I am facing a similar choice in treatment with a recent breast cancer diagnosis and I have reviewed the "standard" treatments available and the only one I will agree to is lumpectomy. I do NOT want toxic chemicals (the equivalent of napalm inside the body) or radiation (increased rate of new cancers AFTER treatment - no thanks). We are told by the medical professionals that radiation causes cancer , yet they turn around and try to sell us on radiation as a CURE for cancer.

I've got news for everyone - the standard treatment of cancer is not a CURE any more than cutting off an arm is a cure for an infection in that arm. They just kill the cells that are misbehaving without really fixing the underlying condition that created the cancer.

Alternative medicine and nutritional support treat the underlying cause of cancer. In advanced cases of cancer, I agree that sometimes drastic measures need to be taken to turn it around but anything that harms the immune system is NOT the right thing to do.

Abraham Cherrix went with the standard treatments for one round already and it didn't work. The lymphoma returned. Now he wants to try without killing his immune system and he has every right to do that. For doctors (and yes the doctors were the ones who REPORTED it to CPS) to *force* any particular kind of treatment on *anyone* is bordering on the kind of society I don't want to live in.

Ogre gave me a link to his story on this, and so I followed the links to the WorldNetDaily article as well as the Times Dispatch follow-up. Ogre grabbed me with: This case is another example of how difficult it...

They can only work with what the Hoxsey people send them, and what they've sent has been zero for a long time now. Your issue is with the Hoxsey people, not the medical establishment. I don't know how else to put this...the lack of data is in no way the fault/problem of medical establishment.

As for the choice, issue I agree that if a person wants to do something idiotic that will likely get them killed, so long as others are not put in danger, then let them. There is nothing in my post that supports you assertions to the contrary.

As an attorney who has practiced over 40 years, I respect our legal system for resolving most disputes. But so long as I am in possession of my mental faculties, I do not believe it should have the power to tell me what is the best medical care for me or anyone for whom I am responsible. That smacks of forced medical care which seems outside the proper realm of government.

I believe that there are simply some decisions that are outside the government's jurisdiction, and this is one of them.

I am not blaming the medical establishment for anything but relying on outdated studies to justify their own positions. I am sure the alternative treatment is suspect but I would prefer my science to follow a certain scientific rigor that is lacking here. I just wanted to point out the weakness in the argument.

Many if not most or all of these alternative treatments are used to separate the patient from his or her money. But many accepted treatments do the same thing while offering about the same amount of hope or real results. If you are dying of cancer and traditional medicine is not helping who are we to tell you what you can try elsewhere? Why should doctors subject to oversight by the AMA be allowed to lobby against alternative medicine? If we make that step should we also ban chiropractic medicine?

The slippery slope is real and we should recognize the entrenched interests. That doesn't mean we ignore doctors but we have to keep what they say in the context of the real world.

For whatever reason this person decided it would be worthwhile to get this treatment and if gives hope to him and his family then their choice has some justification. If it is all quackery then let the facts convince others to stay away. Regardless, it is their choice not ours.

The judge also found Starchild Abraham Cherrix's parents were neglectful for allowing him to pursue alternative treatment of a sugar-free, organic diet and herbal supplements supervised by a clinic in Mexico, lawyer John Stepanovich said.

Would you trust someone to make healthcare decisions for you when they had named you "Starchild"?

There is nothing more recent because Hoxsey and his nurse successor have not made any data available for study. To study stuff like this many doctors would object since there is little to no medicinal value to the herbal components to the tonic. As for the external paste it has been shown to be painful and injurious compared to orthodox techniques.

So don't go blaming the "medical establishment" but instead the purveyors of this snake oil.

The attack upon liberty in this case is simply appalling. I doubt it would have made it into the courts a generation ago but now we accept the nanny state and it's great benevolence. One day it will be our liberty that is under threat from that benevolence.

What has been overlooked in most places is the idea that the child has been made a ward of the state, and the parents called negligent, because they allowed a SIXTEEN year old boy to choose his own treatment option.

What magic will occur in the next two years that will suddenly render him capable of making this decision?

If he had SHOT his parents because they refused to let him try his alternative treatment, wouldn't we be likely to prosecute him as an adult?

So why can't we let him choose his treatment like an adult?

I agree with your estimation: people should be able to make these decisions themselves. But on top of this, we need to stop punishing *parents* when their children make "bad" decisions.