It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: State of Texas Seizes Child to Enforce Radiation Treatment

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 11:44 PM
link   
In a case sure to incite some controversy, a young girl was seized by the state in Texas. The girl was taken from her parents to enforce a doctor's order to administer radiation therapy. The parents object, saying their daughter's cancer is in remission. The state issued an Amber alert to track down and take possession of the girl.
 



www.cnn.com
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.

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.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I can't say I'm surprised, honestly. The ever greater intrusion into our lives and liberty is so pronounced, so profound..it defies avoidance. The state now mandates the medications your children take, they can take them from school without alerting you, they can interview them or treat them for 'mental disease' without your consent. The state can lock you up for attempting to curtail this intrusion into private life.

I find this case very disturbing, and it's the latest in a series of similar incidents. I find it interesting that the parents are Christian, but they aren't approaching this from a religious freedom standpoint, they're approaching from a parental rights platform. Dare I say they might have had more success if they'd done things in reverse?

Parental rights are in a sad state already, even without this sort of precedent. I would be interested to know what people think about this development.




posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 06:14 AM
link   
This is some scary stuff. An amber alert for this child, like she was kidnapped by a pedophile or axe murderer? I'm sure the law was written in good intentions but like everything else, it's not idiot proof.

What bugs me the most is that a disgruntled in-law, grandparent, family member, or even just a neighbor can "tip off" the state authorities and they'll see fit to come and abduct your child. There's probably a lot of cases where it's necessary, but what happened to common sense?

What if these people had a second medical opinion that the child doesn't need radiation therapy right now? How would the state know and what makes "their" medical opinion more valid? What other choices that we make when raising our children will the state consider "possible neglect"?

Religion? Literature? Diet? Dress? Sports?



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Wow
It sounds like they won't even allow the family to see if other doctors agree -- now will the state take on the expense of the radiation treatment? I hate to bring it down to money since that isn't what the parents are protesting but if the state is saying she has to have it done and are taking her into their care they should foot the bill also.

I also didn't like that the The Werneckes' three sons were placed in a foster home.


What are the effects of radiation treatment -- are there things that can have repurcussions on this girl later on -- when the treatment may not be needed at this time. Will the radiation take her out of remission and put her on the cured list or is it a just in case?



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Under what law did they do this?



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by GodAtum
Under what law did they do this?


Texas State Law! Which I am sure is similar to most "child abuse" laws in every state...

The law is vague in some respects as it will prevent negligent parents from abusing a child, but it also leaves the door open for psycho doctors to inflict diagnosis and treatment on a 13 year old girl.


(4) "Neglect" includes:

(B) the following acts or omissions by a person:

(i) placing a child in or failing to remove a child from a situation that a reasonable person would realize requires judgment or actions beyond the child's level of maturity, physical condition, or mental abilities and that results in bodily injury or a substantial risk of immediate harm to the child;

(ii) failing to seek, obtain, or follow through with medical care for a child, with the failure resulting in or presenting a substantial risk of death, disfigurement, or bodily injury or with the failure resulting in an observable and material impairment to the growth, development, or functioning of the child;

www.familyrightsfoundation.org...


Considering that the radiation treatment will result in a serious deterioration of her current condition and perhaps have permanent effects, I wonder how the court is going to rule on this one? Her plea to be left alone can be seen here.


Just as an aside, want to know what else can be considered to be child abuse in Texas?


(b) The refusal of a parent, guardian, or managing or possessory conservator of a child to administer or consent to the administration of a psychotropic drug to the child, or to consent to any other psychiatric or psychological treatment of the child, does not by itself constitute neglect of the child unless the refusal to consent:

(1) presents a substantial risk of death, disfigurement, or bodily injury to the child; or

(2) has resulted in an observable and material impairment to the growth, development, or functioning of the child.



On the surface this sounds like a good plan, but any one who has experience with psychotropic drugs knows that they can be hit or miss and while they may cause some improvement in some areas, may also cause serious deterioration in others (ie: may prevent the subject from having harmful thoughts, but does so because they are virtually lobotomized.)

Considering that you can also be considered guilty of child abuse if you are witness to someone in violation and don't report it--meaning that if you a nosy neighbor and you overhear a conversation where you find out that the kid next door is off his meds (without knowing the reasons, of course)--this results in anonymous tips to Child Protection Services all the time.

