I am praying for this family. What a devastating turn of events. I find this extremely scary. What has this country come to?
I was thinking as I read this about the incredible expenses that are related to both medical treatment as well as the legal stuff...I personally really think this is a cause worth supporting,
Does anyone know if there is a fund set up to help with these legal costs?
I find this absolutely appalling...and it wouldn't matter if the young man was homeschooled or not. This is simply not the state's business. If I were the young man, I'd be finding my way to an obscure mountain in Montana about right now!
May we all rise up in prayer for this family. For it is by His power alone that this giant shall be taken down... He did it before, I pray He will do it again!
Charley...
I live in the obscure Mountains of Montana...It isn't any "safer" here. Pray for our nation.
You might need to check the state's laws. Crossing state lines can complicate matters, and many states will just send you back, anyway. Here, when foster children run, they head for MO, because at 16, MO considers you capable of your own decisions (or something like that, I can't remember the actual law) and they don't send the kids back to their home state.
It's strange...Until you are 18, your parents have to sign a form giving a hospital or doctor permission to treat. Who is going to sign that little form on Tuesday? Whoever does has to have legal custody of the minor. Foster parents can't even sign. And I would presume the state cannot unless the child is formally in state custody.
Maybe we should all pray that God will just take away the cancer (His will be done, of course). Wouldn't that be a miracle to behold! It might even make the doctors and state do a double take and rethink their possitions. It would also be a wonderful blessing for Abraham and his family.
If you don't like the ruling by Judge Jesse E. Demps why not call him and tell him about your concerns. Remind him that they keep telling us we're in a "free" country. What a LIE that is!!! Call one of his numbers and leave a message for him or ask to speak to him during business hours. Here are his phone numbers: (757)393-2990 or (757) 399-5514
Oh my word!! I will pray for this family right now! How DARE this judge make such a ruling ... who does he think he is?!?!?! I am so angry right now reading this! UGH!!! This is really so sad ...
~Heather
Just one thought...I'm a medical student in my fourth year. I certainly understand the outrage that a court would overrule a patient's and his parent's decision not to seek traditional treatment. And certainly, it seems that in a 16 yo, he is old enough to be able to make his own decisions. But there are other situations when I don't think this would be as bad. For instance, when the parents of a child are jehovah's witness, and refuse blood transfusions for the child when a simple transfusion could easily save their life, doctors can get a court order to override their decision. I think that is acceptable since sometimes the court needs to speak up in the best interest of the children when the parents refuse to. Probably the court in this case was using these kinds of precedents to make their decision. Again, I do think this situation is probably different since the "child" in question is 16 and obviously intelligent enough to make this decision. And chemo comes with huge risks that many reasonable people decide not to take. But sometimes I do think courts need to step in when simple treatments can save the lives of children, especially children who are too young to fully appreciate what is going on.
Aubry said, "sometimes the court needs to speak up in the best interest of the children when the parents refuse to."
Who determines what is in the "best interest of the child?" The parent has their thoughts, the state has theirs. The natural right belongs with the parent.
Abraham's plight really has me concerned, most especially because I live in Va! This is very disturbing.
I decided to blog about it. Thanks so much for writing about this!
I think the difficulty with JW, is that they are somewhat of a cult that we don't agree with. But in principle, who has the right to determine what is best for the child? And they have some serious spiritual concerns with transfusions based in scripture, namely that the blood is for the Lord. If we aren't to consume it, then we aren't to take it, even if it means saving our life. But not doing so could result in the child's death. At what point do we determine that the parent has abused his rights? And there are risks associated...they pointed to the greatly increased risks of AIDS and hepatitis back when I used to know some members. Clearly, someone must intervene in the case of clear abuse, but is it the same with medical decisions based in religious beliefs? Or other convictions for that matter?
Recent research has shown that early, aggressive treatment for cancer greatly increases the chances of survival. So should that be the only option? When the medical field advances enough to genetically manipulate the unborn child, many Christians will oppose it. What if a cure for some horrific disease is found in embryonic stem cell research? Should the parent be forced to accept treatment for their child despite personal convictions against such treatment? It is no different for the Jehova's Witness who denies a blood transfusion or an organ transplant. They are acting in what they consider the best interests of their child because they place their understanding of the Word of God over the laws of man and even their physical life.
