1. I suppose social workers SOMETIMES know better what to do for us. But in this case boy has already passed traditional treatment. And he understands that this time he can die. So he's choice is right. But how to explain it for others? I understand him, but what about others?

Posted at 4:14PM on Jul 12th 2006 by Jala

2. It is not a case that all chemotherapy is bad, but the "wrong" chemotherapy surely is. His chemotherapy did not work the first time because it most likely was the wrong chemotherapy. I wouldn't encourage him to seek alternative methods, just like I wouldn't encourage him to go back to the same "trial-and-error," "hit-or-miss" cancer treatment they gave him in the first place. The average treatment for the average patient cannot possibly work all the time because there are no average cancer patients. Each patient's cancer is unique. Because of this, patients respond differently to the same anticancer drugs. His treatment should have been tailored to his cancer, not his cancer being tailored to his treatment. Make sure the first-line chemotherapy has a reasonable chance at doing the job.

Posted at 4:35PM on Jul 12th 2006 by Gregory D. Pawelski

3. You may say the chemo 'worked' the first time because the cancer temporarily went away. But for whatever reason he contracted the disease in the first place, his body, cells, immune system will still be in that state after chemo, so wouldn't it seem apparent that the cancer would remanifest itself?? I applaud the family for taking this stand. He needs to correct what is CAUSING the cancer, not put poisons in his body to make it temporarily disappear. And why do we accept that a '5 year survival rate' is OK? It's not!! Chemo doesn't CURE cancer, and I hope that his alternative treatment does.

Posted at 10:08AM on Jul 13th 2006 by Debbie

4. This is pretty tricky. The boy seems to believe a new round of chemo will kill him. He says he almost died during the first round. I believe him. I think we often know what's best for us. His age has nothing to do with it. In 1971 one of my very best friends, Gene Wenk, died of Hogkins Disease at 26. According to his aunt,it was a horrible death with him asking people to pull the tubes and let him die (luckily I was in Michigan and he was in Boston and I didn't have to decide what to do. I didn't know he was dying. He told me the last time I talked to him that he was doing fine. I know he didn't want me to worry. Then I got the call that was dead.)....I hope the boy's new therapy works and if it doesn't that today's hospice care-if it comes to that-can really ease the pain. We have come a long way since 1971 with Hodgkins AND pain control. I am behind him 100%. I really really want him to get better. I think he knows in his heart what's best.

Posted at 9:51PM on Jul 13th 2006 by Nelson Rasmussen

5. I do not think the justice system should have any role in deciding treatment! Further, its the Pharmaceutical Companies that make BIG profits from people being SICK! It is Nobel Prize Winner Dr. Linus Pauling who discovered every sickness, disease, and illness can be traced to a mineral dificieny. Thus, I do not blam Mr. Cherrix having the desire to seek alternative forms of treatment. Its the FDA and the Pharmacy Industry that is only concerned about their Huge Profits and they will do whatever it takes to force people to use the drugs and treatment that the medical professionals will prescribe! go to www.repairedcell.com for more information!

Posted at 1:24PM on Jul 14th 2006 by Gary Hundley

6. Hey, does the medical industry really get to the root of the problem or do they only treat the symtems with more meds and drugs? Mr. Cherrix should be allowed to make the decisions and move forward without delay and seek alternative treatment. Afterall, he may be seeking wellness and have the opportunity to live a healthy life. Give him a chance! Its the medical and pharmacy professionals who are afraid of the alternative methods cutting into their BIG Profits!

Posted at 1:30PM on Jul 14th 2006 by Gary Hundley

7. When the medical and pharmaceutical industry learns to treat the root of an illness/disease then I'm sure all would have more faith in the treatments available. It is Dr Linus Pauling who won 2 Nobel Prize Awards for discovering that every sickness, disease, illness is due to a Mineral Dificiency. I think Mr Cherrix should be allowed to make a decision to follow a more alternative and conservative roadmap to better health. Afterall, its the BIG Pharmacy and FDA that fears the "alternative" might heal and in doing so will cut into their HUGE PROFITS! Again, Mr Cherrix, regardless of age, should be allowed to proceed without any further delay so he can seek a healthier life ahead! Meanwhile, the justice sytem should not be involved!

Posted at 1:42PM on Jul 14th 2006 by Gary Hundley

8. ITs ironic that they think they are trying to protect the teen from abuse. Do they have any idea what chemo does to someone. That, is abuse. I believe some people live dispite chemotherapy not because of it. And the people that do live after chemo happen to be a very very small percentage. In Europe they are using the cut and run approach with much more success. After my third reccurance I went to europe for treatment and have experienced the longest remission by far without the U.S's lethal chemo.

Posted at 8:50AM on Jul 24th 2006 by Melina

9. It is a basic premise of our society that a person has a right to refuse unwanted medical treatment. In this case, the patient is an almost-adult whose parents are supportive of his decision making. Social Services is wrong in calling his parents neglectful. The government is completely intruding on a very personal choice here.

Posted at 7:22PM on Jul 25th 2006 by Pamela K.

10. That's very complicated question. The answer is yes and no... Yes, SOMETIMES we should force people to use some kinds of treatment, but only if they don't know what they are doing (you know, sometimes people are unaware of the treatment efficiency). But SOMETIMES we must let the survivor to choose his destiny...

Posted at 11:05AM on Aug 13th 2006 by Asa

11. That's very complicated question. The answer is yes and no... Yes, SOMETIMES we should force people to use some kinds of treatment, but only if they don't know what they are doing (you know, sometimes people are unaware of the treatment efficiency). But SOMETIMES we must let the survivor to choose his destiny...

Posted at 11:07AM on Aug 13th 2006 by Asa