A 16-year-old Virginia boy who suffers from Hodgkin's disease has been told
by a state judge he must report to a hospital this week and accept treatment
deemed necessary by his doctors. The boy and his parents have chosen to
pursue alternative treatment. It consists of a sugar-free, organic diet and
herbal supplements supervised by a clinic in Mexico.
On July 21, juvenile court Judge Jesse E. Demps ruled that the boy's
parents, Jay and Rose Cherrix of Chincoteague, were neglectful and that they
must continue to share custody of their son, Starchild Abraham Cherrix, with
the Accomack County Department of Social Services.
I have heard Cherrix interviewed on the radio and he sounds intelligent,
articulate, reasonable and capable of making such a major decision. Cherrix
says three months of chemotherapy left him nauseas and weak and he prefers
not to repeat that type of treatment. That a court would deny Cherrix and
his parents such a choice prompted the family attorney, John Stepanovich, to
say: "I want to caution all parents of Virginia: Look out, because Social
Services may be pounding on your door next when they disagree with the
decision you've made about the health care of your child."
In an age when we continue to debate "a woman's right to choose" when it
comes to a girl aborting her baby and we are told that it is the girl's body
and no one else should make decisions affecting it, a boy has no such
rights. A girl can be given birth control by the school nurse and even
abortion information without her parents knowledge or consent, but a boy can
be prohibited from making decisions that affect his life and body. At least
the courts are consistent. They forbid parental involvement in either case.
In some states, though, parents are held responsible for their kids' illegal
and anti-social behavior. Why is it that parents supposedly have power to
keep their kids from committing crimes, but can be denied power when it
comes to their child's health and welfare?
If a young child (say 10, or younger) is unduly influenced by parents who
are members of a religion that teaches that faith alone can heal, or
prohibits blood transfusions, then the state has an interest in stepping in
to protect the child until he, or she, is old enough to make an informed
choice. But in this case, the informed one appears to be Cherrix, who says
he has studied his options, experienced the treatment given by his doctors
and doesn't want anymore of it. He prefers "alternative medicine." That
should be his and his parents' right to determine, not a social worker and a
court.