And the same rulings in TX which allow judges to order transfusions are used to demonstrate that it is the state, not the parent, who has ultimate authority over the child.
It is a heart wrenching thing to watch a parent make a decision you would not make for your child. But in a free society we give deference to the parent unless they do something criminal. That's why this judge had to find the parents neglectful before he could step in. This ruling should make every parent pause and think. If they can call this neglectful what else can they claim as well. We all are at the mercy of judges to determine these things. That's when I shudder the most.
Spunky commented: ...can he be emancipated from the state? Because of the judge's ruling, the state and the parents currently share custody of Abraham.
Reply: That's a very interesting idea...Very interesting!! I know another girl who was trying to do something like that when she was in foster care. (17, engaged, parents had given up their rights, she was working full-time and in her second year of college...) Last I heard, she was making progress in her lawsuit so her case worker moved her to a new foster home on the opposite side of the state.
Aubry said, "sometimes the court needs to speak up in the best interest of the children when the parents refuse to."
And what is the meaning of "refuse"? I know a mother who was charged with educational neglect because her disabled child was on the waiting list for a specialized school, and she "failed" to have him attend public school, even though this happened in the middle of summer when school wasn't even in session!
Oh, to be a real attorney to fight these things... 
Someday Lord, right!! :D
A question:
Do you think this would be such an issue w/ the state if he had simply refused chemo? How much is the desire to seek alternative treatment playing into this...?
(Thought sparked by "After talking with an oncologist (a doctor who studies and treats tumors) about the risks and side effects of the proposed treatment, Abraham decided he wouldn't go through with it." from
http://www.therebelution.com)
The speculation is that the Doctor turned him in. That makes me think that the Dr. would pursue this despite the alternative treatment.
I agree that in the case of Abraham Cherrix, the decision to use alternative therapy rather than traditional medicine to treat his recurrent cancer reflected a difference of opinion and not neglect. The judgment ordering chemotherapy against the wishes of this young man and his parents is just wrong.
I remember feeling helpless as I provided care to a man after emergent heart surgery. A Jehovah's Witness, he refused blood products. After surgery his blood was not clotting normally and he bled profusely. Administering IV clotting factors would likely have reversed this condition, but we could not give them. Clotting factors are blood products. Had that man been a child, I would have called an unscheduled meeting of the hospital's Ethics Committee in order to persuade the hospital administrators to petition the court to allow us to proceed with this treatment against the wishes of the parents.
I never had to face this. We did have a child whose parents were JW’s undergo open-heart surgery while I was working in the unit. The parent’s would not sign consent to blood, but they did agree that we could have CPS waiting in the background in case a court order needed to be obtained to give the child blood. The surgeon had refused to do the surgery unless this plan was in place. Luckily, the child did smashingly.
Doug and Rita Swan, former Christian Scientists, have a powerful story. In 1977, they stood by helplessly and watched their young son die of untreated bacterial meningitis. The Christian Science Practitioner that they called upon to assist their son complained that the Swans' fears and other sins were obstructing their treatment. The number one symptom of meningitis from any cause is severe headache. This child’s death was painful and unnecessary. Antibiotics are highly effective in treating this disease. I cannot support Rita Swan or her ministry. When she left the Church of Christ, Scientist, she seems to have turned her back on God and joined the church of the secular humanist. Over the years, I have noticed that her writings have become increasingly anti-church.
First let me say that Abraham has my prayers. Cancer is a overwhelming disease, and to have a recurrence would be harder because he already knows what it can be like.
Would I let my 16 year old child who had been through cancer once CHOOSE a different treatment the second time through? Yes. Would I be scared? Yes. But if the decision was reached through prayer on the part of my child I would be responsible to pray to the Lord for confirmation. He is merciful and would confirm His will, even if it was not a decision I would choose.