And because in these cases, parents are guilty before proven innocent, it results in children erroneously being placed in foster care, sometimes for months, before a trial can occur.

In some cases, a child is removed from a dangerous situation--in other cases a loving family already facing difficulty is split up.

Obviously something is broken here.



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
An amber alert for this child, like she was kidnapped by a pedophile or axe murderer?


No doubt.

This, to me, seems a BLATANT raping of the alert system.

Hell this lends me to assume that Texas law enforcment SUCKS to resort to this tactic.

For this to happen can very well spark a vast array of misuses by the state powers now.

I can't think of any good examples, too pissed over this one (rare news does that to me).

Misfit



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 05:51 PM
link   
I think this is a very upsetting case for parents to read about. Can you imagine having this happen to you? You refuse to allow one of your children to be bombarded with dangerous radiation, and as a result the state steps in and takes all your children away!

I can't imagine what I'd do in the situation...

It's just unfathomable.

I think this does not bode well for the country, nor for Texas. This hasn't gotten any coverage so far, in the mainstream, has it? I haven't seen any new information about it, has anyone else?

This is one of those stories that will probably dissapear, and we're supposed to forget all about it, what with our short attention spans and all.


I think this could have caused some serious ripples in the pond if it had been widely distributed and discussed. Am I wrong?

If anyone has seen a good amount of reportage regarding this story, chime in, please. Just because I haven't seen it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I don't want to be saying it hasn't gotten any coverage, if it in fact has. So, correct me if I'm wrong.

Anyone living in Texas see this on local stations? I'm going to do some digging and see what the local outlets are reporting.



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Why have the parents now filed with the supreme court? If this happened to me, I would take my child under force, get into Mexico, give up my citizenship and then later on, hunt down the MF'ers who caused the problem and cap them.



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Since child abuse has been mentioned, I tend to think the media has not given us all of the details.

I for one would hate to jump to conclusions until all the facts are known.



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 06:45 PM
link   
I gotta say, my first instinct was along those lines as well...

Messing with a man's children..that's a crime punishable by death (except of course when our lord and master the state decides to do it, then it's sensible)


When it comes right down to it, parents, they're not your kids anymore, they belong to the state for all intents and purposes. You still have to do all the work, but the loving, protective over-mind will do all the thinking for you. And if you disagree with the decisions made on your behalf, you're pretty much out of luck.

This is America, ostensibly.

Edit:
Shots
The abuse in question, as far as I know, is the refusal to allow radiation therapy. That's abuse, apparently. If there's more to this story, I don't know about it. If you find out something else, please bring it to the discussion.

As it stands, the only abuse charges being levelled against these folks is for their failure to subject their child to more pain and suffering.

I've seen the effects of radiation first hand, it's not pretty. I personally would rather take my chances with cancer than let them pump me full of poison and bathe me in radiation.

[edit on 10-6-2005 by WyrdeOne]



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 06:46 PM
link   
None of you normally intelligent people flapping their gums have bothered to Google the parents name to really check into this story! You YAK, YAK, YAK, about how bad the law is, that's all!

To the original poster, check more than one source before stating 'facts'. Several doctors were contacted BEFORE the alert was given.

These parents belong to the same bunch that knock on your door on Saturday morning and try to convert you to their beliefs. In this case they DONT BELIEVE IN BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS unless it is from a parent. They are nuts!

If any of you 'DOCTORS' out there would bother to check into this a little deeper then you would understand the need for the alert and realise just how wacko the parents really are. If it is left up to them there is a very good chance this girl will die.

No I wont post links because I have better things to do than post links for people that dont bother to check out a story properly when posting it as NEWS under ATSNN.


[edit on 10-6-2005 by TexasConspiracyNut]



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 06:48 PM
link   


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.


This speaks for itself. They say it's not about religion but my gut feeling is that it is. She was just diagnosed in January, probably a bit too early to determine that her cancer is in remission, even if her parents pressured her to say she was feeling better. Even if she was, why let it progress until she starts suffering? You cannot just wait and see with cancer, it's a progressive condition. The doctors who initiated the intervention were most likely the ones treating her from the beginning, the ones familiar with her condition, not some group of state doctors that rifle through medical records looking for children to take away. Niether the parents or the child are medical professionals, and the article says NOTHING about the parents seeking any second opinions.

