Forced to Drink the Kool-Aid
"...I feel compelled to write this week because I am troubled by a story unfolding in Virginia. A sixteen-year-old with Hodgkins Lymphoma made a decision with his family that he didn’t want anymore chemotherapy for his condition. He made his decision after undergoing the recommended treatment. He found chemotherapy to be an assault on his body — an assault he didn’t want to experience again. He also wanted to avoid radiation as it has significant side effects. Having tried the conventional medical approach for his condition, when he turned up with active cancer again, he wanted to try something else. His parents agreed that if that’s what he wanted, that’s what they’d do.
Unfortunately, the state doesn’t believe that this young man, whose name is Abraham Cherrix, and his family have the right to make such a decision. Someone turned the family in for neglect, citing the parents’ willingness to allow Abraham to choose an alternative form of care (diet and herbal supplements) for his cancer. The judge has now agreed and Abraham is to report to the hospital with his parents who are to sign their legal consent for him to undergo the treatment recommended by the doctors. The parents are obviously appealing to a higher court...but this is frightening nonetheless.
Why? Because anyone who knows about health care, and especially cancer care, knows that the treatments are often terrible — they produce both short and long-term side effects that impact quality of life. Additionally, there is no guarantee that even if the patient does every single thing that the doctor recommends s/he won’t turn up with cancer again. I’m not suggesting that there is more scientific support for the approach Abraham and his parents have chosen than for conventional medical approaches. I’m suggesting that when the options for treatment are so terrible, so invasive, and the outcome is uncertain, it seems wildly inappropriate for the government to tell a family what it must do...These parents are neglectful for listening to their son’s pain and honoring his own wishes? These parents are neglectful for choosing something other than the treatment that didn’t work the first time? How many times will the state require this young man to be poisoned? (Make no mistake, chemotherapy kills everything — no distinguishing between the good and the bad.)
What is the state’s interest and why does it override that of the young man and his family? I am reminded of Stanley Hauerwas’ presentation at a conference I attended a few years ago. It was called “Why We Are Afraid to Die in America.” Hauerwas argued that our approach to health care in the United States demonstrates a belief that we can live forever, and a demand that everyone want to do so. He also argued that a christian recognizes the reality that we don’t live forever and that our hope is elsewhere than in heroic measures. A fine line to walk, I think, but an important distinction...This young man and his family gave conventional medicine a try. It was unsuccessful and produced side effects they were unwilling to tolerate. Together, they came to a decision about how to proceed, and now they are being told they don’t have the right to do so...They want to put their hope in something other than the conventional medical approach — the court has said they cannot.
I wonder where the line will ultimately be drawn on issues such as these. How effective does the treatment have to be in order for the courts to mandate it? At what age do a person’s wishes for his/her body become meaningful in our court system? What if the court-ordered treatment produces terrible effects (quite likely) that result in some level of disability? Shouldn’t the court, the state, have responsibility then for damages? What if Abraham Cherrix continues to refuse? Will they put him in restraints before they stick the needle in him? Who will comfort him when he is sick from the drugs? The state?" - - Ashley Cleveland