The state should have NO authority in the matter. NONE. God created families as the basic unit of society and sent us here to Earth to use our agency to choose the path back to Him. He does not force us to return, nor does he force us to choose His way. He tells us the rules(eternal laws), and the consequences for either choice. Then he allows us to face those consequences. The state should not be allowed to break into the family's God-given authority. Now there are parents who have willingly abdicated that authority and I really don't feel the state has any business there, either. God's people are to care for each other, and we are all children of God, whether we know or accept that or not. We have allowed the government to take over areas they were never meant to be in. Some examples are education and welfare. People are to work, care for their family, and care for one another. One of these days Christ will return set up His kingdom. He tells us to care for the poor and sick and widows. Will he find a people ready to live in His kingdom?
As for the comment on Jehovah's Witness. (I am not one) I don't feel the state should be allowed to intervene there EITHER! Now please don't jump all over me, listen first. God knows us. He knows the life we will live. He gives us our children. There are many instances in the Bible of where God closed the wombs of individuals and of entire nations so they could have no children. He can do it today too. God doesn't change. But he gives children to Jehovah's Witness'. I trust that He knows what he is doing. And He knows if a child will need surgery or medical treatment. It is not a surprise to God! He trusts the parent to care for the children he has given to them. The state should not interfere. God can heal a child despite a lack of medical treatment. God can take a child home with all the transfutions, chemo, or medical treatment in the world being used. We each can pray to find God's will for us. Let's not judge those who don't do what we think they should do. We have enough to worry about handling our own decisions!
Ya know, for as "logical" as it may sound to give blood to someone, there are risks involved...I dont know how I would feel if my children "needed" that. A kid in my high school got AIDS from a blood transfusion. He would still be alive today had it not been for the "life saving transfusion" he had to get....
Maybe it is just me, but I don't see any difference between refusing chemo in this situation and refusing a blood transfusion. Both have scientifically proven results to improve the chance of survival. Both harbor risks. Both were declined based on convictions rather than a desire to harm the child.
This same situation arose in Canada a couple years ago. A 16-year-old minor child had cancer and refused blood transfusions. She went to court and explained her decision which was based on her religion convictions as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. She had an alternate therapy that she wished to try. The court forced 28 transfusions on her, and she died anyway.
The whole way through reading this, I kept thinking..."Is this still America?"
I am praying for both of these children and their families.
I am very surprised at this ruling especially in light of a Supreme Court ruling that says this:
Because parents have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in the care, custody and management of their children against the state’s unwarranted "usurpation, disregard, or disrespect", the Supreme Court has held that parents retain a substantial, if not the dominant, role in decisions affecting the child, including decisions affecting medical treatment. Tennenbaum v. Williams, 193 F. 3d 581, 594 (1999), Cf. Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 99 S. Ct. 2493, 61 L. Ed. 2d 101; 1979 U.S. LEXIS 130 (1979); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 39, 67 L. Ed. 1042, 43 S. Ct. 625 (1923).
The Supreme Court explained,
"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…Parents can and must make those judgments…Neither state officials nor federal courts are equipped to review such parental decisions." Parham v. J.R. , 442 U.S. 584;602-606, 99 S. Ct. 2493; 61 L. Ed. 2d 101; 1979 U.S. LEXIS 130 (1979).
Tristan, you've got some really good points.
I called for his emancipation several weeks ago when this story first broke. Joint custody (his parents and the State) might complicate things now, though.
I was thinking about the emancipation thing. I wonder if he would even NEED to emancipate himself from the state. If he simply emancipated himself from his parents, the state wouldn't have any right to "share" custody anymore.
What a truly sad day though when we have to talk about a child emancipating himself from his parents to preserve those same parent's rights to control his medical decisions! I think he seems from all indications like an upstanding young man that would continue to seek and honor his parents counsel regardless of the "legal status", but WHY HAS IT COME TO THIS AT ALL!!! For as interesting as a legal strategy it may be, IT IS WRONG!
The sermon at my church this morning was about this general topic...the decline of our rights in America and the apathy in the church in not standing up to fight back because of the myth that "politics dont' belong in church").
