This Blog is Full Please Visit New Site
Please visit the new site Pray for Katie 1
posted by Katie W. @ Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Sunday, June 11, 2006
Katie Celebrates Her 14th Birthday At Home
On June 11th Katie celebrated her 14th birthday at home with family and friends. Katie is 2nd from right in the pool picture below. The picture on the left is Katie with her father. Katie is doing very well as you can see but she is not cancer free yet so there is still a battle to win. She is in better physical condition than ever. Contrary to reports we are not in hiding or getting some secret treatments. It is just unknown to the press. Katie had a wonderful time with friends from school and church, and relatives all present. The battle has been about medical freedom for our children. Recently another teenage boy faced that battle, and partly because of Katie's case, he won the right to seek alternative treatment. The legal documents are all posted below for your use. There are no easy answers for cancer and each must make their own choices. 
Our government and medical establishment has lost the War on Cancer after billions were spent on research and squandered. You can't cure something if you don't even know the cause of it. All you can do is treat the symptoms. Chemotherapy and radiation are not solutions; although it seems to help a few in the short run, the use of these does nothing but cause cancer again. You have been lied to. The use of mamograms will cause more breast cancer, there are safer alternative detection methods such as thermography.
We are in a crisis when 40% of Americans will eventually develop cancer. Who will be left to take care of these people and pay their bills. It is time to research all alternatives and find the cause of cancer and cures. It's time the public took a stand and demand it. Nothing will happen or change unless the public and you demand it! We must all speak out with one message and now!
Edward
posted by Katie W. @ Sunday, June 11, 2006
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Katie Leaves State For Treatment
Girl, dad gone, perhaps months, for cancer battle
By kathryn garcia Caller-Times May 9, 2006
Katie Wernecke, who was at the center of a state custody battle last year, was withdrawn from Banquete Junior High School last month and has moved out of state with her father to receive a new alternative cancer treatment.
The 13-year-old eighth-grader and her father, Edward Wernecke, are staying at an undisclosed treatment center out of state where they could be for months, Edward Wernecke said during a brief phone conversation Monday.
"I really can't say anything because it could jeopardize her treatment," Wernecke said. He would not elaborate on the treatments or where they were, saying the treatment center requested the family not speak with media.
He did, however, say the treatment was beyond the alternative intravenous Vitamin C injections that Katie had been receiving three times a week at her Agua Dulce home since November, when she returned home and went back to school.
Banquete Junior High Principal Eusebio Torres said that before Katie left in early April, she seemed weaker, more tired and wasn't acting herself, but he, the staff and the students remain hopeful.
"We told her dad that when she feels better, we hope to see her again and if not this year, then maybe next year in high school," Torres said. "We just don't know. Nobody knows."
Child Protective Services removed Katie from her home in June after her parents refused radiation treatments for Hodgkin's disease because they feared the potential side effects. Katie was reunited with her parents and three brothers in November after a five-month legal battle that reached the Texas Supreme Court. Ultimately, a district court judge ruled that Katie be returned to her parents and that they be allowed to make all her medical decisions.
While in state care, Katie underwent chemotherapy treatments at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, where doctors in November gave her as little as a 25 percent chance of survival, down from 85 percent in August. Dr. Ron Hunninghake, who treated Katie with the intravenous Vitamin C treatment, said in November that Katie had a better-than-average prognosis.
Hunninghake did not return phone calls Monday.
Katie's mother, Michele Wernecke, wouldn't comment about her daughter's condition and treatment, but said she was optimistic and missed Katie being at home with her and her three other children, who still are enrolled in Banquete schools.
"God willing, everything is going to be OK," she said.
Katie's former language arts teacher Gracie Bourlon hopes the same. She said she even keeps Katie's notebook for when she returns.
"She's like a best friend that lives far away and when she comes back, it will be like she never left," Bourlon said.
It's been more than a month since 12-year-old Shelby Rebecek has seen her friend. The last time she saw her, Katie was a guest at her birthday party.
"We're hoping for the best," Shelby said. "It's scary to us because we're so close to it."
Copyright 2006, Caller.com. All Rights Reserved.
(Note the above article was published without our conscent and is very inaccurate. We are not in hiding and did not move out of state. We have actually already been to 5 states for treatments. A companion Washington Times article is titled: "Texas Cancer Girl Receives Secret Treatment". On a condition of receiving treatments there can be no publicity at all. That is why there has been no communication on this website for months. We cannot tell you what we are doing or where we are at simply because the doctors and hospital would refuse to continue treatments. Katie's tumor grew in March but now is receding with the new treatments. Katie is doing very well and has 2 inch long curly hair now.
By kathryn garcia Caller-Times May 9, 2006
Katie Wernecke, who was at the center of a state custody battle last year, was withdrawn from Banquete Junior High School last month and has moved out of state with her father to receive a new alternative cancer treatment.
The 13-year-old eighth-grader and her father, Edward Wernecke, are staying at an undisclosed treatment center out of state where they could be for months, Edward Wernecke said during a brief phone conversation Monday.
"I really can't say anything because it could jeopardize her treatment," Wernecke said. He would not elaborate on the treatments or where they were, saying the treatment center requested the family not speak with media.
