Cancer Patient Seized by State of Texas

[Stravo]

Texas Girl With Cancer Taken From Parents


CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas (June 10) - Child welfare officials seized a 12-year-old cancer patient from her parents, saying they were blocking radiation treatment that doctors say she needs.

During a court hearing Wednesday, Michele and Edward Wernecke asked that doctors be barred from giving radiation therapy to their daughter Katie until a hearing next week to determine whether she will stay in state custody.

They say their daughter's cancer is in remission and they object to her getting the radiation treatment after undergoing a round of chemotherapy. Katie has Hodgkin's disease, a type of cancer involving the lymph nodes.

Juvenile court Judge Carl Lewis said he would rule on the request Friday.

Last week, authorities issued an Amber Alert to gain temporary custody of Katie after receiving an anonymous 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.

She remains at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, where she is undergoing tests, officials said. State Child Protective Services says her life could be in danger without further cancer treatment.

Michele Wernecke was arrested on charges of interfering with child custody and was released Monday after posting $50,000 bond.

The Werneckes' three sons were placed in a foster home.

Speaking Thursday on NBC's "Today" show, Michele Wernecke said her daughter's illness is unique and should be treated as such.

"I think they should treat her for what her body calls for and not standard protocol. Nobody will look at that," she said. "Not every cancer is the same. Nobody understands that. Her body is not standard, and her cancer is not standard."

The couple, members of the Church of God, have said they oppose blood transfusions unless they were from Katie's mother. But the couple's attorney, Daniel Horne, said religion wasn't at issue in the fight over cancer treatment.

Rather, they believe doctors haven't been upfront about Katie's care and have not answered all their questions about the side effects of the radiation.

"This issue is about parental rights, not about religious rights," Horne said. "They just want to be informed of her treatment. They want to be involved in this."

Katie was diagnosed with cancer in January. In a videotaped statement recorded by her parents, Katie said she's feeling better.

"I don't need radiation treatment. And nobody asked me what I wanted. It's my body," she said.

Officials on Wednesday reached an agreement to let Edward Wernecke and the couple's sons visit Katie on Friday, the day before her 13th birthday.


06/10/05 06:43 EDT

So...not ALL bad from the State of Texas, eh?

As a parent I have NEVER understood this attitude in these fundie parents that can let them watch a child siffering and not do anything about it because some 3,000 yo book tells me too. Yet these same assholes will drive in cars, use telephones, refrigerators and A/C.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Katie was diagnosed with cancer in January. In a videotaped statement recorded by her parents, Katie said she's feeling better.

"I don't need radiation treatment. And nobody asked me what I wanted. It's my body," she said.

Right, and where in the story did it say this kid was a fully-trained oncologist? Just because someone feels better doesn't mean that they're actually well. But, stupid parents don't want to see that radiation treatment is essential for knocking out the cancerous cells that the chemotherapy missed. The parents and the child are idiots, and it's a good thing the state removed her from their home.

[Firefox]

The kid apparently doesn't realize that things can go south fast, regardless of whether you feel better or not.

On the subject of radiation therapy, how effective is it in reducing tumors? I was under the impression it caused significant damage to the body, and may lead to a reduced quality of life.

[Chmee]

The girl's videotape is just heartwrenching, poor kid.

This is kind of a tough one for me, even as anti-fundi as I tend to be. The experience we had when my dad went through cancer treatment was that if you talk to five oncologists you might get five recommended courses of treatment. It made a *huge* difference when my parents finally told dad's original oncologist to fuck off because he just wasn't listening to their concerns. The guy they ended up with made my dad feel a lot better about the whole process.

So I can understand parents getting a bad vibe and telling an oncologist 'No, we're not just rushing ahead with your recommendation, we want more opinions and more time.'

From a simple liberty standpoint, I'm pretty uncomfortable with the state getting this involved in the parent-child relationship, too. The mother was charged with interfering with child custody? Seems like something is missing there, is there any custody issue between the parents?

[Lord Zentei]

The kid is not qualified to make a choice about it in any case, since she is a minor. And I second the general sendiment about those idiot parents.

Speaking Thursday on NBC's "Today" show, Michele Wernecke said her daughter's illness is unique and should be treated as such.

"I think they should treat her for what her body calls for and not standard protocol. Nobody will look at that," she said. "Not every cancer is the same. Nobody understands that. Her body is not standard, and her cancer is not standard."