Letting a deadly disease run rampant in your child because of your religious beliefs, or even because you just think in your ignorant mind that your child is cured without any medical evidence is murder. It's funny how people jump all over child protective services when they fail to protect a child from abusive parents, but when they do what they're supposed to, the government is interfering in personal lives, bent on taking children from their loving parents.




[edit on 10-6-2005 by 27jd]



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   
of course, conservatives!


the state has eminent domain in the lives of every man woman and child in texas , as well as eminent domain in all real and personal property. all rights and remedies are forfeited the instant THE STATE stomps over to anyone who is asserting their individual liberty over the state's demands.

THE GIRL IS MATURE ENOUGH TO DECIDE; end of the story.





[edit on 10-6-2005 by victor was right]



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 06:59 PM
link   
TCN
You live up to your name sir.



None of you normally intelligent people flapping their gums have bothered to Google the parents name to really check into this story! You YAK, YAK, YAK, about how bad the parents are, that's all!


What? Nobody on this thread so far has said the parents are bad, although one person thought they should have been more violent, a sentiment I half agree with.



To the original poster, check more than one source before stating 'facts'. Several doctors were contacted BEFORE the alert was given.


And what does that have to do with anything? The facts in this case were made pretty clear by the article I posted. If you have specific issues with the treatment, why don't you take the time to list them so we can all learn a little. Otherwise, be out.



These parents belong to the same bunch that knock on your door on Saturday morning and try to convert you to their beliefs. In this case they DONT BELIEVE IN BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS unless it is from a parent. They are nuts!


So you have something against Christians? I think a few members of this board will take issue with that, considering we live in a country that was founded on the principle of freedom of religion. The parents are entitled to believe Jesus turned water into funk, and moonwalked across the sea of Galilea, if they're so inclined.



If any of you 'DOCTORS' out there would bother to check into this a little deeper then you would understand the need for the alert and realise just how wacko the parents really are. If it is left up to them there is a very good chance this girl will die.


There is a very good chance this girl will die regardless. Why don't you investigate the mortality rate for this particular cancer, and then come back to the thread appropriately humbled? As I already stated, if given the choice between a dignified death with clarity of mind, and a sick, puking, final bout of agony while my cell walls degenerate..well..can you guess which I'd pick?

Oh, and not like it matters to you or the state, but the girl doesn't want the treatment either. But you know best right? You and the state know what's best for her, better than she does, better than her parents do?



No I wont post links because I have better things to do than post links for people that dont bother to check out a story properly when posting it as NEWS under ATSNN.


You know, I noticed that this was ATSNN when I posted, and I was so aware of that fact, I chose to comport myself appropriately. Follow my lead.

Edit:
27jd
I think this might be about religion also, but to my mind, that doesn't matter nearly so much as the underlying question that needs to be answered. Does the definition of abuse overrule freedom of religion?

In some cases it's an easy answer, if some wacko thinks flogging his 8 year old niece gets him closer to god, he is probably not fit to be a parent. If someone believes the flu shot will make their child sick, and say no, does that make them abusive?

I think no. I think refusing potentialy harmful treatment is a grey area, but one that can be understood best by putting yourself in the shoes of the parent. Regardless of their beliefs, don't you think they should have the final say regarding what the doctors do to their child?

So, regardless of whether it's a relgious issue for the parents, it's not for me. I agree that the parents have strange beliefs, and I agree that those beliefs MAY end up harming the child. So is the FBI going to stake out the snake handler Christians and arrest them for allowing their children to play with rattlesnakes?

I think we need to develop some sort of national consensus on this larger issue.

I for one would not want my child to undergo radiation therapy. I've SEEN, with my own eyes, the damage done. I watched my mother suffer, and there is no way in hell I'd do that to my child. Now keep in mind, I'm not some religious wacko, I'm just a hard working American citizen who knows there are worse things than death.



[edit on 10-6-2005 by WyrdeOne]



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by victor was right
THE GIRL IS MATURE ENOUGH TO DECIDE; end of the story.


