6467 · 06-13-2005, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I assume you mean me

Sorry but when you are only getting one half of the story, (the parents) and we are talking about a life threatening illness I see the parents wishes as secondary. Apparently the girls cancer HAD returned, no treatment = death.

I don't advocate letting parents kill their children...at any stage of their development.

Not necessarily just you.... I just don't see how one can argue that there is too much government interference then allow government take not just the ill child but all the children because the parents are not "doing" what is expected.

A return of cancer and no treatment does NOT automatically = death. I have known someone who had Hodgkins, minimal treatments and done the holistic thing and has been very well and alive for 15 years since it's discovery. Hodgkins from my understanding has many different treatments and many different life expectancies.

Again, if the child is well informed and has been explained everything and makes a decision that also should be taken into account.

When I was a kid I watched on of those cancer movies about the runner who got it..... I was traumitized but I told my family I would rather die than go through treatments, be sicker and then still die.

If she has been told she has a 50/50 chance (or whatever the odds) but she'll lose her hair, be extremely ill and may never have children.... then perhaps she finds no reason to have the treatments.

When it comes to life and the subject is well educated and understands all options then no matter what the age, if that person can make a rational judgement based on the facts and how they want to live..... they have that right.

06-10-2005, 01:58 PM	#2 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I don't think her parents are cancer specialists. I don't think parents are allowed to kill their children (after they are born). As such I think the state did the right thing. I am all for parents rights, and a lot of times the social workers are a bit insane on how badly they treat the parents, but in this case the life of the child was in direct danger. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

06-10-2005, 03:14 PM	#3 (permalink)
MexicanOnABike Location: up north	sometimes i wonder what goes on in the head of the parents... why would they say no to treatement? :s __________________ - Movie Reviews - Ratings-

06-10-2005, 03:21 PM	#4 (permalink)
Sweetpea Fade out Location: in love	I understand that due to religious reasons they cannot seek medical treatment for their children or themselves. due to the fact that "god will heal" etc. I respect their religious right, and if it was one of the adults who had cancer, i would say, let him or her die with their religious beliefs . . . but this is a child, whom they are inflicting THEIR religious beliefs upon they do NOT have the right to let their child die. the state was correct to intervene in this circumstance. Sweetpea __________________ Having a Pet Will Change Your Life! Looking for a great pet?! Click Here! "I am the Type of Person Who Can Get Away With A lot, Simply Because I Don't Ask Permission for the Privilege of Being Myself"

06-10-2005, 04:38 PM	#6 (permalink)
Cuatela Insane Location: NC, USA	Regardless of their religious beliefs, is it not the parents' responsibility and privelege to do what they think is best for their children? And my question: what is the child's view on this? Yes, she's a minor, but she can still think and make decisions. __________________ Any sarcasm was intentional.

06-10-2005, 05:16 PM	#10 (permalink)
Cuatela Insane Location: NC, USA	In expansion of what I said earlier, I think parents should have complete control over their children, until such time as they are abusive to the point of intentionally hurting their children. Witholding possibly unnecessary treatment is not something I would count as intentionally hurting. And patients are not required to do anything they haven't agreed to (via written and signed statement) __________________ Any sarcasm was intentional.

06-10-2005, 05:03 PM	#7 (permalink)
getwonk'd Tilted Location: Central Wisconsin	Being a parent myself, I can totally understand how these parents feel. They are probably very scared and confused. They said they didn't feel the doctors were being upfront with them on the effects of the radiation. From the sounds of it, Katies parents are good people looking out for the best interest of their daughter. I can't say I blame them. Cancer treatmant is hard on the whole family especially when they are told their daughter is in remission. As for the "Amber Alert", The girl was with her parents. She was not kidnapped. To use the "Amber Alert" system in that way undermines the whole system. When it is a real emergency, people won't listen. They issued the alert on an anonymus tip of POSSIBLE neglect, no proof. It seems none of this would have even happened if the doctors would have answered the parents completely until they fully understood what was happening to their daughter.

06-10-2005, 06:15 PM	#12 (permalink)
Janie Insane Location: Greater Vancouver	In light of what you said eribrav, it seems to me like there are many well-intentioned people on both sides of the story but a general lack of the intimate details. I'm wondering exactly what this anonymous tipper knew about it. __________________ cheers to the motherland

06-10-2005, 06:26 PM	#13 (permalink)
ydouhauntme Upright Location: Upstate, New York	I saw the parents on one of the morning shows today and they seem to believe that the doctors are recommeding the radiation simply because it is the standard procedure, not because their daughter necessarily needs it. They don't want her to have unnecessary treatments, treatments which could further lower her immune system. I sympathize with this. I think that the parents should be allowed the option of a second or even a third opinion before child welfare steps in and takes her child, because based on what I saw this morning, it is not that they don't want her to have treatment, it is that they don't want her to have treatment that she doesn't need.

