Teen Fights For Right To Pick Cancer Treatment....

[AndreaB]

National Vaccine Information Center Newsletter e-NEWS

July 17, 2006

In this issue

:: Teen Fights for Right to Pick Cancer Treatment

:: Autism in UK Children 10 Times Higher

:: HPV Vaccination: Right or Wrong?

:: Autism, Mercury & Politics

BL Fisher Note:

Teen Fights for Informed Consent

Abraham Cherrix, 16, has cancer. The first round of chemotherapy almost killed him. After he and his parents conducted independent research into alternative therapies, he told medical doctors at a hospital in Virginia, where he was given the first round of chemotherapy, that he does not want more chemo.

His parents have backed him up. But the medical doctors who gave Abraham the first round of chemo, apparently irate that their orders are being disobeyed, told a state social services agency about his disobedience. Now Abraham's parents have been charged with child "medical neglect," a charge that is often brought against parents who refuse to give their children all of the more than 3 dozen doses of a dozen vaccines the federal government dictates they should have by age six; who refuse to give hyperactive children toxic drugs to control behavior while they are in school; or who refuse to submit children to to other kinds of potentially harmful medical interventions.

A Virginia juvenile court is now deiberating about whether doctors can force Abraham to undergo chemo that could kill him without his voluntary, informed consent or the voluntary, informed consent of his parents.

In an online USA Today poll, in which more than 250,000 Americans weighed in by July 13, 2006 on whether the state should force Abraham to undergo another round of potentially deadly chemotherapy, 85 percent of those Americans voted "NO" to the idea of state-forced medical treatment. Putting themselves in Abraham's shoes and the shoes of his parents, these men and women are voting for the human right to informed consent to any medical intervention which can kill or cripple.

Most Americans don't talk about it much, but when they are asked, a lot of them are tired of being told what to do by M.D./Ph.D. "experts" inside and outside of government who have set themselves up as the judge, jury and police enforcers of what we can and cannot do with our bodies. It is becoming apparent that, as if by the virtue of the letters written after their names and the titles given to them by their colleagues, medical doctors assume they have some God-given right to tell other people what to risk their lives and their children's lives for when making health care decisions.

Reading about Abraham's struggle for the human right to informed consent to medical treatment, I am reminded of what I wrote in the concluding chapter of the book "A Shot in the Dark" which I co-authored with Harris celiac3270 in 1985:

"We have been taught to trust and believe in our scientists and doctors, to believe they are among the brightest and best in our society. We have willingly given them our respect and accorded them wealth, privilege and power. And we have given them the right to tell us what to do with our children, because we always believed they knew what was best. We have treated them as gods, forgetting they are our fathers and mothers, wives and husbands, sons and daughters. They are us, with all the frailty and ignorance and susceptibility to temptation that is implicit in being human.

"Mothers and fathers in cities and towns across America are entering libraries and reading medical literature on all the vaccines and drugs that doctors prescribe. They are educating themselves about medicine, and in the process they are finding that it is by no means beyong their comprehension. It is becoming clear that their learning may save children's lives. This is an awakening that has been a long time coming, a necessary first step in making medical decisions ar shared responsibility between parents and doctors."

I knew in 1985 and know today that no medical doctor or Ph.D. "bioethicist" inside or outside of government has the moral right to take away someone elses' human right to informed consent to medical interventions which can injure or kill.. The human right to individual inviolability, to self determination in matters of life and death, is at the heart of what it means to be free in a nation that has always stood for freedom.

Teen Fights for Right to Pick Cancer Treatment

USA TODAY, July 12, 2006

By Martha T. Moore, USA TODAY

(July 12) - Abraham Cherrix, 16, went through chemotherapy for Hodgkin's disease that left him so weak that his father carried the 6-foot-1 youth from the car to the house. Doctors tell him he needs a second round of chemo to get rid of the cancer that reappeared in February. Abraham says no, and his parents are backing him up.

