Support NeoGAF

[themadcowtipper]

CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas (AP) -- Child welfare officials seized a 12-year-old cancer patient from her parents, saying they were blocking radiation treatment that doctors say she needs.

During a court hearing Wednesday, Michele and Edward Wernecke asked that doctors be barred from giving radiation therapy to their daughter Katie until a hearing next week to determine whether she will stay in state custody.

They say their daughter's cancer is in remission and they object to her getting the radiation treatment after undergoing a round of chemotherapy. Katie has Hodgkin's disease, a type of cancer involving the lymph nodes.

Juvenile court Judge Carl Lewis said he would rule on the request Friday.

Last week, authorities issued an Amber Alert to gain temporary custody of Katie after receiving an anonymous tip about possible neglect. She was found with her mother at a family ranch, about 80 miles west of Corpus Christi near Freer, on Saturday.

She remains at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, where she is undergoing tests, officials said. State Child Protective Services says her life could be in danger without further cancer treatment.

Michele Wernecke was arrested on charges of interfering with child custody and was released Monday after posting $50,000 bond.

The Werneckes' three sons were placed in a foster home.

Speaking Thursday on NBC's "Today" show, Michele Wernecke said her daughter's illness is unique and should be treated as such.

"I think they should treat her for what her body calls for and not standard protocol. Nobody will look at that," she said. "Not every cancer is the same. Nobody understands that. Her body is not standard, and her cancer is not standard."

The couple, members of the Church of God, have said they oppose blood transfusions unless they were from Katie's mother. But the couple's attorney, Daniel Horne, said religion wasn't at issue in the fight over cancer treatment.

Rather, they believe doctors haven't been upfront about Katie's care and have not answered all their questions about the side effects of the radiation.

"This issue is about parental rights, not about religious rights," Horne said. "They just want to be informed of her treatment. They want to be involved in this."

Katie was diagnosed with cancer in January. In a videotaped statement recorded by her parents, Katie said she's feeling better.

"I don't need radiation treatment. And nobody asked me what I wanted. It's my body," she said.

Officials on Wednesday reached an agreement to let Edward Wernecke and the couple's sons visit Katie on Friday, the day before her 13th birthday.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/09/cancer.battle.ap/index.html


Holy Crap They Can Do this

 

[LakeEarth]

The cancer is in remission and they want to stop the fucking treatments? That's like saying "the Nazi's are retreating, job well done lets go home"

 

[acoustix]

I think she should get the treatments, but ultimately if the girl and her parents dont want it I dont think they should be forced.

 

[Willco]

Texas finally did something good.

I think she should get the treatments, but ultimately if the girl and her parents dont want it I dont think they should be forced.

So the parents should let the kid die? And the 12-year-old has the maturity to make a medical decision? Crazy talk, people.

 

[themadcowtipper]

I dont see how they could take away there other kids as well though...

 

[MaddenNFL64]

Theres probably some pressure from their church about this that we haven't heard about.

 

[Willco]

I dont see how they could take away there other kids as well though...

It's usually mandatory in cases involving neglect and social services. Even if it's just an incident involving one kid, you take all the kids as it shows the parents are not capable of taking care of their kids.

Theres probably some pressure from their church about this that we haven't heard about.

The only pressure involving any church, at least that I've heard about, is this girl's folks, as they belong to the Church of God and they've been going on about what the state can and cannot due in accordance with their religious beliefs.

 

[fse]

She does not want treatment, her parents don't want it. Don't give her treatment then.

 

[acoustix]

Texas finally did something good.



So the parents should let the kid die? And the 12-year-old has the maturity to make a medical decision? Crazy talk, people.

Maybe I worded my reply wrong. I disagree with the parents decesion. Im just saying that I dont want a doctor having final say in what happens to me.

 

[Escape Goat]

YES! We found our next Terry Schiavo.

 

[themadcowtipper]

YES! We found our next Terry Schiavo.

Yeah, but the photoshop wont, be as good...who wants to make fun of a little girl...

 

[Jacobi]

She does not want treatment, her parents don't want it. Don't give her treatment then.

She is TWELVE years old.

""I don't need radiation treatment. And nobody asked me what I wanted. It's my body," she said."
I'M NOT SICK I CAN'T SEE THE CANCER

 

[themadcowtipper]

I seem, to remember one of those HBO Life Stories about a kid who did not want to take his medicine(it mad him weak and sick) for a deadly disease, he went to court and won...

 

[MaddenNFL64]

YES! We found our next Terry Schiavo.

Oh snap! :O

Wait, so what position will the conservatives take? States right to save her, or her families rights to let her maybe die?

 

[Phoenix]

Well the facts (of the article) suggest that they wanted to have the girl treated to have her cured. So it seems that making sure the treatment was effective would make sense. I'm not of the opinion that parents can knowingly make decisions that risk the lives of their children. If you know your child is sick, you have a legal obligation to treat them - and indeed if you don't you'll likely be in jail. Given that, the child should be treated. The state (United States) does not have in its laws a 'right to death' and many people have gone to jail over this. So we can't say 'just let her die because she wants to'. That goes against our legal (and ethical) position in the states.