06-10-2005, 07:44 PM	#16 (permalink)
Sweetpea Fade out Location: in love	I guess the core issue is how can a child of only twelve that has been indoctrinated into a strict religion make sound choices for herself? It's the parents who are guiding this issue, not the young lady making the choice. Sweetpea __________________ Having a Pet Will Change Your Life! Looking for a great pet?! Click Here! "I am the Type of Person Who Can Get Away With A lot, Simply Because I Don't Ask Permission for the Privilege of Being Myself"

06-10-2005, 08:42 PM	#17 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	From what i can tell from what is explained about the situation i'll have to go with the side of the parents on this one. It's their child. Imagine having having to watch your child go through chemotherapy, being extremely weakened, most likely losing all her hair. Dealing with that kinda of stuff every day, not knowing if she'll survive.. then finally it goes into remission and she's ok. Now the doctors want to put her back under radiation, which itself can cause cancer as well as kill it, and weaken her even more for no reason other than "standard procedure". And if their religion is playting a bigger role in this than they let on then that is also their right. It's a passive religous practice, it's not like they're sticking their daughter on a slab and sacrificing her in a naked ritual in the woods on the full moon. \|Either the parents should have control over what goes on witht heir daughter, or their daughter should be given the right to make her own choice, no matter what her age. If an early teen can be given the choice whether or not she is going to have an abortion (while in state custody), then this girl should be given the same choice about what to do with her own body. If the state does end up with her, they had better pay for every cent of "treatment", and everything that is caused by that treatment, forever. __________________ We Must Dissent. Last edited by ObieX; 06-10-2005 at 08:44 PM..

06-10-2005, 08:53 PM	#19 (permalink)
Sweetpea Fade out Location: in love	i had a friend in my teens who had cancer . . . went through chemo and then had almost a year of radiation . . . we even took her to her weekly treatments . . . radiation is widely held in the medical community to keep cancer from returning .. . that was 10 years ago and she is still cancer free today, because she and her doctors took every precaution, as this young lady should do also. why on Earth would you not want to make sure your child didn't recieve this extra bit of medical help in staying healthy . . . it's only common sense. Sweetpea __________________ Having a Pet Will Change Your Life! Looking for a great pet?! Click Here! "I am the Type of Person Who Can Get Away With A lot, Simply Because I Don't Ask Permission for the Privilege of Being Myself"

06-10-2005, 09:11 PM	#20 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	what i don't understand is why the other children were placed in foster homes. do they have cancer? or is this just standard procedure gone wrong? other than that...i think it's proper that the state protect minors from parents. __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

06-10-2005, 10:57 PM	#23 (permalink)
thalakos315 Tilted	i'm going to have to side with the parents on this one, for now.. she's in remission correct? so essentially she's doing ok? if this is the case, then i can completely agree with the parents, she was sick, she sought treatment, she's doing better now, why go through possibly unnecessary procedure? i've seen what chemo can do to a person, at some points you honestly believe that it might be worse than the disease itself. would you put YOUR child through something like that? especially without concrete proof that she would relapse without this treatment? i can totally understand the parents on this. i think the govn't overreacted on this one big time. the only reason i could understand child services getting involved in something like this.. is if there was a prior history of abuse in the family. or if they rejected treatment for their child in the beginning when cancer was first discovered. i'm not a big fan of the social/child services departments. from my experience, they act on stupid things, and let the real abuse slide under the radar..

06-10-2005, 11:30 PM	#24 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	This is another example of uneccesary governmetn intrusion into people's lives. More nanny state action. The poor parents. The amber alert etc was a gross misuse of the system and placing the other kids on foster homes is completely out of control. Very un-American (of course my opinion is based only on the info from the article). The government definitely over-acted in this case.