Really? A twelve year old is mature enough to decide? The same argument could be made by a forty year old man that molests a twelve year old girl, children that age are easy to manipulate. Just as this girl has been manipulated by her parents and church. I'll bet as she lay dying in agony she would be wishing she made a different decision. Once she's eighteen, if she wants to sacrifice herself because she's brainwashed, then she's old enough to decide.



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 07:16 PM
link   
The facts are the facts.

BTW, nothing personal. I find your other post imformative. In this case I think you are wrong. This is my opinion. No need to get upset. You DIDN"T do your research before posting this as FACT here.

In general you are a contribution to this groop.

I dont like BUSH, Texas law in GENERAL, BUT most of all I dont like people spouting off about things they know nothing about.



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 07:22 PM
link   
TCN
I did my research, and I posted an article that was filled with the very same facts you're accusing me of concealing.

From the CNN piece:


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."


Sorry for the long quote mods, it was necessary in my opinion, to insure the source material is well understood.

The article mentions the parents aversion to blood transfusions, and it mentions some other facts regarding the position of the parents, including their fear that the doctors are misleading them about radiation, their feelings that other treatments are warranted, and their statement that this is about parental rights, no religous rights.

I personally don't care what sort of rights this is about, for them. For me it's most certainly about parental rights.



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
I think this might be about religion also, but to my mind, that doesn't matter nearly so much as the underlying question that needs to be answered. Does the definition of abuse overrule freedom of religion?


I think so, should we allow a fundamental muslim not to enroll his daughter in school because he feels it's his religious duty not to? What about Satanists? Should they be allowed to make their children attend dark sexually oriented rituals that may harm the child mentally because it's their freedom to do so?



In some cases it's an easy answer, if some wacko thinks flogging his 8 year old niece gets him closer to god, he is probably not fit to be a parent.


The same goes for parents who allow their children to be eaten alive by disease.



If someone believes the flu shot will make their child sick, and say no, does that make them abusive?


The flu and lymphoma are two entirely different things. And the parent that believes a flu shot will make somebody sick is just ignorant, a flu shot is just a small amount of DEAD virus, unable to make you sick. That's a myth.



Regardless of their beliefs, don't you think they should have the final say regarding what the doctors do to their child?


That's a tough call, but if the child is going to die without treatment and the parents refuse treatment based on religious beliefs, then no I absolutely don't.



So is the FBI going to stake out the snake handler Christians and arrest them for allowing their children to play with rattlesnakes?


I've never seen children handling the snakes, but if they were, then somebody should step in. Those people also drink strichnyne, should they allow their children to do that too? If there were non-religious parents knowingly letting their children drink deadly poison, everybody would be outraged, you know that.



I for one would not want my child to undergo radiation therapy. I've SEEN, with my own eyes, the damage done. I watched my mother suffer, and there is no way in hell I'd do that to my child. Now keep in mind, I'm not some religious wacko, I'm just a hard working American citizen who knows there are worse things than death.


Pretty much all of us have had family members die of cancer, and many treatments carry the risk of side effects. I'm sorry to hear it didn't help your mother, but it has helped many others, and as of right now, radiation is many people's last hope.





[edit on 10-6-2005 by 27jd]

[edit on 10-6-2005 by 27jd]



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 07:39 PM
link   
OK Cool;

How about reading a local paper. This is from the Houston paper:

www.chron.com...

"But CPS officials say that doctors who have examined the girl believe her life could be in danger if she doesn't receive radiation therapy.

"We are relying heavily on medical experts," said CPS spokeswoman Mary Walker. "And based on what the medical experts are telling us, this would be in the best interest of that child."

_____________________________________________________________

I have seen first hand the scene your family has gone through, my prayers are with you and yours, and I understand your objections to this however, I still think you research in this matter is biased upon your personal experiences and should not be included in this general discussion.



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Welcome to the NWO of the USA, it seems that when it comes to Texas and Florida they are making the head line news lately more than any other state in the country.

This is another hint of things to come to a nearest neighborhood. Patriot act make permanent, state taking over your children.

Federal government telling you how to live and how to die, women internal organs to be regulated.

Its going to be a wonderful country indeed.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join