He did, however, say the treatment was beyond the alternative intravenous Vitamin C injections that Katie had been receiving three times a week at her Agua Dulce home since November, when she returned home and went back to school.
Banquete Junior High Principal Eusebio Torres said that before Katie left in early April, she seemed weaker, more tired and wasn't acting herself, but he, the staff and the students remain hopeful.
"We told her dad that when she feels better, we hope to see her again and if not this year, then maybe next year in high school," Torres said. "We just don't know. Nobody knows."
Child Protective Services removed Katie from her home in June after her parents refused radiation treatments for Hodgkin's disease because they feared the potential side effects. Katie was reunited with her parents and three brothers in November after a five-month legal battle that reached the Texas Supreme Court. Ultimately, a district court judge ruled that Katie be returned to her parents and that they be allowed to make all her medical decisions.
While in state care, Katie underwent chemotherapy treatments at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, where doctors in November gave her as little as a 25 percent chance of survival, down from 85 percent in August. Dr. Ron Hunninghake, who treated Katie with the intravenous Vitamin C treatment, said in November that Katie had a better-than-average prognosis.
Hunninghake did not return phone calls Monday.
Katie's mother, Michele Wernecke, wouldn't comment about her daughter's condition and treatment, but said she was optimistic and missed Katie being at home with her and her three other children, who still are enrolled in Banquete schools.
"God willing, everything is going to be OK," she said.
Katie's former language arts teacher Gracie Bourlon hopes the same. She said she even keeps Katie's notebook for when she returns.
"She's like a best friend that lives far away and when she comes back, it will be like she never left," Bourlon said.
It's been more than a month since 12-year-old Shelby Rebecek has seen her friend. The last time she saw her, Katie was a guest at her birthday party.
"We're hoping for the best," Shelby said. "It's scary to us because we're so close to it."
Copyright 2006, Caller.com. All Rights Reserved.
(Note the above article was published without our conscent and is very inaccurate. We are not in hiding and did not move out of state. We have actually already been to 5 states for treatments. A companion Washington Times article is titled: "Texas Cancer Girl Receives Secret Treatment". On a condition of receiving treatments there can be no publicity at all. That is why there has been no communication on this website for months. We cannot tell you what we are doing or where we are at simply because the doctors and hospital would refuse to continue treatments. Katie's tumor grew in March but now is receding with the new treatments. Katie is doing very well and has 2 inch long curly hair now.
posted by Katie W. @ Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Friday, March 17, 2006
Katie's Update
We continue to be quite busy. Katie's hair has grown out and she is really cute in this short hair style. I have some new pictures to post shortly so you can see for yourself. We are continuing to explore additional treatment options for Katie.
Here is a book that we highly recommend. Actually you get the 4 books on the right, and on each purchase $22 of the purchase price goes directly for Katie's treatments.
Please consider purchasing these books for yourself or someone you know who has cancer. This is the best and most complete source of information on the internet.
Over 350 gentle and non-toxic natural and alternative cancer treatments. Over 2,000 testimonials from people who used these treatments to beat their cancer. If cancer has touched your life or someone you know, please, download these ebooks NOW. They come highly recommended.
Please click here to get NATURAL CANCER TREATMENTS.
Here is a book that we highly recommend. Actually you get the 4 books on the right, and on each purchase $22 of the purchase price goes directly for Katie's treatments.
Please consider purchasing these books for yourself or someone you know who has cancer. This is the best and most complete source of information on the internet.
Over 350 gentle and non-toxic natural and alternative cancer treatments. Over 2,000 testimonials from people who used these treatments to beat their cancer. If cancer has touched your life or someone you know, please, download these ebooks NOW. They come highly recommended.
Please click here to get NATURAL CANCER TREATMENTS.
posted by Katie W. @ Friday, March 17, 2006
Monday, February 13, 2006
Katie's Blood Test Good, Keep Her in Your Prayers
Complete blood tests and a comprehensive metabolic panel done on Tuesday this week looked good and improved from previous tests. She still has a long battle to fight. Please continue to keep Katie in your prayers. The prayer pager hasn't been going off as often as it used too. With God's help and your prayers we will beat this cancer and Katie will survive.
posted by Katie W. @ Monday, February 13, 2006
Sunday, February 12, 2006
13 Year Old Katie Fights the Establishment
The following article was found on the http://alternativecancer.us/katie.htm site, while looking through some cancer alternatative treatments. Although this was written back in November and is now out of date, the story needs to be retold from a fresh point of view.
13 Year Old Katie Fights the Establishment
For most 13-year-old kids, summer is a time to enjoy the freedom of long days and warm weather with family and friends; fireworks on the 4th of July; trips to the beach; making plans for the final year of middle school. Katie Wernecke didn't have that type of summer. This summer, the Texas legal system supported the local medical establishment in trying to bully Katie into undergoing a cancer treatment she and her parents had decided against. She was removed from her home, taken from the care of her parents and siblings, and allowed only very limited contact with her mother.