 

[Loki]

I'm not of the opinion that parents can knowingly make decisions that risk the lives of their children. If you know your child is sick, you have a legal obligation to treat them - and indeed if you don't you'll likely be in jail.

Except if it conflicts with your religious beliefs. Hammy and I had a discussion about this matter in this thread; my position was that it should not be legal to commit medical negligence and risk the life of one's child even if it's in accordance with one's religious beliefs-- I feel that these situations should be consdered justifiable exceptions to our First Amendment rights (where they'd be but one of many such exceptions-- our FA rights are not without their limits). However, I'm reasonably certain that it is currently the case that a parent has the right to withhold lifesaving treatment from their child if that decision springs from religious conviction.


Levious, in that thread, noted that certain states are slowly changing these laws, but I'm quite certain that they still stand for the most part.

 

[DJ Sl4m]

Church of God, have said

There's the problem.

 

[Brian Fellows]

The way they were talking about it on the radio it sounded like she was cured and didnt reallt need the extra radiation treatments. Then they had a few other stories about diffrent hospitals stringing people along so they could keep their number of cancer patients up. Thus they could raking in the government grants.

But I dont claim to be an expert. Thats just how they were making it sound on the radio. Plus I dont trust hospitals.

 

[Loki]

Plus I dont trust hospitals.

Feel free to go to an acupuncturist when you need an appendectomy.

 

[The Faceless Master]

She does not want treatment, her parents don't want it. Don't give her treatment then.

yah and if they were starving their child because "she didnt want to eat" or beating her because "she wants to feel pain"...

 

[Hitokage]

Just thinking here, but if the state was having the parents foot the bill then I could see why they'd be less than willing to do the full course.

 

[Deleted member 4784]

She's a 12-year-old under the direct influence of her parents, who are also religious; she probably thinks -- as most 12-year-olds do -- that she is the "exception" and or "immune" to what is going on. I also wouldn't put it past her parents to have coerced her into this minset by claiming that God's Divine Light Will See To Her Expedient And Natural Recovery. Most 12-year-olds wouldn't even go to the doctor for vaccinations if it was left up to them, which is why I fail to see how anyone can claim this to be "her decision."

Furthermore, I fail to see why a girl's health should be left to the opinion of her parents. The parents are correct in that their daughter's condition is a unique one, which is exactly why educated and experienced medical professionals should be the ones to call the shots about whether or not she receives treatment.

Honestly, the whole thing is just ridiculous. If the state is going to be the one to foot the huge medical expenses of this girl when her cancer worsens due to discontinued treatment, then it should be the one to decide whether or not she gets treatment right now beforehand. The moment the girl's parents chose not to seek treatment for their daughter was the moment that she became the responsibility of the state.

 

[Phoenix]

Except if it conflicts with your religious beliefs. Hammy and I had a discussion about this matter in this thread; my position was that it should not be legal to commit medical negligence and risk the life of one's child even if it's in accordance with one's religious beliefs-- I feel that these situations should be consdered justifiable exceptions to our First Amendment rights (where they'd be but one of many such exceptions-- our FA rights are not without their limits). However, I'm reasonably certain that it is currently the case that a parent has the right to withhold lifesaving treatment from their child if that decision springs from religious conviction.

It usually depends on the judge and the facts of that specific case, but in some cases the judges violated those rights to save the child. I believe it was situations where the child wanted to live but the parents wanted to protect religious beliefs, but in doing so were violating the child's right to live.

 

[ShadowRed]

As much as it sucks, I would have to side with the family on this one. At hwta point do we allow the government to take kids from their parents because we don't agree with their decisions? Can the government step in and take a kid from parents of a Scientologist because they are concidered a cult? How about from Jews and Muslims because at certain times they fast? I don't feel comfortable with the government being able to over ride a familys authority because they don't agree with it.

 

[Willco]

As much as it sucks, I would have to side with the family on this one.

It's a shame the law disagrees with you.

At hwta point do we allow the government to take kids from their parents because we don't agree with their decisions?

The law is pretty clear about that -- kids are removed at the point where the parents' failure to make rational or parental decisions that jeopardize the health and well being of the child.

It's not that hard to understand.

Can the government step in and take a kid from parents of a Scientologist because they are concidered a cult?

Yes, actually. It won't happen because Scientology has power lobby presence and money behind it, but if your parents were in a cult and you were living under their care, you could be removed from the home.

How about from Jews and Muslims because at certain times they fast?

Different, for the most part, Jews and Muslims do not force kids to fast. Second, you must be ignorant about the religion, because neither fast in a way to jeopardize the health of its followers.

I don't feel comfortable with the government being able to over ride a familys authority because they don't agree with it.

