Starchild Abraham Cherrix was diagnosed with cancer –Hodgkin’s Lymphoma— and underwent therapy that cured it. Or so it seemed until the cancer recurred.

His oncologist confirmed the recurrence and arranged treatment of a more aggressive chemotherapy with radiation. Weighing the options, Abraham declined further therapy; he considered the treatment and its debilitating effects weren’t worth the risk.

Subsequently the Department of Social Services –tipped off by Abraham’s doctor— filed in court against Abraham’s family. The judge “… ruled yesterday that a 16-year-old fighting to use alternative treatment for his cancer must report to a hospital by Tuesday for testing, evaluation and treatment.” Subsequently the “parents must also give written consent to the hospital care.”

Judge Demps also found parents Jay and Rose Cherrix neglectful for risking his health, and made no change in his previous order requiring shared custody of their son with the Accomack County Department of Social Services

The Cherrix’s have appealed, and Attorney General Bob McDonnell weighed in to support the request for a stay. The Circuit overruled the lower court’s orders –continued chemo, the finding of neglect, and shared custody— are all temporarily suspended until an August hearing.

Settled for a while, or so it seems. But there’s more to this than any media’s been willing to deal with. Oh so much more.

It could be middle-class prissiness; it might be astonishing incompetence, or it could be a case of political hardball. Occams Razor (and Hanlon’s too) point to all combined.

The one thing it isn’t —straightforward.

Before anyone discusses Abraham Cherrix’s prognosis and prospects, be aware that he does not have Hodgkins. That’s the disease he used to have, with a statistical cure rate over 80% in his case. Statistics are just that, and unfortunately Abraham wasn’t one of those cured.

Abraham has recurrence of Hodgkins Stage III-1-B, with relapse in less than a less than a year. “The cure rate for people who relapse ranges from 10 to 50%. Among those who relapse in the first 12 months after initial treatment cure rates are somewhat lower” (Merk) One oncologist summed it up as “…probably about 25 percent so this is not a good situation.”

Conventional medicine consequences are sterility; infection; damage to heart or lungs; later leukemia; lung, breast, or stomach cancers; and bone abnormalities. Less than 5% of patients die from the immediate effects of treatment; there are no statistics on death rates from longer-term damage.

Abraham suffered terribly under the original treatment. After the relapse he decided –with his parents’ support— not to undergo the torment of chemotherapy and radiation again.

Instead they opted for an ‘alternative medicine’ called the Hoxsey method. Consisting of herbal supplements and an organic diet free of processed sugar, in my opinion Hoxsey is probably worthless as a cancer cure. Nonetheless, Abraham claims to feel (and he appears) healthy under this regimen.

Unlike the Texas case of Katie Wernecke, though the Cherrix family is deeply religious, it is logic and reason –not religion— that forms their medical decision. They went through the recommended treatment, resolute even when it turned far worse than promised. That treatment didn’t work.

No sooner had Abraham recovered from the chemotherapy than the cancer recurred. There are three options left now. Left untreated the disease is fatal. Doctors guarantee more and worse suffering, a high probability of permanent debilitation, a slim chance of survival, and the possibility of death-by-treatment. Abraham chose to follow a course that produces a feeling of health, isn’t injurious or fatal in and of itself, and offers some hope of increased life expectancy.

If brain activity and a heartbeat is the only goal, then Cherrix’s decision is flawed. Statistics favor FDA-approved medicine, but our culture –our social construct— also places value on our humanity. Even the earnings of the medical business prove that we value lucidity, unclouded perception, and freedom from agony.

Individuals from all over America frequent the Cherrix’s kayak excursions to see the splendor of Virginia’s barrier islands; feel the waves, taste the salt. That they spend hard-earned money for this is proof of societal worth.

Most people never weigh this worth against existence itself, as Abraham and his parents have been forced to, but we can’t deny that there are values underlying his decision.

It’s superficially perplexing that DSS petitioned for custody and control. The odds of a successful medical outcome are infinitesimally small. No matter what the result, DSS will have inflicted tremendous damage, pain, and suffering; and there’s some degree of liability for those decisions.

The state is usually immune from lawsuits, but personnel who operate beyond state procedure (police brutality or discrimination) are individually liable. In cases of due process or civil rights abuse the state can be sued in federal court; and the General Assembly sporadically offers relief to grave injustices.

Social Services is a department primarily to provide benefits and assistance of shared societal values. Used to working with families that are unable to cope with budgets, work, or other aspects of everyday life; DSS is unsuited to objectively investigate cases or make hard life-or-death decisions.