Now the Virginia family is in juvenile court, the parents are charged with medical neglect and the Accomack County social services agency has joint custody of Abraham. The agency asked the court to order the boy to undergo chemotherapy.

A court hearing continued Tuesday. Each side plans to appeal an adverse ruling, family lawyer Barry Taylor says.

Abraham and his family are treating his cancer with an herbal remedy four times a day and an organic diet under the guidance of a clinic in Mexico. The remedy, called the Hoxsey method, has not been clinically tested, and there is no scientific evidence that it is effective, the American Cancer Society says.

Full story

HPV Vaccination: Right or Wrong?

'A Healthy Conclusion', The Washington Post, July 7, 2006

A Healthy Conclusion

The CDC moves a step closer to eradicating cervical cancer.

Friday, July 7, 2006; Page A16

WHAT HAPPENED -- or, rather, what did not happen -- at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last week was more than refreshing.

A CDC panel recommended a new vaccine against the human papillomavirus (HPV), by far the most common sexually transmitted disease in the country, for widespread administration to girls at ages 11 and 12. There were predictions that conservative groups might claim the recommendation encourages promiscuity. Instead, most such groups, including the Family Research Council, praised the committee's conclusions

By all indications, the Department of Health and Human Services will soon put the vaccine on its recommended inoculation schedule, a federal guide for doctors and state policymakers, and include it in the Vaccines for Children program, which provides shots free to almost 40 percent of American children. If so, good science and sound policy will be ascendant.

Full story

Autism in UK Children 10 Times Higher

The Daily Telegraph (UK), July 14, 2006

Autism in children '10 times higher' than first thought

By Nic Fleming, Medical Correspondent

Far more children than previously thought have autism, according to research to be published today.

Researchers who studied 56,946 children in south London found that almost 0.4 per cent had "classic" childhood autism and just below 1.2 per cent had autism spectrum disorders (ASDs), including Asperger's and milder forms.

Until the 1990s, the generally accepted figure in Britain was four to five cases of autism per 10,000 - 10 times lower than the rate suggested in the new study.

More recently, estimates have put the prevalence of broad spectrum ASDs at around 60 children per 10,000.

Some campaigners have talked of an "autism epidemic", but experts differ on whether the increase is due to better diagnosis or a real growth in the proportion of children with the condition.

Full story

Autism, Mercury & Politics

The Boston Globe, July 1, 2005

Autism, mercury, and politics

By Robert Kennedy Jr.

MOUNTING EVIDENCE suggests that Thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative in children's vaccines, may be responsible for the exponential growth of autism, attention deficit disorder, speech delays, and other childhood neurological disorders now epidemic in the United States.

Prior to 1989, American infants generally received three vaccinations (polio, measles-mumps- rubella, and diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis). In the early 1990s, public health officials dramatically increased the number of Thimerosal-containing vaccinations without considering the cumulative impact of the mercury load on developing brains.

In a 1991 memo, Dr. Maurice Hilleman, one of the fathers of Merck's vaccination programs, warned his bosses that 6-month-old children administered the shots on schedule would suffer mercury exposures 87 times the government safety standards. He recommended that Thimerosal be discontinued and complained that the US Food and Drug Administration, which has a notoriously close relationship with the pharmaceutical industry, could not be counted on to take appropriate action as its European counterparts had. Merck ignored Hilleman's warning, and for eight years government officials added seven more shots for children containing Thimerosal.

Full story

NVIC e-newsletter is a free service of the National Vaccine Information Center and is supported through membership donations.

NVIC is funded through the financial support of its members and does not receive any government subsidies. Barbara Loe Fisher, President and Co- founder.

Learn more about vaccines, diseases and how to protect your informed consent rights Open Original Shared Link

NVIC

National Vaccine Information Center

email: kathi@nvic.org

phone: 703-938-dpt3

web: Open Original Shared Link

There are a few questions I would have liked to pose...but didn't. I am not interested in a cyber fight, or any fight. I am amazed at the situation this poor teenager and his parents have been put into to.

