CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas (AP) -- A 13-year-old cancer patient will get the radiation treatment her parents had opposed after new medical tests showed she is no longer in remission.
Katie Wernecke's parents decided to drop their objection to the treatment after the tests were disclosed during a juvenile court hearing Friday. Katie, who turned 13 on Saturday, will remain in state custody as her therapy gets under way.
Michele and Edward Wernecke lost custody of Katie last week after doctors said lack of treatment could be life-threatening. The parents had insisted that the four rounds of chemotherapy Katie received then had killed the cancer and that more radiation would only harm a healthy girl.
The new testing result "changes everything," said attorney Daniel Horne, who represents the couple.
Katie was diagnosed with Hodgkin's disease in January, when her parents brought her to the hospital for pneumonia treatment. Hodgkin's is a type of cancer involving the lymph nodes.
"The Werneckes have never said that they would deny medical treatment to their daughter if she was ill and getting worse," Horne told state juvenile court Judge Carl Lewis.
Lewis called off a custody hearing scheduled for next week unless the Werneckes could present compelling evidence that Katie was still in remission. Horne said the treatments were set for next week.
The judge said that the parents would be allowed to attend the treatments but that doctors would make the decisions.
"Early evidence indicates that given opportunity to abscond with the child, they did. And no way would I give them opportunity to do that again now," the judge said.
Last week authorities issued an Amber Alert to gain temporary custody of Katie after receiving a 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.
Charges against Michele Wernecke, who was free on $50,000 bond, were dropped Friday. The family's other children, three boys, were reunited with the parents Friday following a CPS inspection of the home.
The couple, members of the Church of God, have said they oppose blood transfusions unless they were from Katie's mother. But Horne has said religion wasn't at issue in the fight over cancer treatment.
Rather, they believe doctors weren't upfront about Katie's care and did not answer all their questions about the side effects of the radiation, Horne said.
I have no concrete opinion on this, far away from raising kids as I am, so I throw it to the crowd. I didn't realise the state could take your kid away if you don't follow doctor's orders, though. The libertarian in me wants to be against that, but letting someone die through lack of medical treatment is kind of a form of murder, depending how you look at it. Anyway...
i think this more has to do with their religion vs. the medical community. It's certainly a difficult topic. As a newly expectant father, I don't want the state to try and take away or interfere with my parental rights. But at the same time, I'd like to think I'm a reasonable enough of a person to know that I might not always be aware of the best options for my child in regards to medical options and that relying on the input of doctors is something to be taken into consideration....
I am never sure what to think about these cases. I cannot imagine parents actually refusing medical treatment for their child's life threatening medical condition...but it happens, and usually in the name of religion.
But in this case, I don't know if it is religion or something else going on.
I think that doctors file neglect charges when parents refuse to treat their child's medical condition because in their eyes, it is like any other kind of parental neglect. I agree. But when can a parent's rights be usurped? What is the line?
And in this case, the child is old enough to make some sort of statement about what she would like. I wonder if anyone has asked her?
_________________ cirlces they grow and they swallow people whole half their lives they say goodnight to wives they'll never know got a mind full of questions and a teacher in my soul and so it goes
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:43 pm Posts: 7633 Location: Philly Del Fia Gender: Female
This case is absolutly disgusting, hands down, and the government had no right to take that little girl or her brothers.
The chemotherapthy that she had put her cancer into remission. The doctors want to put her through radiation treatments "just in case." The radiation itself can cause MORE cancers later on for the little girl, who right now is healthy. It's just a standard procedure in her case, where usually, chemo alone doesn't kill off the cancer. But this time it did. It's not a religious decision. The little girl and her mother do not want her to suffer through all of the sickeness and danger associated with the radiation.
The only religious issue that came up during her entire treatment was that if she needed a transfusion it had to come from her mother. Apparently that wasn't a problem, the types were compatible, so I don't see anything wrong with that at all.
I feel terrible for the family - to first have to suffer through their daughter almost dying of cancer, to having all of your children removed for wanting to do what was in her best interest. It's sickening.
I think this sort of thing must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. I don't know enough about this story, so to give an opinion would be silly as it would be based soley on conjecture, but...
In most states there is an age where you are able to make medical decisions for yourself. I believe that in some states it is 13, in others 15 and some even older. If she lived in a state where she was at or past the legal age, then the girl should have been able to make the choice herself.
Otherwise it gets sticky. Should a parent be forced to pay for a treatment that is not guaranteed to get the desired results? Should a child be forced to undergo treatment that is not guaranteed to get the desired results?
Because of those two statements alone, I think I must side with the parents. If the world at large was able to prove as a fact, that providing one treatment would significantly improve the quality and quantity of the child's life, and that treatment was being withheld, there may be a valid argument.. otherwise, I think not. At least in my head.
Casey
_________________ Ringo: Wretched slugs, don't any of you have the guts to play for blood?
Doc: I'm your huckleberry.
