By ELIZABETH SIMPSON
The Virginian-Pilot
Does a bill crafted in response to a Virginia teen's court battle to choose his own cancer treatment have the potential to help other youngsters in the same situation?
Or would the proposed law weaken the safety net that protects children from medical neglect?
That is the discussion centering on a bill Del. John Welch III, R-Virginia Beach, plans to submit to the General Assembly on Tuesday.
He's dubbed the bill "Abraham's law," and he wants the measure to prevent situations such as that experienced by Chincoteague youth Abraham Cherrix. The 16-year-old's parents - Jay and Rose Cherrix - were taken to court by Accomack County Social Services in May because they withdrew him from conventional cancer treatment for Hodgkin's disease, a highly treatable lymphatic cancer.
The family had sought an alternative medicine treatment in Mexico, but a juvenile court judge instead ordered the boy in July to resume chemotherapy at Children's Hospital of The King's Daughters.
The family appealed the case, and a compromise on his treatment was reached in Accomack County Circuit Court.
Abraham's latest medical scans show that the tumors have not grown since undergoing board-certified treatment in Mississippi in September and October, but he has swollen lymph nodes that could indicate active cancer cells.
Welch says the court battle - which was covered by media across the country - caused unnecessary stress for the family and also financial loss during a time when they needed help rather than conflict.
The bill proposes that a decision by parents to refuse a particular treatment for a child with a life-threatening condition should not be considered medical neglect so long as:
"I think it's the right thing to do," Welch said.
But John Oliver, a deputy city attorney for the city of Chesapeake, think s it would muddy the waters and could lead to more court cases.
Oliver, who represents the city's Department of Human Services in court, said there are terms in the bill that are not easily defined, such as "sufficiently mature" and "life-threatening condition."
He said such a law would allow a child and parents who jointly refuse a recommended, proven treatment to override the government's interest in protecting the life of that child.
"This is not good public policy, and it is not good law," Oliver said. "I think people are moved with their hearts and not their heads."
He said the system worked for Abraham because a compromise was reached in which the teen returned to treatment by a U.S. board-certified doctor. That treatment, although it included some innovative methods, also included conventional treatment.
Betty Wade Coyle, executive director of Prevent Child Abuse Hampton Roads, said the public still really only knows one side of the Abraham Cherrix story. She said she doesn't want her negative opinion of the bill to be construed as opposition to the family or Abraham, but rather opposition to what she considers a policy change that could harm children.
"It makes it more difficult to protect children," she said. "What we have now is very clear."
She questions what would happen if parents and a mature teen agreed that a lettuce diet was the best treatment for cancer. She said medical neglect cases are a small percentage of overall abuse cases - about 2 percent of substantiated abuse investigations in 2005 fell in that category - but social workers need the latitude to intervene.
Rose Cherrix, however, said she think s the law would spare other families from going through what hers endured. "It's easier to make a wise decision if you are not being pressured," she said.
She said the court battle, which ran from May through August, resulted in thousands of dollars of debt for the family, which includes four children besides Abraham. The kayaking business they own in Chincoteague had to shut down during numerous court dates and meetings with attorneys during their busiest time of year.
Jay and Rose Cherrix also have separated.
Ironically, Rose turned to the very people her family was fighting against - Accomack County Social Services - to ask for help after the court battle was over. She said she wasn't able to pay bills and she also needed help enrolling the children - who had been home-schooled - into public school.
"I invited them in to help me because of everything we had been through," Rose Cherrix said. "I called them and said, 'I need to talk to somebody,' and they talked to me in a heartbeat."
Still, she said she think s parents need to have broader rights in deciding which kind of medical treatment is best for their children without the threat of an abuse charge.





Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo

Parental rights for a child's treatment?
Some states already have laws to take care of children but not necessarily in favor of the child or the parent. Back in March 2005, baby Sun Hudson was purposely killed in Texas against the mother's wishes, under GW Bush's law (repubican style) signed as governor, because the baby was physically disabled. No mass marches by supposed pro-lifers. No great public announcements by Bush that he was ready to sign legislation from Congress to save the baby's life...... Stress for the mother?
Ironic..
Ironic isn't it. The state wants to put the treatment a child gets in their hands and take the state out of it. Why should the state make all the effort for a single infrequent case. Waste the time and effort go ahead - do not work on he major issues we care about. Oh, by the way , why let the parents decide for someone 16 years old when a 14 year old can have an abortion without any parental consent?
Clueless politicians...
Does anyone else see the irony here? If "Abraham's Law" was in place before all of this happened, then Abraham would have gone to that Mexican clinic and probably suffered the same fate as Harry Hoxsey.
Great Bill Unfortunately...
Great Bill unfortunately it just makes too much sense. You need write this thing in a very complicated, problem stating, but not solving, democrat style and maybe it will have a chance.