Health care decisions should be our own

By RHONDA CHRISS LOKEMAN
MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS
I bumped into a friend, a cancer survivor. Through the years, I'd seen her in good times and bad.
I'd seen her with a full head of hair and bald. Energetic and too exhausted to walk. When necessary, friends and family cooked for her, cleaned for her, transported her kid to and from school and to church.
Each time the cancer ricocheted inside her, she fought back.
When I last saw her, she said the cancer was back and something else that gave me pause. "I'm not going to do chemo anymore. I just can't," she said.
I said nothing as my mind processed this disturbing news. What about her child? Last year, I went to the funeral of another cancer-stricken mother.
After some tense moments of silence, it occurred to me that what my friend wanted to do really wasn't my business.
When people say "my cancer," they take ownership of the disease and how they will deal with it. The rest of us should accept their empowerment.
I turned to my friend and gave her a squeeze. "That must've been a tough decision for you," I said. I keep her in my prayers.
Two major cancer-related developments brought that encounter back to mind. Both involve cancer patients and chemotherapy.
Recently, a Virginia teenager won a legal battle allowing him to refuse chemotherapy for his Hodgkin's disease. Then on Aug. 16, the Journal of the National Cancer Institute published a report urging closer scrutiny of toxicity levels in chemotherapy patients (www.jncicancerspectrum.org).
Serious side effects
Researchers reported higher rates of eight serious side effects in breast cancer patients receiving chemo than in non-chemo patients. One in six women ended up in the emergency room with an infection, low blood count, dehydration or nausea.
What do a teenage Virginia boy and a middle-age Missouri woman have in common besides cancer? Patient rights.
This is a right-to-life issue you'd think conservatives would support. Instead, it's today's liberals who want less government intrusion and conservatives who want more. Terri Schiavo was the poster child for government meddling in a family quarrel.
In Virginia, however, the family of Starchild Abraham Cherrix was in agreement. The government disagreed. Cherrix claimed that earlier chemotherapies left him dazed and weakened. He wanted to give alternative treatments a chance. Social workers alleged parental neglect because his parents supported his wishes.
Alternative treatments, like traditional medicine, don't always work. Coretta Scott King had ovarian cancer, tried alternative treatments in Mexico and later died. But alternative treatment was what she wanted. Maybe it was Cherrix's New Age name that put him on the government radar. His family racked up legal fees and their medical privacy was needlessly violated. Until recently, this child's treatment choices were on hold until both sides compromised ahead of a scheduled hearing.
Consent decree
Circuit Judge Glen A. Tyler announced that lawyers and social workers had signed off on a consent decree. It vindicated the parents of neglect allegations and reaffirmed patient rights with the caveat that Cherrix be under the care of an oncologist board certified in radiation therapy. Radiation remains an option.
We're talking about cancer, not a communicable disease, so the government should have butted out. For that matter, there is nothing wrong with questioning traditional medicine and choosing not to use it. Currently, there's a debate about a possible link between the vaccine preservative thimerosal and autism. This warrants further study.
Given the chemo report in the medical journal, Cherrix and his parents may have chosen wisely. If not, they have to live with the decision. It's their business, not ours.
Rhonda Chriss Lokeman is a columnist for the Kansas City Star. Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.