Parents lose daughter to CPS over cancer treatment, right???
Should they, or shouldn't they have lost their rights?
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
This issue has been in the news lately, with a set of "fundamentalist" parents having reportedly denied and/or delayed medical treatment to their cancer stricken daughter. The daughter was reported to have had cancer, received several rounds of treatment, and then thought to be cancer free. The parents apparently refused treatment when the doctors wished to have the daughter undergo radiation treatment (for various reasons, including believing that the cancer was gone).
There is a report that the parents neglected to fill a prescription for anti-biotics that were prescribed for the child, and the reports also say that the parents believed that the child's most recent medical problems were from pneumonia, rather than cancer.
The article below is from the Associated Press, via MSNBC news. Headline is linked. Some commentary and several questions follow the article.
Girl with cancer to continue as ward of Texas
Judge's ruling comes after parents agreed to follow doctors' advice
The Associated Press
Updated: 1:57 p.m. ET June 16, 2005
CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas - A judge ruled Thursday that the state will retain custody of a 13-year-old girl who was taken from her parents after they refused to continue her cancer treatments and the cancer, which appeared to have been eliminated, returned.
Katie Wernecke, who has Hodgkin’s disease, will remain with Child Protective Services pending another hearing late next month, juvenile court Judge Carl Lewis ruled. Katie was scheduled to see doctors at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston on Thursday.
Katie’s parents tried to convince Lewis during a custody hearing that they would not resist efforts to resume her treatment. But he refused to return the girl to their care, noting that Katie’s mother had previously fled with Katie and her father had rejected several doctors’ findings.
“I really don’t have a parent that I can say I can return the child to without putting that child in danger of her health,” Lewis said.
The girl was diagnosed in January after she was taken to an emergency room with what her parents thought was pneumonia. She received chemotherapy, and doctors recommended it be followed with radiation.
Fears of treatment
Her parents refused though. Edward Wernecke said he feared the radiation would put Katie at a heightened risk for breast cancer, stunt her growth and cause learning problems.
Earlier this month, Child Protective Services officials took custody of Katie after doctors said the Werneckes were risking their daughter’s life by refusing the radiation therapy. A scan last week revealed the cancer had returned, and Katie’s former doctor testified he thought its return was linked to the family’s refusal to go forward with the radiation.
Attorneys for the Werneckes said it was never the family’s intention to deny necessary medical treatment. Michele Wernecke testified she was willing to follow doctors’ recommendations, and her husband testified that Katie needed to be with her family.
The case has drawn national attention as a battle between parental rights and the state’s charge to protect children from abuse or neglect.
... more at linked article
So, was the state (government) right to interfere in this case? Should the child have become a ward of the state (as she has) or should the child remain under the parents custody and control?
When is the greater good of the individual enough to outweigh the desires of the parents/guardians for an individual such that the state can take over and make those decisions that are normally left to the parents/guardians?
Over the years, there have been numerous cases where family religious beliefs have interfered with the medical treatment of non-adults within our society. Parents that don't believe in the use of blood transfusions, for example, may prevent a child from receiving treatment that would involve a transfusion. Courts have intervened in multiple cases, with multiple results (depending on the judge and court system involved).
Do we as a society want the court systems to always protect the best interests of the minors in our society, and if so, are we really ready for the consequences that could lead to? Or, do we have to treat each case separately, and never treat any case as if it has established any precedent?
Lots of stuff to think about and possibly comment on. Please add your thoughts and discuss freely.
There is a report that the parents neglected to fill a prescription for anti-biotics that were prescribed for the child, and the reports also say that the parents believed that the child's most recent medical problems were from pneumonia, rather than cancer.
The article below is from the Associated Press, via MSNBC news. Headline is linked. Some commentary and several questions follow the article.
Girl with cancer to continue as ward of Texas
Judge's ruling comes after parents agreed to follow doctors' advice
The Associated Press
Updated: 1:57 p.m. ET June 16, 2005
CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas - A judge ruled Thursday that the state will retain custody of a 13-year-old girl who was taken from her parents after they refused to continue her cancer treatments and the cancer, which appeared to have been eliminated, returned.
Katie Wernecke, who has Hodgkin’s disease, will remain with Child Protective Services pending another hearing late next month, juvenile court Judge Carl Lewis ruled. Katie was scheduled to see doctors at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston on Thursday.
Katie’s parents tried to convince Lewis during a custody hearing that they would not resist efforts to resume her treatment. But he refused to return the girl to their care, noting that Katie’s mother had previously fled with Katie and her father had rejected several doctors’ findings.
“I really don’t have a parent that I can say I can return the child to without putting that child in danger of her health,” Lewis said.
The girl was diagnosed in January after she was taken to an emergency room with what her parents thought was pneumonia. She received chemotherapy, and doctors recommended it be followed with radiation.
Fears of treatment
Her parents refused though. Edward Wernecke said he feared the radiation would put Katie at a heightened risk for breast cancer, stunt her growth and cause learning problems.
Earlier this month, Child Protective Services officials took custody of Katie after doctors said the Werneckes were risking their daughter’s life by refusing the radiation therapy. A scan last week revealed the cancer had returned, and Katie’s former doctor testified he thought its return was linked to the family’s refusal to go forward with the radiation.
Attorneys for the Werneckes said it was never the family’s intention to deny necessary medical treatment. Michele Wernecke testified she was willing to follow doctors’ recommendations, and her husband testified that Katie needed to be with her family.
The case has drawn national attention as a battle between parental rights and the state’s charge to protect children from abuse or neglect.
... more at linked article
So, was the state (government) right to interfere in this case? Should the child have become a ward of the state (as she has) or should the child remain under the parents custody and control?
When is the greater good of the individual enough to outweigh the desires of the parents/guardians for an individual such that the state can take over and make those decisions that are normally left to the parents/guardians?
Over the years, there have been numerous cases where family religious beliefs have interfered with the medical treatment of non-adults within our society. Parents that don't believe in the use of blood transfusions, for example, may prevent a child from receiving treatment that would involve a transfusion. Courts have intervened in multiple cases, with multiple results (depending on the judge and court system involved).
Do we as a society want the court systems to always protect the best interests of the minors in our society, and if so, are we really ready for the consequences that could lead to? Or, do we have to treat each case separately, and never treat any case as if it has established any precedent?
Lots of stuff to think about and possibly comment on. Please add your thoughts and discuss freely.