I do. You make it sound like social services has never taken away kids before.

 

[automagnus]

I think the state should let them do as they want simply because I believe this is a fine example of modern evolution, where the exceptionally stupid are killed off.

 

[Willco]

I think the state should let them do as they want simply because I believe this is a fine example of modern evolution, where the exceptionally stupid are killed off.

:lol

The only strong case for letting the parents decide that I've read so far!

 

[Deleted member 4784]

Yeah, I mean, just what the hell do the government's departments of social welfare think they are doing by taking a cancer-stricken girl out of her family's custody/control so that she may be provided with the medical treatment necessary to live the full and healthy life that she deserves? Those barbarians! As if it wasn't bad enough that the government takes children out of fanatical Mormon households where the parents are molesting them at ages as young as 13! The basic human rights of children are worthy of being forfeited for religious freedoms and the government should respect that!

Geez... do people really think this way now days? I'm all for religious rights and all, but where the hell have our priorities gone?

 

[Scrow]

Theres probably some pressure from their church about this that we haven't heard about.

Never underestimate the healing power of prayer! Hallelujah!

 

[U.2.K. Tha Greate$t]

The cancer is in remission and they want to stop the fucking treatments? That's like saying "the Nazi's are retreating, job well done lets go home"

Maybe they have alot of faith and unlike other people in this world, they dont run to the damn
hospital everytime someone gets sick, you have heard of strong faith right?

 

[Willco]

Maybe they have alot of faith and unlike other people in this world, they dont run to the damn
hospital everytime someone gets sick, you have heard of strong faith right?

:lol

FAITH > CANCER.

 

[Phoenix]

As much as it sucks, I would have to side with the family on this one. At hwta point do we allow the government to take kids from their parents because we don't agree with their decisions? Can the government step in and take a kid from parents of a Scientologist because they are concidered a cult? How about from Jews and Muslims because at certain times they fast? I don't feel comfortable with the government being able to over ride a familys authority because they don't agree with it.

Has nothing to do with not agreeing with the parents. If the parents are risking the childs life, the state, the doctors, and society have a moral obligation to prevent it. I mean what's next, allowing child sacrifice because the parents think its a good idea?

 

[Archaix]

Maybe they have alot of faith and unlike other people in this world, they dont run to the damn
hospital everytime someone gets sick, you have heard of strong faith right?

I wish I could say you're one of the stupidest fucking retards I've ever encountered.

But, unforunately, there are many who equal your stupidity.

Instead, I shall say that you are the stupidest fucking retard I've encountered this evening.

 

[Scrow]

Maybe they have alot of faith and unlike other people in this world, they dont run to the damn
hospital everytime someone gets sick, you have heard of strong faith right?

preach it brother!

 

[Willco]

preach it brother!

:lol

 

[Zaptruder]

Maybe they have alot of faith and unlike other people in this world, they dont run to the damn
hospital everytime someone gets sick, you have heard of strong faith right?

Come rapture COME!

 

[U.2.K. Tha Greate$t]

I take it yall dont agree and thats cool, i know alot of people who dont even believe GOD exist, yall aint knowing, so continue on with your ignorance.

 

[Scrow]

I take it yall dont agree and thats cool, i know alot of people who dont even believe GOD exist, yall aint knowing, so continue on with your ignorance.

 

[Willco]

I take it yall dont agree and thats cool, i know alot of people who dont even believe GOD exist, yall aint knowing, so continue on with your ignorance.

With the POWER OF JESUS I was able to heal my genital herpes through a combination of prayer and Triscuits!

 

[demon]

Maybe they have alot of faith and unlike other people in this world, they dont run to the damn
hospital everytime someone gets sick, you have heard of strong faith right?

Oh jesus fucking christ....

 

[Archaix]

I take it yall dont agree and thats cool, i know alot of people who dont even believe GOD exist, yall aint knowing, so continue on with your ignorance.

And you keep thinking that your imaginary friend can cure cancer.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I take it yall dont agree and thats cool, i know alot of people who dont even believe GOD exist, yall aint knowing, so continue on with your ignorance.

Is this guy for real? :lol

 

[demon]

Is this guy for real? :lol

Who, Jesus?

Yes, he is for real. And he died for your tumors.

 

[Phoenix]

And you keep thinking that your imaginary friend can cure cancer.

The thing is, if you go through the Bible - it doesn't even say that anywhere. God never promises to give us anything in 'this' life, but promises us 'eternal' life. I've never quite understood where people draw out the things that God is supposed to give us in this life. Its like you eat a bad piece of meat and then pray that God will not make you sick. Suppose that he did - where would your faith be at that point?

I think people need to review the covenant that God establishes with his people. He never promised 'no pain' or 'an easy life' or anything of the sort.

 

[Miguel]

Juvenile court Judge Carl Lewis said he would rule on the request Friday.

"I love the Texas Judicial System"