Question about the "Teen with cancer can forgo chemotherapy" news article?

I'm reading this news headline about the teen with cancer opting out of chemotherapy...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060816/ap_o...

And I'm not sure what the original issue is. Per the article, "After Abraham chose to go on the sugar-free, organic diet and take liquid herbal supplements under the supervision of a Mexican clinic, a social worker asked a juvenile court judge to intervene to protect the teen's health."

So basically, if someone wants to pursue an alternate means of medical treatment for their child, other than something established by the medical community, this is grounds for a social worker to intervene, when this involves a minor? Is that what the original issue is, or is it more involved than that?

Yes when a minor is involved, the social worker has an obligation to step in. When this story first appeared, it was explained that the boy did not want to go through the chemo again. He said that it almost killed him the first time and he did not think that he had the strength to endure it a second time. His parents agreed with him and realized that he very well might not have the stamina to endure it again. He found the treatment to be absolutely agonizing, and he decided he did not want to die in the excruciating discomfort that the chemo caused. So he is now opting to try alternative medicine to try and stay alive.

That does seem to be the major issue. He had conventional treatment once, it made him worse, and now they want to try alternative treatments. I think the parents may have been charged with neglect because of the whole ordeal.

The issue here is what it really means to "pursue an alternate means of medical treatment for their child, other than something established by the medical community." Because the child is a minor, his parents are responsible for his health and well-being. This is not simply an active responsibility (they must house him, etc.), but a provision against neglect.

Mr. Cherrix has a potentially fatal disease. There is no clinical evidence that the "alternative" treatment the Cherrix's are fighting for does anything at all to fight Hodkin's or any other disease. Social workers step in because there is a question of whether, by neglecting to procure a working treatment for their child, Mr. Cherrix's parents may be commiting criminal negligence. Clearly the court ruled the other way.

This sort of thing is not unprecendented. Johovah's Witnesses, for example, do not, as a point of faith, accept blood transfusions. Any adult has the right to refuse medical treatment, but if parents forbid a medically necessary procedure, the question is raised whether this child is being adequately protected by their parents.

Mr. Cherrix and his family have chosen to treat a serious illness with herbal remedies and special diet. Hodgkin's disease is often curable, but there is much cause for worry for Mr. Cherrix.

It is far more involved. The drug is Laetril, a drug proven to be of no use in cancer and contain cyanide. The clinic is going to take all his money and a boy who has a chance at life will die unnecessarily.

I had the same type of cancer last year that that young man had! I have survived thru the great technology of Chemo and I think he is a fool if he refuses treatment! People can get better and I think its foolish for him to play Russian Roulette with his life like that!