[AndreaB]

Just thought I would update everyone on this boys situation. He lost the court case and has been ordered to report to the hospital for further treatment. He is appealing the decision.

[blueeyedmanda]

I work in a hospital, in an oncology area and I see what chemo does to people. It effects everyone differently, and I think he has every right to choose if he does not want to go on with further treatments. My finace went through chemo 5 years ago, and he is still dealing with the effects it had on his body, some which are never going to go away.

I don't think any state/govt official, judge, or medical person should have any say in something that should be a humans right to choose.

I would go through treatment if I got cancer, but if the effects were much more than my body could handle, I might think twice about going back.

[happygirl]

I live in VaBeach and this is a pretty big story here....www.wvec.com is one of the local stations (hubby works for them) that is following the story, for those who want to follow it.

[penguin]

That's awful. Nobody should be forced into medical treatment, especially one as harsh as chemo. So much for informed consent.

[taz sharratt]

That's awful. Nobody should be forced into medical treatment, especially one as harsh as chemo. So much for informed consent.

it scares the hell out of me. we are suppose to live in a free world. YEAH RIGHT!! in the uk we are still debateing the triple vaccine for babys, every doc is for it, but they forget to mention that they get paid by the pharm companys for every injection they give which really angers me. i have chosen not to give my kids the vaccine and EVERY time i have to take mykids to the hospital or the school nurse is doing her rounds again the ? is asked " are they up to date with thier vaccines?" and every time when i say no the look of horror on thier faces and they say " WHY?" and i explain my reasons , she then goes of f an whispers to the docter and he comes and says why and its not to late for them to have it, and instead of treating my boy who is ill they are rowing with me about haveing the vaccine. i believe ive made the right choice for my kids why should i justify myself to anyone else.this boy is of sound mind and he understands what is happeing to him and we should be applaudeing his parents for backing him up on his decision not takeing them to court. its a disgrace.

[AndreaB]

Taz,

I'm aware of the MMR problems in the UK as I get the NVIC updates. It is obviously about money. I am one who believes they should offer the shots separate and let parents decide what they want to get for their children. The immune system is overloaded with all the vaccines given at once and I read reports about the fact that some don't take hold and protect a person for one because of all the other given. I belief in a person's right to chose medical treatment and well as vaccines. I would rather die by my informed consent than be sujected to forced medicine or vaccines. It should be each individuals choice if they are old enough to make an informed decision. For young children it would be up to the parents to make an informed decision.

My mother told me of a child here in Washington that had to undergo a liver transplant or something of that nature. Just an infant I think. The mother refused to have the treatment done and was forced too. She wanted alternative treatment. My mother said the child would have died without it. I have mixed feelings about that one....but shouldn't parents be allowed to make choices as to the health and well being of their children?

The choice to undergo certain treatments can lead to health or death and vice versa. The choice to vaccinate or not can lead to adverse reactions including death or vice versa. Each person is different and a blanket treatment/vaccine program will hurt some no matter what.

I don't want to start a debate. Everyone is entitled to there opinion whether it is agreeable to someone else or not. These are my views and I don't expect everyone to agree with them. Please respect that as I respect those views that I don't agree with. If anyone has a differing view, please state it politely without railing others who think differently.

[lovegrov]

I think his parents have the right to make this decision, but they should stop wasting their money with the clinic in Mexico. Complete quackery.

richard

[psawyer]

I don't know what vaccines have to do with the question originally raised.

Cancer is not contagious, so the decision of a given person to undergo or not undergo treatment for it affects only their own health. Assuming the person in question is truly making a voluntary, informed choice, and not being coerced by his parents to follow their beliefs, then I believe that his wishes should be respected.

Contagious disease is a whole different issue.

[plantime]

The boy is 16, and the first round of chemo nearly killed him. He should have the choice of whether to continue or not.