So: now they know better than the doctors. And of course the media are lapping this shit up.

The couple, members of the Church of God, have said they oppose blood transfusions unless they were from Katie's mother. But the couple's attorney, Daniel Horne, said religion wasn't at issue in the fight over cancer treatment.

Rather, they believe doctors haven't been upfront about Katie's care and have not answered all their questions about the side effects of the radiation.

"This issue is about parental rights, not about religious rights," Horne said. "They just want to be informed of her treatment. They want to be involved in this."

I call BS. Why are they opposed to blood transfusions in the first place? And since when have "parent's rights" allowed them to veto specific treatments that the doctors deem neccesary? Is it a coincidence that this "not religiousl rights, but parent's rights" horseshit comes from a fundie family?

Oh, and kudos to the State of Texas, for a change.

[Drunk Monkey]

Any one who calls them self a human being, and refuses to give there terminally ill child proper medical help, fucking deserves the Bob Bocker treatment!!! We should just castrate every single one of those fuckers immediately!!

Smiley abuse removed. We get it. You're angry. Now either contribute something useful or shut the fuck up.
-Your Friendly Neighborhood Rampant AI

[The Grim Squeaker]

Huh amazing to compare these two stories, are they in different districts\legal areas?
(I Dont know a thing about american are legality )

[Chmee]

Any one who calls them self a human being, and refuses to give there terminally ill child proper medical help, fucking deserves the Bob Bocker treatment!!! We should just castrate every single one of those fuckers immediately!!

Let's put the shoe on the other foot.

Fast forward 50 years here in god-fearin' Amurika, when the fundies control every state legislature. Spiritual healing and prayer is the new 'standard practice' for dealing with illness. You think the state should be able to take your kids away from you for refusing to take your kids down to the Triple Rock for the Reverend Cletus to lay hands upon your child and invoke the Lord's healing grace?

Or is does the Establishment Clause still mean something, protecting you from their religion as much as it protects their religion from you today?

I'm only saying that I am still uncomfortable with the presumption that the State 'knows what's best' for everybody's kids and can impose such fundamentally personal decisions on you and your family. It may well be that these parents are whack-job nuts whose negligence amounts to abuse, but I'd like a lot more factual data before jumping to that conclusion.

[Axis Kast]

While I'm not exactly afraid I'm going to have to resort to exorcism for serious illness in a few years, I have to agree with Chmee.

Rather, they believe doctors haven't been upfront about Katie's care and have not answered all their questions about the side effects of the radiation.

"This issue is about parental rights, not about religious rights," Horne said. "They just want to be informed of her treatment. They want to be involved in this."

I'm stuck on this. Fear of side effects is often valid. I can sympathize with the state's ruling because this girl is a minor. On the other hand, if it were adults they were forcing to recieve treatment, I'd be more worried.

[Knife]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but why should they have their kid go through radiation treatment if the cancer is in remission? That doesn't sound right to me?

And where is the line between getting a second *or third or fourth* opinon and not getting your kid the treatment he/she needs?

[Chris OFarrell]

Any one who calls them self a human being, and refuses to give there terminally ill child proper medical help, fucking deserves the Bob Bocker treatment!!! We should just castrate every single one of those fuckers immediately!!

Let's put the shoe on the other foot.

Fast forward 50 years here in god-fearin' Amurika, when the fundies control every state legislature. Spiritual healing and prayer is the new 'standard practice' for dealing with illness. You think the state should be able to take your kids away from you for refusing to take your kids down to the Triple Rock for the Reverend Cletus to lay hands upon your child and invoke the Lord's healing grace?

Um by that time the United States would have completly collapsed in on itself as science and technology come to a screaching halt as well as degridation in basic services, health care clearly first there.

Of course as epidemics sweep the country these people will shout that its Gods judgement for being so wicked, leading to becoming even more rabid, leading to faster spreading...until the US ceases to exist.

Of course this won't happen, but if it DID I wouldn't be too worried. As I'm sure all the valuable people would have long since fled the country for other Western countries. e

[Surlethe]

Fast forward 50 years here in god-fearin' Amurika, when the fundies control every state legislature. Spiritual healing and prayer is the new 'standard practice' for dealing with illness. You think the state should be able to take your kids away from you for refusing to take your kids down to the Triple Rock for the Reverend Cletus to lay hands upon your child and invoke the Lord's healing grace?

Or is does the Establishment Clause still mean something, protecting you from their religion as much as it protects their religion from you today?