But, that's another post in itself.
My understanding is that emancipation is only possible if the parents (as legal guardians) sign. Once the state has legal custody, they won't relinquish their rights to the child...otherwise every 16 year old in the system would emancipate himself. But the state won't allow that. Here in NE, you are "in the system" until 19...a whole extra year before you can legally be an adult and make your own decisions if you were unfortunate enough to be born into an abusive family and have to grow up in the foster care system.
If this goes to a higher court, they may have more of a chance...but TX makes similar rulings regarding Jehova's Witnesses and I don't know that they have successfully appealed any of them.
Oh Spunky...I tried to comment but haloscan wouldn't let me. Anyway this scares me to pieces. As a mom to a special needs kiddo. I wonder how far this will set a precedent. My doctor thinks my child may need a surgery that my husband and I are not 100% on board with.
Like someone commented above, I keep wondering if this really happened here in the USA????
And then I think of Terri Schiavo and how the courts didn't mind her going without treatment.
Sigh.
Lindsey, I will pray for your son.
The fear of man brings a snare.
Perfect love casts out all fear.
We do not have to fear, we are just to walk in obedience to the Lord. Intimidation only works on those who are willing to be intimidated. My prayer is that begin to understand that the state is only as powerful as we allow the to be. That's why in my own little way, I'm hoping that people see the ways in which government is moving in and stand up and say no. That's why I get so frustrated when people say, it's just a test. What if a test shows your child to be deficient in some skill. The state is going to then have "evidence" to support a possible charge of neglect. Why give them that foot in the door.
Amen, Spunky, to your comment above. A very hearty amen!
Thanks for speaking truth.
steve
And then I think of Terri Schiavo and how the courts didn't mind her going without treatment.
Yes. Sadly ironic, isn't it?
I've put my most recent comment on my blog.
http://www.homeschoolblogger.com...nsinner/171720/
If I were this young man's family I would be brushing up on my Spanish skills really quick.
I'm not understanding here what the problem is with alternative therapies??? Years ago Chiropractic treatments were considered weird and alternative ... now they are becoming more & more mainstream.
I, for one, would be one of the first ones to consider alternative therapies if I or my family were diagnosed with a serious disease ... I already do it now when we (rarely) do get sick.
Will I be considered neglectful the next time one of my daughters has an ear infection and I wait it out rather than giving her antibiotics? By the way ... I've never given antibiotics for ear infections and they have always cleared up on their own ... and in our family we have only had to deal with 2 of them. I know ear infections are not the point ... the point is that I choose NOT to go along with the commonly held (although inaccurate according to my research and my doctor - praise God for her!!) view that we must treat treat treat every ailment that comes our way with mainstream medicine.
Again, whether or not alternative therapies are right/wrong work/don't work is really not the point here ... what is the point is that we, as parents seeking the BEST for our families and children MUST MUST MUST have the right and freedom to choose.
Not only is this family (and others) victims of the government with britches that are too big, but I will go so far as to say that they are also victims of the medical establishment. The medical society/establishment/community (call it what you will) is also quite arrogant and damaging in a lot of cases.
Don't misunderstand me ... God has blessed us in many ways through medicine. But doctors are not gods, they are not all-knowing, they are not all-powerful. We give them too much power ... too much authority ... too much weight to their OPINIONS.
So here is what I think the problem is ... PRIDE - ARROGANCE ... coupled with the irrogance of the vast majority of the people in this nation ... those things have led us to where we are.
~Heather
Science has become a religion to many people. Years ago, the world reknowned Univeristy of Michigan Medical Center had the tag line, "Knowledge Heals". That shows just how arrogant some really are.