[jerseyangel]

I saw the young man and his father recently on one of the AM news shows (I think The Today Show). It was heartbreaking--I side with the family on this.

[taz sharratt]

Taz,

I'm aware of the MMR problems in the UK as I get the NVIC updates. It is obviously about money. I am one who believes they should offer the shots separate and let parents decide what they want to get for their children. The immune system is overloaded with all the vaccines given at once and I read reports about the fact that some don't take hold and protect a person for one because of all the other given. I belief in a person's right to chose medical treatment and well as vaccines. I would rather die by my informed consent than be sujected to forced medicine or vaccines. It should be each individuals choice if they are old enough to make an informed decision. For young children it would be up to the parents to make an informed decision.

My mother told me of a child here in Washington that had to undergo a liver transplant or something of that nature. Just an infant I think. The mother refused to have the treatment done and was forced too. She wanted alternative treatment. My mother said the child would have died without it. I have mixed feelings about that one....but shouldn't parents be allowed to make choices as to the health and well being of their children?

The choice to undergo certain treatments can lead to health or death and vice versa. The choice to vaccinate or not can lead to adverse reactions including death or vice versa. Each person is different and a blanket treatment/vaccine program will hurt some no matter what.

I don't want to start a debate. Everyone is entitled to there opinion whether it is agreeable to someone else or not. These are my views and I don't expect everyone to agree with them. Please respect that as I respect those views that I don't agree with. If anyone has a differing view, please state it politely without railing others who think differently.

hay andreab, tottally agree with you, i enquired about haveing the single shots but was turned down flat, you can get them privately if you go to france which we were unable to do or pay to go to an unregisterd clinic and these clinics dont have any facilities to store these meds so are not keopt at the right temp, so no to the that one. over here you are treated with a certain contempt for not haveing the vaccine but i would not budge on my oppinion of the dangers of the mmr. my health visiter gave me a book on how sage the mmr was when i asked her where it came from she said the pharm company who makes the vaccine!!! i gave her the book back. your right no matter what you decide it will have an effect but you hope youve made the right informed decision, i read books and looked on the internt and taliked to docs and health visiter but made my mind up with hubby and we both felt this was the bestand still do. my own mother has issues with me on this and feels i should have the boys immunised but no! thanx for letting me rant a bit

[tiredofdoctors]

I agree with Richard. The parents should have the right to decide. If the child clearly doesn't want it, and the parents are being supportive, then as his advocate, they have the right to choose what medical intervention will or will not be initiated or continued. Lynne

[CarlaB]

This is definately a decision for the boy's parents, who would, of course, take the boy's ideas into account. I think this is a scary precedent as it's another step in taking away our rights as parents. Judging by many of our stories, we all know how fallible doctors can be, they shouldn't be give the power to decide what the best treatment is. Cancer treatement especially, is a very subjective decision.

[Rikki Tikki]

I think it's a decision each family has to make for themselves, and I am just thankful it's not a choice I have to make. It makes me hurt just thinking about it.

[jerseyangel]

Here's an update on this young man's story--

Open Original Shared Link

[AndreaB]

Thanks Patti! That's great news!

I had gotten an nvic update that he had a court date today, but hadn't had time to look for info.

[KaitiUSA]

I think he has the right to choose. Thats pathetic that they would order him to do something he does not want. That is not the governments right

[Ruth52]

I agree that it the cancer treatment should be a family decision. Cancer is fought by the whole family not just the individual who has the disease.

I'm a firm advocate for childhood immunisation. I watched by baby brother suffer through whooping cough. I would never willingly make a decision that could put my child at risk of suffering like he did.

When I was five my cousin who was recovering from polio, used to sleep in my room when she was she was in town for her polio checkups. Her parents used to strap her into a brace at night to help keep her limbs straight. I used to be so afraid that there would be a fire in the house and we wouldn't be able to get her out.

Because we don't see these diseases anymore and I think it could be easy to become complacent about the importance of being immunised against them.

Just my view.