Cherrix case resumes next week
A while ago, I blogged about Abraham Cherrix (here and here), the 16-year-old Virginia boy who’s family was dragged into a social services nightmare because they supported Abraham’s decision to refuse a second round of chemotherapy to treat his Hodgkin’s disease.
Their court battle continues next week. I found an excellent story posted today on CNN.com that gives a more detailed account of his ordeal.
I just want to comment on a few things.
First, many of the people who support this state intrusion make it sound like the chemo is a sure-thing and the Hoxsey treatment is a death sentence. The fact is:
“According to studies compiled by the American Cancer Society, the five-year survival rate for those who undergo a second round of chemotherapy and a bone marrow transplant is between one-third and one-half, depending on the treatment facility.”This would be Abraham’s second round treatment, meaning he is facing a survival rate of one third to one half. How can a judge order a treatment that is only successful 33% - 50% of the time?
Oh wait, I forgot how the government measures success. Just look at the reading assessment results of our public schools. (Did you know that only 30% of Vermont eighth-grade boys can read at or above grade level?)
The other thing that strikes me is why it is a constitutional right for a woman (or a girl) to get an abortion because of “privacy,” but this does not fall under that constitutional protection.
As I said before, this is not a case of neglectful parents. This is a case of alternative vs. mainstream medicine. When did we decide as a country that it is the government’s job to determine which medical treatment was acceptable? Regardless of your OPINION of this treatment, why does the government have the right to decide?
It is the belief of many people that abortion is murder, yet the government is constitutionally barred from prohibiting it. Why then can they prohibit this boy and his parents from pursuing this course of treatment just because there are people who do not believe it is the best treatment?
In reality, they should not be able to, but it is expected that they will. This should be a word of warning to us all that our government is slowly inserting itself into our lives as the final decision maker. Those of you who agree with what the government is doing to this family, don't be surprised when it is your life that the government is trying to control.
4 comments:
This should be a word of warning to us all that our government is slowly inserting itself into our lives as the final decision maker.
Yeah. And Republicans are leading the charge.
I can’t believe a guy who champions the idea of the government controlling healthcare – one of the most private decisions we make as individuals – would be the one to bring up a year and a half old story.
Look this is not a partisan issue. Our liberty is being threatened politicians of every political stripe. It is about power, not party ideology. Your “independent” buddy is NO exception, either.
I feel it bears repeating: this is not simply about which party is the worst. It's about the fact that our government is too controlling and our liberty is eroding.
Sure. Look at Kelo Vs. New London. What a piece of crap SCOTUS decision that was.
But I do have to say- in general Republicans are more intrusive into our private lives than Dems- I mean they've been spying on Americans without a warrant. That's the epotomy of government intrusion. Good post.
Post a Comment