There are lots of good points being made. As I previously stated, I agree that Abraham shouldn't be forced to receive treatment when he obviously understands the risks and benefits and is choosing to go an alternate route. I also do not think that states should be able to take over decisions parents make regarding their children's education. I just had a few further thoughts about the medical aspects some have brought up. Certainly, occasionally the state will differ from the parent about what is in the best interest of the child. In terms of illness and health, doctors who fight to treat kids are pursuing life, or what they see as the best possible chance for survival. Obviously, doctors typically like to aggressively treat diseases they feel they have a chance of curing. And sometimes the treatments are too aggressive, and certainly treatments like chemo basically involve poisoning someone to kill off cancer cells. But in the situation of jehovah's witnesses and blood products, I guess my opinion is that the kid might not really believe the same thing as the parents and might not grow up to feel the same way. Since kids can't make informed decisions (until they are of an age or level of understanding where they can weigh risks and benefits) the state will choose to intervene. I do think there is a substantial difference between a treatment like blood transfusions, which do have some risks but those risks are very, very limited in this day and age, and a treatment like chemo, which has much higher risks (basically it is poison) and can have good benefits, but the benefit is not as guaranteed. No one questions when the state intervenes for proven child abuse, although abusing parents may think that what they are doing is in the best interest of the child, and there is such a thing as medical neglect, but this case is not that. I guess that is all I can say now. There is a fine line as to what is appropriate intervention, and I certainly don't want the state telling me how I should educate my children or discipline them.
Aubrey, I agree with you to a point. And if there were a situation where there was a 16 year old child of a JW who wanted a transfusion and his parents said no, that would be a point for serious consideration. But that isn't really what the issue is. And the issue, for the JW, isn't about the risk but about their ability to follow their understanding of the Word of God. Because we don't believe in their interpretation doesn't mean that we get to usurp their rights.
They believe that a transfusion is a direct violation of the word of God and thus unacceptable, no matter the potential benefit. Even if there were 0 risk and the alternative were certain death. Some day a cure for something may be found in embryonic stem cell research...since I am agains abortion and hence against using any byproduct of an abortion, should I lose my children if I disagree with this therapy? There isn't really any difference. In some ways, I feel the JW's have more of a case because they are at least acting from religious conviction...what they believe is right and wrong and what they believe will please there god in the end. So long as it isn't child sacrifice or ritualized child abuse, then I think we have to accept that not every one agrees with us. Vaccines are a similar issue. In fact, if you file your homeschooling paperwork in NE under Rule 13 (religious objections) you don't have to fle anything about vaccines. If you file under rule 12 (non-religious...academic objections) you do. JWs also refuse vaccinations and they aren't alone in that.
I understand fully why JWs disagree with blood transfusions. But I still stand by what I said. Although certainly God gives us our children and we are to guide them and care for them the best we can, we do not "own" them. I still think it is criminal, or at least that the state should intervene, when parents refuse to seek medical care when their children are dying. Sometimes this issue also comes up with Christian Scientists. I do not think the state should sit idly by while children are dying from treatable medical conditions. As for vaccines....although I disagree with most people who refuse to get them, I can also understand why schools and colleges won't admit them. They want to protect their own students from getting ill. But there is the idea of "herd immunity" where as long as a high enough percentage of the population is vaccinated, the risk of disease transmission is low. So that doesn't bother me as much, since the percentage of people not getting vaccines is low, and the risk to others isn't too high. Mostly I just see it as being unwise.
I am against vaccines because they use plasma from aborted babies to make many of them....Not to mention all the medical risks involved...(which I will possibly go into more deeply on my blog later this week).
Judge Demps needs to hear (comment editted.) I just wish I lived in Virginia. Hopefully, the people of Virginia will deal with him the way he deserves.
Edited By Siteowner
Does anyone know the Cherrix's religious affiliations? It seems to take a front seat in some of the other cases, but hasn't been a real topic on this one, though it might seem it has.
Does anyone know the Cherrix's religious affiliations? It seems to take a front seat in some of the other cases, but hasn't been a real topic on this one, though it might seem it has.
The following website summarizes 350 U.S. court cases and lawsuits affecting children of Jehovah's Witness Parents, including 200+ cases where the JW Parents refused to consent to life-saving blood transfusions for their dying children:
DIVORCE, BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS, AND OTHER LEGAL ISSUES AFFECTING CHILDREN OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
http://jwdivorces.bravehost.com
Commenting by HaloScan