06-11-2005, 01:47 AM	#25 (permalink)
meembo Junkie Location: Connecticut	No easy answers I can't imagine which is worse -- being scared of the diagnosis of such an awful disease in your child, or authorizing devestating therapies of that disease to be waged inside the body and brain of your child. The courts and the police didn't over-react in regards to Katie. They followed law based on a good deal of precedent, and the law fundamentally and ultimately advocates for the child's health, except in terminal cases. That's what most people want to see -- except they never imagine it in their own families, of course. Sadly, her cancer is back. That was confirmed Friday, and the parents quickly agreed to the radiation therapy, and they expect to get custody of Katie back soon. The family is already receiving "ample visitation time" with Katie, and they received custody back for the other children in court on Friday. The others were taken away after a visiting social worker declared the home in dangerous condition for the other children. The parents say that was a pretext only for the state to force compliance upon the parents. The parents also say that their decisions regarding Katie were not based on religious beliefs. (All of this is from the NEw York Times this Saturday morning.) The process stripped concerned and loving parents of the dignity and rights of being a parent and an advocate, and that is troubling to me. The parents had every right to ask for additional medical opinions. I don't think that flight with the child was a good idea, though, and the hand of the court and police had to be played out once the family chose to run and hide. Although I don't like it, I can't see that the state agencies could have acted much differently in regards to Katie's welfare. I think that taking the other kids away was wrong and over-reaching, though. __________________ less I say, smarter I am

06-11-2005, 06:42 AM	#26 (permalink)
raeanna74 I'm not a blonde! I'm knot! I'm knot! I'm knot! Location: Upper Michigan	After hearing this story I looked up info on the little girls disease. What I found would make any parent agonize over what kind of treatment plan to take. Asking for other opinions is completely reasonable. There are newer treatment plans out there that require lower levels of radiation. The younger the child the more devistating the radiation is to them. Some are so retarded because of it that they cannot read or write or do many things that they were even able to do before and they will never learn it because the radiation destroyed cells in their mind. It's a terribly sad thing - I cannot imagine telling my child's Dr - "OK, go ahead and do something to my outwardly healthy child so that they might never be able to finish school or possibly even talk to me again. Ruin their mind so they can live a live as a mentally handicapped person the rest of their life." Also before they withdrew her from the radiation they videotaped their daughter talking about her condition. She talked about how some people can decide not to have certain treatment for themselves because they'd rather live their lives as normally as possible and die earlier than live handicapped and die slowly. So often this disease comes back anyway - are the Dr's gonna force her to go through treatment again if it comes back?? What are they gonna say if this doesn't work and she only lives a little while longer as a retard? Why do this to her when her parents just want to enjoy what time they have with their daughter. This story makes me so angry with the Dr's for doing this. The least they could have done is to offer the parents some alternative therapy. I read enough to know that the lower doses of radiation aren't that rare. If the Dr's don't know about it then they need to go back to school. Granted I don't konw the whole situation but why wouldn't they bring in other Dr's for the parents to consult with? It's deplorable and disgusting that the state and Dr's would cooperate to force this kind of thing. Here is one link that was informative. I really hope the hospital is providing sufficient support persons for the family because the kind of treatment for this little girls type of cancer is one of the most intensive kinds and consequently the mots stressful for her and her family emotionally and mentally as well. Alientating the parents like this cannot be good for this little girls mental health. She did not want the treatment. Can you imagine her state of mind now? If she's begun treatment again and her parents are not allowed access to her as much? The Dr's are her enemies in this scenerio and they really need to be her advocate at this time. I hope they are doing their utmost to care for her emotions and mind or she may never recover despite all their medical treatment. __________________ "Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama My Karma just ran over your Dogma. Last edited by raeanna74; 06-11-2005 at 06:52 AM..

06-11-2005, 11:13 AM	#28 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Very well said Meembo, very thoughtful and better articluated than what I has said. One minor disagreement: I still thought the state over reacted. I am uncomfortable with the state acting in this manner (without, IMO, due cause).

06-13-2005, 12:16 PM	#30 (permalink)
Marvelous Marv Cunning Runt Location: Taking a mulligan	I'll skip the really tough question, and like someone else, ask what gave the state the right to take away the other kids? THAT'S what I want details on. "Do what we say, or we take away your kids?"

06-13-2005, 12:41 PM	#31 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	This sets precedence again for government to take children away. If indeed it is religious (Christian Scientist).... sorry but I'm sure parents agonize beyond anyone's dreams over their decision. If it is that they don't have all the info and the Dr.s are not forthcoming with statistics and facts...... It is the Dr.s fault. I do not believe a government has any right to take children away from their parents, unless there is abuse. There doesn't seem to be abuse here just parents confused scared and unsure of what is best. Government interference is wrong and shall always be wrong in cases like this. Educate the family, talk to them give them other dr.s opinions but don't take their kid. What I find funny is there are people saying the government is right who also argue government is involved in far too much.... can't have it both ways. As for a 12 year old having a voice, if I had a child who had cancer and they knew what their choices were and they made a decision and could explain it to me in such a way that I knew, they knew what they were talking about.... I would honor my child's wish no matter how old. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 06-13-2005 at 12:44 PM..