Are you trying to compare faith healing with modern medicine?

I'm only saying that I am still uncomfortable with the presumption that the State 'knows what's best' for everybody's kids and can impose such fundamentally personal decisions on you and your family. It may well be that these parents are whack-job nuts whose negligence amounts to abuse, but I'd like a lot more factual data before jumping to that conclusion.

It's not a matter of the "state knowing best", it's a matter of the girl possibly dying due to negligence by the parents. That's a huge difference.

Rather, they believe doctors haven't been upfront about Katie's care and have not answered all their questions about the side effects of the radiation.

"This issue is about parental rights, not about religious rights," Horne said. "They just want to be informed of her treatment. They want to be involved in this."

I'm stuck on this. Fear of side effects is often valid. I can sympathize with the state's ruling because this girl is a minor. On the other hand, if it were adults they were forcing to recieve treatment, I'd be more worried.

The parents were denying treatment to their child just because they didn't think the doctors were being forthright. Unfortunately, they didn't provide evidence, as well as tacitly conceding multiple doctors have concurred on the kid's need of treatment. That's a consensus of expert opinion, which means the parents are most likely being negligent.

[LordChaos]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but why should they have their kid go through radiation treatment if the cancer is in remission? That doesn't sound right to me?

And where is the line between getting a second *or third or fourth* opinon and not getting your kid the treatment he/she needs?

Bingo. From the news report on this I heard on the radio today, the state took custidy when the parrents decided to look for a second oppinion.

Additionaly, I'm just a little bit worried about the idea of the government forcing medical treatment against the recipients wishes (or those of the recipients designated legal gaurdians.. in this case, the parrents).

[SyntaxVorlon]

When I read the title I was almost sure a Marijuana smoking cancer patient was taken into custody.

[wolveraptor]

I think they should have the right to block radiation treatments, unless the doctors can say with certainty that the cancer will come back without it. Rad treatment isn't exactly the easiest thing to deal with. Of course, being medically ignorant, I only know that side-effects include blowing chunks every day and hair-loss. If it were just that, I'd say they were dumbshits for not going ahead and doing it, but I get the sense that there is more to it, based on implications made by posters.

[Knife]

Bingo. From the news report on this I heard on the radio today, the state took custidy when the parrents decided to look for a second oppinion.

Additionaly, I'm just a little bit worried about the idea of the government forcing medical treatment against the recipients wishes (or those of the recipients designated legal gaurdians.. in this case, the parrents).

The parents may end up a bunch of fucknuts, I don't know. But from the article, they say the kids cancer is in remission and the doc still wants to do radiation theropy. Something is not right here; I'm just going to guess we don't have all the fact.

That said, the state shoud not be able to force treatment just off of one doctor's diagnosis or at least the parents should be able to get another opinion before the state ram rod's their way into custody.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/11/national/11child.html

According to that article, she's not in remission.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

CORPUS CHRISTI, Tex., June 10 - A bitter standoff between the parents of a 12-year-old and Texas social workers and doctors over radiation treatment ended on Friday on a somber note with a medical report that the girl's Hodgkin's disease, which had seemed in remission, had reappeared.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Michael Stravato for The New York Times

Edward and Michele Wernecke reuniting with their children, Jonathan, 14; Joshua, 5; and James, 2, at their ranch in Agua Dulce, Tex., after a court ordered them returned from a children's home to their family.
Readers
Forum: Bioethics

Associated Press

Katie Wernecke was taken into custody last week.

The parents, Michele and Edward Wernecke, lost custody of their daughter Katie a week ago, after opposing radiation therapy as unnecessary. When the new test results were announced at a hearing in juvenile court, the parents quickly complied and agreed through their lawyers to let doctors set the course of treatment, which could resume in days.

"The Werneckes are devastated," said Daniel F. Horne, a lawyer for the couple. Mr. Horne said they were too distraught to comment.

Mrs. Wernecke went with a doctor to tell Katie the news before a family gathering under state supervision to celebrate her birthday. She will turn 13 on Saturday.

The agreement on treatment appeared to douse another hot spot in the field of patients' rights. Coming on the heels of the polarizing right-to-die case of Terri Schiavo, Katie's case raised the provocative question of when parents lose their rights to control a child's medical treatment. Under Texas law, parents may withhold medical treatment from a terminally ill child, but not in lesser situations.