DSS investigative reports may be confidential, but records are accessible to those involved. In the Cherrix family’s case, the sum of superficial aspects raises the likelihood of prejudice or intolerant conclusions creeping into investigation reports extremely high.

The combination of his ‘hippy-ish’ name, intense family support, alternative medicine and his trust in it, the home-schooled family, and unusually strong religious convictions are all cultural separators that fuel prejudice. A quick review of the articles on the Cherrix’s proves the prejudicial effect is clear and demonstrable.

DSS may believe Abraham’s attitude uninformed, misguided, or delusional. Yet with a supportive family, deep faith, and good medical team, a patient with low survival probability in conventional treatment would interview the same; as would their parents.

It’s with Abraham’s father, Jay Cherrix that we start to see the light; that a plausible reason for DSS actions is formed.

He’s an indigenous ‘Teaguer’, a descendent of fishermen, woodcarvers, boatwrights, hunters, and guides –anything to eke a living off the inhospitable barrier islands— and is an expert guide and carver in his own right. Jay describes himself as “fiercely independent. I want to make sure that my children grow up independent.”

Another paper says, “Jay Cherrix is a dreamer, a kayak guide and a woodcarver who makes fanciful duck decoys, homeschools his five children in their tiny Chincoteague home and is proud to say he earned almost no money last year because he was busy fighting the federal government.”

From some perspectives, these could be code words for an anti-social, irrational, crank with erratic employment; someone who cares –food, clothing, medicine, and shelter— little for his children.

On the other hand, things become intriguing when you look at what Jay Cherrix has done to fight the government.

Jay Cherrix makes his living from guiding sightseers in kayak tours around the islands, especially the undeveloped Assateague Island National Seashore. He knows as much as anyone about the area, and is passionate about continuing preservation of its natural state.

Cherrix’s business is a niche market. His clients want an educational and inspirational experience; an in-depth and intense adventure. They are people who are willing to make a considerable investment in sweat and money to experience untainted nature. It is an ideal site since Assateague is a niche itself; undomesticated and unique.

Niche markets are, per se, limited size and cash potential. Expansion requires changing to a mass market, and the masses are not willing to hike to beaches, paddle for hours, or slog through sand. Tourists expect to drive to seashores, to have toilets and sinks and showers, telephones and wireless; they have little interest in all-natural swamps.

With an economy that makes Southside look vibrant, many in Chincoteague are looking to further develop the area’s tourist trade.

Local government is faced with rising costs from environmental rules, skyrocketing land prices, the native-born leaving for better wages, and new residents expecting better services, and environmental requirements rising. The administration wants more revenue.

Assateague Island National Seashore (AINS) was originally established to provide habitat for migratory birds, and is composed of Assateague State Park and Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge. The National Park Service (NPS) administers public use and recreation management.

Local government, business, and the NPS form a natural alliance; all see their interests served by increased tourism. Even the Assateague Coastal Trust, a group formed to promote the establishment of AINS wants more sightseers.

Therein lies the rub. Chincoteague is physically constrained with no ocean or beach front. Expansion and facilities must occur on federal land.

Another smaller and less polished coalition formed from environmentalists, boat and tour operators, oystermen, wildlife enthusiasts, sportsmen, and fishermen who oppose commercialization of the nature sanctuary.

Debate over government policy is expected, a healthy part of our political process. With Assateague, the progression has been surreptitious and devious. When preservationists use the word ‘develop’, NPS defenders adamantly deny any plans for (retail or housing) developments.

To shield critical bird habitat, the maximum number of people at the lifeguarded beach is capped, controlled by the parking lot size. Current NPS proposals to expand parking and sanitary facilities may slightly exceed that limit; but NPS has also recently permitted motel shuttle-bus service to the beach. The combination, pursued through discrete bureaucratic tracks, unquestionably exceeds (conceivably doubles) sustainable crowd size.

Other problematic steps include exploratory plans for privately operated inns in the refuge, restoration of structures expropriated during the Seashore’s creation for use as lodging and meetings, etc.

The conflict is whether Assateague should be managed as a unique, irreplaceable refuge; or become a recreational area.

Simultaneous debates are over process, whether these decisions should be made in the public arena; and whether policy decisions should be made by NPS management at all, by Congress, or by courts enforcing original terms of sale to the government.

Jay Cherrix “doesn’t trust the government to protect Assateague.” If protect means anything like ‘preserve’ or ‘protect’; his distrust is well placed. It’s not in management’s self-interest, nor is that the direction the majority of visitors want.

To that end, Cherrix and others formalized their coalition, forming Citizens for the Preservation of Assateague (CPA). While not opposed to public access, the group believes that even structures such as the new visitors center violate the intent of early preservationists who wanted the island kept forever wild.

