Originally published June 23 2005
Young cancer patient put in state custody after parents refuse radiation treatments
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
The Times in Britian features this article about a custody battle between the state and a cancer patient's family, who say her cancer is in remission and she doesn't need radiation therapy. This is a clear case of the State forcing dangerous western medicine onto a family that has chosen to avoid radiation treatments. The message? If you don't medicate your children the way WE want you to, we'll take your children from you and medicate them ourselves. So much for health freedom�
A 12-YEAR-OLD cancer victim is at the centre of a legal tussle between her parents and state officials in Texas about who will decide her treatment.
Katie Wernecke was taken into protective custody by state welfare officials after her parents refused to submit her to the radiation treatment that doctors say she urgently needs.
Edward and Michele Wernecke said that one doctor had told them that Katie's Hodgkins disease, diagnosed in January, was in remission.
The side-effects of radiation would threaten her long-term health, they contend.
But the weight of medical opinion is overwhelmingly in favour of radiation to follow the chemotherapy she recently finished.
Darrell Azar, of the Texas child protective services, said: "She could die if she doesn't get this treatment."
State authorities tracked Katie to a ranch where she was with her mother.
They also took her three brothers, aged between 2 and 14, into custody.
Before they were taken, the Werneckes shot a home video in which Katie states her case to be spared further treatment.
"I have been fine for two months since the last chemo treatment," she said.
"I am gaining weight and my hair is coming back.
However, the Werneckes concede that they have failed to recruit a single doctor to agree with them.
Religion has been a controversial undercurrent to the dispute.
The Werneckes belong to the Church of God, a Pentecostal church that opposes blood transfusions for a child unless they are from the mother.
The family's lawyers insist that the issue is about parental, not religious rights, and have won the court's backing.
Judge Carl Lewis, who will rule in the case next week, said he will not be taking religion into account.
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml