When I heard about this case—and checked out the facts—I knew that I could not sit on the sidelines and watch this family be overrun and parental rights be trashed by well-meaning but overzealous doctors.
I recently flew to Michigan and took the depositions of all three doctors who were scheduled to testify against the family.
Jacob’s treating physician is the key.
I prepared for the depositions by obtaining copies of the official “package inserts” that the FDA requires all drug companies to give to physicians and patients. Undoubtedly, you have seen these inserts when you have picked up prescriptions for your children.
The inserts tell you several things:
- Indicated uses—that is a list of the diseases for which there is evidence that the drug is a safe and effective treatment.
- Warnings—these are strong cautions that indicate serious potential issues.
- Side effects—these disclose all of the potential consequences that arise from taking the drug.
- Approved for children—there is a specific disclaimer on many drugs that indicate whether the drugs have been proven to be safe and effective for children.
“Have all of these drugs been approved by the FDA as safe and effective for children?” I asked Jacob’s treating oncologist.
“Yes,” she replied, they have been FDA-approved for children.
According to the official package inserts that we were able to obtain, she is just flat wrong.
She wanted to continue to give Ifosfamide to Jacob.
The FDA disclosure for this drug says: “Pediatric Use: Safety and effectiveness in pediatric patients have not been established.”
The oncologist wanted to give Jacob a weeks’ worth of Etoposide.
The FDA disclosure says: “Pediatric Use: Safety and effectiveness in pediatric patients have not been established.”
The warning on the drug Doxorubicin says: “Pediatric patients are at increased risk for developing delayed cardiotoxicity.” This means that the drug can cause severe harm to a child’s heart—at even higher rates than it can in adults.
In fact, as it turned out, the treating doctor had never even seen, much less read, these official FDA-required package inserts. She did state that she had seen similar information from other sources.
Most of the drugs did not list Jacob’s form of cancer as an “indicated use.” This means that these drugs had not been tested and validated as safe and effective for this particular kind of cancer—even for adults, much less for children.
And then we get to the official warnings and side effects.
In addition to the strong warnings about “congestive heart failure” from Doxorubicin, other drugs the doctor wanted to give were known to have caused cancer—new forms of cancer—in patients being treated for an original cancer. Vincristine’s label is typical of these warnings: “Patients who received chemotherapy with vinchristine sulfate in combination with anticancer drugs known to be carcinogenic have developed second malignancies.” The warning labels say that sometimes these second cancers develop years after the treatment.
All five of the drugs that the doctors want to give Jacob are either known to cause other cancers or have not been fully tested.
Some of the other side effects for these drugs include:
- Damage to the cranial motor nerves
- Serious infections
- Failure of boys to sexually mature
- The inability to father children
- Anorexia
It would take pages to recite all of the warnings and side effects.
Parental rights are increasingly being lost in the medical arena. I am beginning to wonder why physicians even bother asking for parental consent if they will just do an end run around the parents whenever it is convenient for them to do so.
This is not an easy case. It is not a case where a child has a current illness and the treatment is tested and proven to be safe and effective—those cases are easily resolved. The best evidence is that Jacob no longer has objective evidence of cancer. And not a single drug that the doctors want to give Jacob is FDA-approved for children for his kind of cancer.
This is a case where there must be a judgment call—a balancing of risks.
Who makes that call?
The doctor told me during the deposition that she thinks that she should make the call—for every child in this situation. And she would give the same answer every time, rather than making an individual judgment.
I can’t imagine a more clear case of the need for parental rights. This is a decision that requires the wisdom of God.
HSLDA was established to defend parental rights in the context of homeschooling. But the assault on parental rights comes to us on many fronts. This is why we have set up the Homeschool Freedom Fund to enable us to fight important cases for the broader principle of parental rights. Our regular membership fees do not stretch far enough to cover these kinds of cases. We truly need your help to be able to fight for the principles we all hold dear.
If you would like to stand with us in this critical battle for parental rights, I would ask you to send the very best gift you can to the Home School Foundation’s Homeschool Freedom Fund. All gifts to HSF are tax-deductible.
This trial is coming soon—we will send out email alerts if there is any change in the schedule.
Fighting a case of this magnitude is an expensive proposition. I hope you will be as generous as possible so that we may cover travel costs, local counsel, and deposition expenses—for this case and future cases where justice demands action to preserve freedom.
Our nation was founded upon the traditions of Western Civilization. This civilization was founded on the principles of the Word of God. God gives children to parents—not to the state, and not to doctors. In cases like this one, our legal system must remain steadfast in following the principle that God has delegated these kinds of decisions to parents, not to doctors, social workers, or courts.
Please pray for the Stieler family’s case and help as best you can. Thank you.
| 
No comments:
Post a Comment