"If the benefits of treatment are clear and clear harm can result from withholding care, ethically the state has the right to step in," Dr. Robert Klitzman, co-director of the Center for Bioethics at Columbia University, said.

Allowing a disease to inflict harm, Dr. Klitzman said, "is a form of child abuse."

Last week, Mrs. Wernecke absconded with Katie to forestall the radiation treatments that the parents - and Katie herself, in a family video - said risked doing her more harm than good, because her cancer was in remission. The flight set off an Amber Alert, and the mother and daughter were found on Saturday by county lawmen at a relative's farm. Mrs. Wernecke was arrested, charged with endangering a minor and jailed for 48 hours before being released on $50,000 bail. Katie was put in foster care, and the family's three other children, ages 2, 5 and 14, were placed in a children's home.

This morning, Katie's siblings were returned to the parents under a judge's order, and the charges against Mrs. Wernecke were dropped. For now, though, Katie is to remain in the custody of Texas Children's Protective Services.

"Given the opportunity to abscond with the child, they took it," said Judge Carl E. Lewis, who handles juvenile cases for Nueces County. But Judge Lewis agreed to allow the family ample visiting rights, and the lawyer for the children's agency, Thomas N. Stuckey, said Katie would be returned to the family as soon as possible.

According to a letter given to the Werneckes' lawyers, the State Department of Family and Protective Services acted in part on a complaint on May 26 by one of Katie's physicians, Dr. Nejemie Alter, who is part of the pediatric oncology-hematology department of Driscoll Children's Hospital here. Dr. Alter stated that he had been treating the girl since the disease was diagnosed in January. "We have had ongoing compliance issues with this family which led to a prior C.P.S. referral for medical neglect on 4/7/05 when they refused to consent to a red blood cell transfusion," Dr. Alter wrote in his complaint.

Despite three opinions that Katie needs radiation to follow her chemotherapy, Dr. Alter wrote, "The parents are still refusing to continue the recommended treatment."

Hodgkin's disease is a form of lymphoma, a cancer that affects certain white blood cells and part of the immune system. There are 850 to 900 cases a year in children and adolescents in the United States, according to the National Cancer Institute.

Treatment involves chemotherapy or radiation, or both, depending on the type of Hodgkin's and how advanced it is. Hodgkin's is among the most curable cancers. With treatment, 91 percent of children live at least five years. Even when the disease has spread, more than 60 percent of the patients are alive after 15 years.

[mr friendly guy]

The kid apparently doesn't realize that things can go south fast, regardless of whether you feel better or not.

On the subject of radiation therapy, how effective is it in reducing tumors? I was under the impression it caused significant damage to the body, and may lead to a reduced quality of life.

Usually they would "fire" the radiation from several different directions. This way the cancer cells get a concentrated burst while surrounding tissue only gets a small amount.



On another note, the article Boyish tigerlily posted answered why we needed radiation as well as chemo. It depended on the grade (severity) of the cancer.

[Broomstick]

On the subject of radiation therapy, how effective is it in reducing tumors?

Sometimes it's extremely effective and sometimes it's not. It depends on the cancer involved, and it varies from one individual to another.

I was under the impression it caused significant damage to the body, and may lead to a reduced quality of life.

It does.

So does chemo.

So does surgery.

However, not doing any of the above when you're talking about cancer frequently leads not only to "damage to the body" but also a complete lack of life. In other words, if you don't take the bad, evil, nasty medicine you DIE.

Yeah, cancer sucks that way.

Usually they would "fire" the radiation from several different directions. This way the cancer cells get a concentrated burst while surrounding tissue only gets a small amount.

They can do that for solid tumors, however, lymphomas are blood cancers and like blood they are liquid. This is a type of cancer that is spread throughout the entire body.

It's impossible to know the whole story from these articles. I suspect there may be a problem with doctors not communicating well with the family. The concerns the father expresses regarding radiation to the girl - damage to her heart, increased risk of breast cancer down the line, stunting of her growth - are all very real. Radiation and chemo treatment in children is also strongly associated with learning disabilities and memory problems. These treatments really do allow children to survive these cancers, but at a steep cost even in the best-case scenarios.

So... do you want to die in a year or two, or live another 20-30 with a damaged body? Because that's the choice a lot of cancer patients face.

By the way - one indication that the docs aren't communicating well is the father's concerns that radiation will leave his daughter sterile. Um... Mr. Werncke, the chemo has almost certainly destroyed her fertility already. It's a moot point. The only kids your daughter will have will be adopted. The family should have been told that already Or maybe they were, and they're all fuckheads or something.