This case is absolutly disgusting, hands down, and the government had no right to take that little girl or her brothers.
The chemotherapthy that she had put her cancer into remission. The doctors want to put her through radiation treatments "just in case." The radiation itself can cause MORE cancers later on for the little girl, who right now is healthy. It's just a standard procedure in her case, where usually, chemo alone doesn't kill off the cancer. But this time it did. It's not a religious decision. The little girl and her mother do not want her to suffer through all of the sickeness and danger associated with the radiation.
The only religious issue that came up during her entire treatment was that if she needed a transfusion it had to come from her mother. Apparently that wasn't a problem, the types were compatible, so I don't see anything wrong with that at all.
I feel terrible for the family - to first have to suffer through their daughter almost dying of cancer, to having all of your children removed for wanting to do what was in her best interest. It's sickening.
The very first line states her cancer is no longer in remission.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:43 pm Posts: 7633 Location: Philly Del Fia Gender: Female
PJDoll wrote:
NaiveAndTrue wrote:
This case is absolutly disgusting, hands down, and the government had no right to take that little girl or her brothers.
The chemotherapthy that she had put her cancer into remission. The doctors want to put her through radiation treatments "just in case." The radiation itself can cause MORE cancers later on for the little girl, who right now is healthy. It's just a standard procedure in her case, where usually, chemo alone doesn't kill off the cancer. But this time it did. It's not a religious decision. The little girl and her mother do not want her to suffer through all of the sickeness and danger associated with the radiation.
The only religious issue that came up during her entire treatment was that if she needed a transfusion it had to come from her mother. Apparently that wasn't a problem, the types were compatible, so I don't see anything wrong with that at all.
I feel terrible for the family - to first have to suffer through their daughter almost dying of cancer, to having all of your children removed for wanting to do what was in her best interest. It's sickening.
The very first line states her cancer is no longer in remission.
Which changes little, but not much.
I've been following this for a week, and what they wanted were the tests to prove the above before going ahead with the radiation. I don't think demanding that of a child's doctors is just cause for a parent having all of their children removed, do you?
They never said "our child is sick, don't treat her."
She was feeling better, and they wanted to give her a chance to be well before moving on with dangerous treatment she may not have needed.
I know there are idiotic parents out there who will deny their child treatment other than "pray to make her well." This is not one of those cases. We're even coming into this AFTER the little girl has already undergone the chemo. It's not one of those weird religious issues that people are making it out to be, simply because they found out about the blood transfusions and ran with it.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:46 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Medford, Oregon Gender: Male
NaiveAndTrue wrote:
I know there are idiotic parents out there who will deny their child treatment other than "pray to make her well." This is not one of those cases. We're even coming into this AFTER the little girl has already undergone the chemo. It's not one of those weird religious issues that people are making it out to be, simply because they found out about the blood transfusions and ran with it.
Exactly. Religion isn't even mentioned until the end of the article, and if you know anything about journalism, you know that news stories are written in a style known as "inverted pyramid," meaning that you give the most important details to the story first, and work your way down. I think the only reason it's mentioned at all is because religion, and Christianity in particular, has become the new raison d'etre for the American media.
_________________ Deep below the dunes I roved Past the rows, past the rows Beside the acacias freshly in bloom I sent men to their doom
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:51 pm Posts: 14534 Location: Mesa,AZ
I think you're right; this is absolutely silly. Who even says that is the best course for treatment, anyways? They don't treat all cancers with radiation, and I actually thought it was used before the cancer is in remission.
Another reason I am never moving to Texas...
_________________
John Adams wrote:
In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress.
I wasn't aware that a State could force someone to have a medical treatment. Restated, as the guardians of this child, isn't it the parent's decision what treatment she receive and not receive?
I'm not saying these parents are "right" in withholding treatment, not at all.
But since when did any State have the "right" to take a child away to pursue a specific course of cancer treatment versus what the child's parents want?
I don't quite know what to think about this case.
Obviosly this girl, as does any child, deserves the best medical care available and deserves to pursue any option relative to a cure, but is it constitutionally or civil liberties wise a "just" think for a state to come in and take the child?
Also, is the state going to pay the medical bills?
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:50 pm Posts: 3955 Location: Leaving Here
$úñ_DëV|L wrote:
I think you're right; this is absolutely silly. Who even says that is the best course for treatment, anyways? They don't treat all cancers with radiation, and I actually thought it was used before the cancer is in remission.
Another reason I am never moving to Texas...
Well, and if the state can do this, for what other reasons can they step in and take one's child?
It's pretty scary. I have nieces and nephews and god-children, but I'm positive if anyone ever tried to take my child, they would only be able to do it over my dead body....if the state suddenly came and took one of my nieces or nephews or godchildren, regardless of why, I'd be beating down the doors of all and any state official until that child were in my hands.
There is something that seems to just be "Missing" from this report......
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
