On the radio this morning I heard about a 16-year-old Chincoteague teen with Hodgkin's Disease who refuses to undergo a second round of chemotherapy treatment, because the first round didn't work and he didn't tolerate the chemo very well. He wants to pursue alternative treatments, and his parents support him. It's a sad story, but to my way of thinking, not terribly controversial.

At least until the state stepped in, that is. The doctors called social services, because they think the parents are abusing the kid by letting him refuse treatment, and now it's a big court battle. The state is actually trying to remove the kid from his parents's custody so they can perform chemotherapy on him. The Richmond Times-Dispatch has a little more information: Teen testifies in his treatment case.

There aren't enough details to make an informed judgment, but on the surface this looks like a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money and a blatant attempt to tread on the rights of private citizens. I'll admit that anyone who names their kid "Starchild Abraham" should be viewed with suspicion, but beyond that I can't see where there's any harm being done here. This family is already in turmoil because of the kid's cancer, do we really need to make their lives worse by tearing them apart? I could understand the state intervening if there was a threat to the community, but refusal of treatment is actually beneficial -- it costs less money and time, and those doctors could work on someone else. The kid sounded lucid from the little bit I heard him say on the radio; ie. he seemed aware of his actions and their consequences. If I were the kid's parent, I'd probably support him too.

The only thing that might change my mind is more information about the kid's prognosis. I'm assuming it isn't good, but Wikipedia thinks that most people can be cured of Hodgkin's. It seems like a bad omen, though, when the first attempt at treatment didn't work.