I think they should have the right to block radiation treatments, unless the doctors can say with certainty that the cancer will come back without it.

That level of certainty simple doesn't exist in medicine. Not when you're talking about cancer.

Part of the problem with kids with cancer is that parents have this HUGE motivation to prevent their children from suffering. Ask any parent - it hurts them to see their children hurting, even from minor scrapes. With cancer, the parents have to drive the kid to the hospital knowing they will be subjected to procedures that will cause pain and sickness. Then after treatment they either take the kid home and watch their baby suffer, or hover around the hospital room watching their kid suffer. The parents (depending on the cancer) are asked to consent to having bits of their baby cut out, or maybe a limb lopped off, or to having poison put in their kid's body that cause violent puking, diarrhea, and hair loss. The wonder isn't that some parents reject radiation and chemo - the wonder is that so many do consent to it. Well, of course, you do what you must for your children... but it's nothing bizarre or fucked up for parents to question whether this is really the best course, and to resist further treatment for their child unless they are convinced it will help more than harm. Which is why I say there has been a major breakdown of communication between parents and doctors here.

[Knife]

According to that article, she's not in remission.

Meh, very well then. I'd still fire that doctor and get my kid radiation treatment from someone else.

[Fw 190]

I also heard the state took the kid away when the parents asked for a second opinion, not for refusing radiation treatment. This isn’t a case where fundie parents wished to cure their child by dancing around a fire or praying to God. It’s about the state forcing harmful radiation treatment on a child. These treatments, while dangerous, can and do cure hundreds. I don’t deny that. However, I don’t see anything wrong with the parents trying another medicine. If the girl dies because the alternative medicine doesn’t work, oh well. It is possible that the radiation wouldn’t have cured her either. Western medicine is not a harmless cure all as people make it out to be. I do not have data right now to back this claim, but I can find it if you want to read it. I say this as a person who has lost one grandparent due to medical negligence involving radiation treatment and likely another grandparent in the near future.

[mr friendly guy]

According to that article, she's not in remission.

Meh, very well then. I'd still fire that doctor and get my kid radiation treatment from someone else.

Chances are, the doctor giving the radiation therapy would be different to the doctor treating the kid with chemo any way. Radiation oncology would be a separate field from haematology ( hodgkins would come under the haematologist, or even if it was under the oncologist, its still separate from radiation oncology).

In any event, the parents were given three opinions in regards to the radiation therapy. It seems less likely that its a "communication problem" on the part of the doctor.

Also the doctors have complained of compliance issues, which is really a problem when you have patients that know the treatment will help them, but refuse for some reason. The refusing blood transfusion unless its from the mother is bloody retarded. Presumably in this case, the mothers blood is compatible, but it doesn't necessarily have to be the case (depending on what she inherits from the father).

[SyntaxVorlon]

I also heard the state took the kid away when the parents asked for a second opinion, not for refusing radiation treatment. This isn’t a case where fundie parents wished to cure their child by dancing around a fire or praying to God. It’s about the state forcing harmful radiation treatment on a child. These treatments, while dangerous, can and do cure hundreds. I don’t deny that. However, I don’t see anything wrong with the parents trying another medicine. If the girl dies because the alternative medicine doesn’t work, oh well. It is possible that the radiation wouldn’t have cured her either. Western medicine is not a harmless cure all as people make it out to be. I do not have data right now to back this claim, but I can find it if you want to read it. I say this as a person who has lost one grandparent due to medical negligence involving radiation treatment and likely another grandparent in the near future.

Last week, Mrs. Wernecke absconded with Katie to forestall the radiation treatments

[Ryoga]

See, I really hate 'yellow' journalism like this. The first article out has a bare minimum of facts that leads to people drawing all sorts of conclusions that are eventually revealed false. The second, more thorough, article reveals that: A) they weren't shopping for a "second" opinion as they already had three, B) they had repeatedly interfered with treatments in the past, and C) this included refusing a blood transfusion.

I think it's fairly clear we're dealing with a pair of asshats here, and the state was well within it's authority to take custody.

At the risk of thread-jacking, though, why the fuck can't journalists just wait until they have enough information to write a story? It seems like everyone's out to get the bleeding-edge news, without a care for whether they actually have any info or not. And then it just confuses people who read their work.