Editorial: A healing compromise

Monday, Aug. 21, 2006 | 7:20 a.m.

A compromise that avoided pitting a teenage cancer patient and his parents against the social services officials in Virginia over whether the youth would receive chemotherapy has confronted a most contentious and emotional issue:

When is it OK for a parent to nix conventional, and potentially life-saving, medical treatment for a child?

In the matter of Starchild Abraham Cherrix, 16, it turned out it is acceptable for the teen to refuse a second round of chemotherapy and instead pursue alternative treatment for Hodgkins disease. Accomack County Department of Social Services officials had brought charges of medical neglect against the teen's parents but agreed to a compromise the day the case was to go to trial.

Cherrix has been using a treatment of herbal supplements and organic diet from Mexico - with his parents' blessing - since an initial round of chemotherapy made him ill and did not destroy his cancer. Past court decisions have secured the rights of parents to make medical treatment decisions for their children. But some states, such as Virginia where Cherrix lives, allow judges to intervene to protect the welfare of the child.

Such cases typically arise when parents' religious beliefs bar them from allowing children to receive life-saving medicines or procedures, such as blood transfusions. But Cherrix's case was different. At issue was whether the treatment regimen he and his parents had chosen was acceptable in the eyes of the law. Virginia state officials saw no clear-cut case of neglect and worked out a compromise.

Under the settlement, Cherrix must see a Mississippi oncologist who specializes in alternative, nutrition-based therapies. The teen also is allowed to continue the treatments from Mexico. He may receive radiation later.

It is a sensible solution to a dispute that illustrated the kind of struggle that can arise between parents exercising their rights and government fulfilling its obligation to protect children.