Clearly working at a disadvantage, CPA got to work lobbying, connecting with environmental groups, and contacting the press. It’s clear Jay Cherrix was a, if not the, foremost individual and spokesman in the group.

It’s no surprise they ran into opposition, but the vehemence was unexpected. Through FOIA requests, one memo he uncovered

… involves three senior Park Service officials and refers to his [Cherrix] requests as “outrageous” and asks if there is some way to slow Cherrix down, “some kind of harassment mitigation.” It asks if there is anything in his requests, which generally were brushed aside, “that we could use to leverage Mr. Cherrix.” Leverage? Sounds like a wink-wink term for “shut this S.O.B. up.”

There are few, if any, Social Service Directors who would fabricate a case for personal or departmental gain. Conversely, there are few, if any, Social Service Directors who wouldn’t take advantage of a ‘case of interest’ to their area’s civic, business, and government leadership; the very people who compose Community Services Boards and determine DSS budgets.

Up to this point (before the court case) there’s a rationale; some conceivable motivations and reasoning behind state actions. The verdict is inexplicable.

As reported, the Juvenile Court ruled
· the parents were neglectful for allowing him to use the alternative therapy,
· the parents must share custody with social services,
· the parents must give written consent to the hospital care, and
· that Abraham must undergo radiation and chemotherapy at the hospital.
At a separate hearing, Judge Demps refused to temporarily suspend the rulings while the Cherrix’s appealed to the Circuit Court.

In Virginia, any juvenile over fourteen charged with any one of numerous serious crimes can be arraigned and tried as an adult if they are competent. Treated as if they are adult.

Until the Supreme Court struck the practice last year, convicted sixteen year-olds could get the death penalty. Even now, juvenile criminals can face penitentiary sentences just like any other felon, possibly even a life sentence.

Female juvenile may obtain abortions without parental approval or notification via Juvenile Courts, providing the “minor is mature enough and well enough informed.”

Abraham Cherrix is sixteen years old, reasonably articulate, intelligent, and rational; he is certainly legally competent, mature enough and well enough informed to make his own decision. Yet the Court discounted his viewpoint, instead focusing on the parents allowing Abraham to refuse hospital treatment.

Accepting the earlier prejudice of Social Services, discounting any additional lifestyle preconceptions, the court’s finding of neglect was not unexpected. Not much deduction can be done without access to the court record, but it’s unexpected what the court decided to do.

Joint custody is where both parents retain a combination of legal and physical custody. Virginia code has no provision for custody sharing between DSS and parents.

[I’m fully aware that I’m no attorney, and may be completely wrong on this. However, an extensive search of Virginia Code, court cases, and DSS policy manual failed to uncover a single mention of “joint custody” with Social Services.]

There’s no detectable basis for joint, shared or divided custody between a state agency and parents. Yet joint custody –Jay and Rose Cherrix sharing custody of Abraham with the Accomack County DSS— is precisely what Judge Demps ordered.

Wait wait! It gets more outrageous! The court ordered Jay and Rose Cherrix to sign hospital consent-for-treatment forms. Virginia Code is well aware that parents may refuse treatment, be absent when it’s needed, or be incapable of giving necessary medical consent:

“ Judicial consent for emergency surgical or medical treatment for a child … when the consent of his parent … is unobtainable because such parent … fails to give such consent or provide such treatment when requested by the judge to do so.” [emphasis added]

There’s no provision for coercing parents to act against their beliefs; no more than “The court ordered Jay and Rose Cherrix to sign a confession …” or “… ordered Jay and Rose Cherrix to worship Odin …” Not only did Judge Demps contrive a ‘law’ again, he managed to violate their 5th and 14th Amendment rights.

If that wasn’t enough, it leaves the hospital and physicians with an ethical predicament; a dilemma that would have been avoided if Judge Demps had signed himself as the law provides. Do they treat Abraham against his and his guardians’ wishes? Medical ethics prohibits treatment against a patient’s will, and by now they’re all aware the “consent” is fraudulent.

Finally, there’s more than enough case law of contested treatment when the patients survival-odds are better than Abraham’s. Newmark v. Williams denied state custody of a child with cancer where the chemotherapy would be highly invasive and painful, involve terrible side effects, pose an unacceptably low chance of success (40%) and a high risk of itself causing death.

The closed-doors of Virginia’s Juvenile Courts and the confidentiality of Social Service records were intended for minors’ protection. Instead we find them used dishonestly, shrouded under the false pretext of privacy concerns.

Monday, August 7th, 2006 at 1:50 am.
Comments and trackbacks are closed.