This divide-and-conquer strategy would have worked with most kids of Katie's age. But Katie isn't your typical 13-year-old. When the time came to inject her with high-dose chemotherapy, Katie said no. And when doctors tried to force her, she boldly and repeatedly resisted. Finally, they admitted they couldn't make her accept the treatment unless she cooperated. Can you imagine the guts it took for a 13-year-old, without her parents by her side, to give a flat, unconditional "no" to a team of doctors and nurses?
Opinions of Patients Will Not Be Tolerated
This insane situation could have easily been avoided if some members of Katie's medical team had not been so arrogant and if Texas Child Protection Services (TCPS) had not been so narrow minded.
Last June I sent you the e-Alert "Amber Ambush" (6/15/05) with details about Katie's story. In a nutshell: After undergoing several months of chemo treatments for Hodgkin's disease, Katie's cancer was in remission and her doctor prescribed radiation as a preventive measure. Katie and her parents said no, based on the possible long-range side effects of radiation in the upper body (including damage to the heart muscle, lungs, spine and thyroid gland, a high risk of breast cancer and hormonal disruption). The Werneckes said they wanted to investigate less harmful treatment options.
This was unacceptable, according to Katie's doctor, who was so certain that his plan for Katie's treatment was the one and only course of action that he reported the Werneckes to TCPS. For the unforgivable offense of disagreeing with a doctor, Katie was removed from her family and ordered to undergo treatments. Just as all this was happening, Katie's cancer was found to be active again. At that point her parents agreed to additional chemo treatments, but not radiation.
Finally Some Good News
Court hearings continued throughout the summer, with the Werneckes fighting for custody of their daughter while Katie refused treatment. Then, last week a small ray of good news came from the Texas Supreme Court. Recognizing that Katie's parents are not monsters who would do their daughter harm, the court wisely overturned two lower court rulings:
Katie's father may now visit her
Katie's mother may now visit without being forced to promise authorities that she will encourage Katie to comply with the treatment plan
If this seems like small potatoes, it is. But the Werneckes - especially Katie's dad - are grateful to have more access to their daughter, even though visits are still strictly supervised. If a supervisor determines that Katie's parents are encouraging her to refuse any treatment, permission to visit their daughter will be revoked. Is this how you "care" for a cancer patient? Especially a patient who's a child?
Tyranny of Experts
Less than two weeks ago Katie's mother visited her daughter and encouraged her to allow further chemo treatments. Katie agreed, and this is most likely a good decision. Chemotherapy is used on a wide range of cancers, but most cancer patients don't realize that only nine types of cancer have been proven "highly responsive" to chemo. Hodgkin's disease is one of them.
Katie's doctors continue to recommend radiation therapy after four more months of chemo, so how her long-range treatment will play out is still unresolved. Attorneys for the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services have stated in court that the Werneckes are "medically neglectful" for refusing radiation. Apparently these attorneys are blissfully unaware of the irony of that statement. Hello! Earth to Texas! Removing an ailing child from loving parents is neglectful in ways you apparently can't conceive of.
In a U.S. News and World Report article about Katie's case, Bernadine Healy, M.D., notes that Texas state officials are mistakenly convinced that radiation treatment is the standard of care in this instance. Dr. Healy's article is appropriately titled "The Tyranny of Experts." Dr. Healy quotes James Nachman, M.D., a pediatric oncologist and a professor of pediatrics at the University of Chicago medical school. Dr. Nachman states that he approves of intervention by child services when it's a matter of life or death. And he adds that the use of radiation in a case like Katie's is NOT a case of life or death.
A new hearing to decide on Katie's custody will be held on November 18th. I'll watch for the results and keep you posted.
13 Year Old Katie Fights the Establishment
For most 13-year-old kids, summer is a time to enjoy the freedom of long days and warm weather with family and friends; fireworks on the 4th of July; trips to the beach; making plans for the final year of middle school. Katie Wernecke didn't have that type of summer. This summer, the Texas legal system supported the local medical establishment in trying to bully Katie into undergoing a cancer treatment she and her parents had decided against. She was removed from her home, taken from the care of her parents and siblings, and allowed only very limited contact with her mother.
This divide-and-conquer strategy would have worked with most kids of Katie's age. But Katie isn't your typical 13-year-old. When the time came to inject her with high-dose chemotherapy, Katie said no. And when doctors tried to force her, she boldly and repeatedly resisted. Finally, they admitted they couldn't make her accept the treatment unless she cooperated. Can you imagine the guts it took for a 13-year-old, without her parents by her side, to give a flat, unconditional "no" to a team of doctors and nurses?
Opinions of Patients Will Not Be Tolerated
This insane situation could have easily been avoided if some members of Katie's medical team had not been so arrogant and if Texas Child Protection Services (TCPS) had not been so narrow minded.
Last June I sent you the e-Alert "Amber Ambush" (6/15/05) with details about Katie's story. In a nutshell: After undergoing several months of chemo treatments for Hodgkin's disease, Katie's cancer was in remission and her doctor prescribed radiation as a preventive measure. Katie and her parents said no, based on the possible long-range side effects of radiation in the upper body (including damage to the heart muscle, lungs, spine and thyroid gland, a high risk of breast cancer and hormonal disruption). The Werneckes said they wanted to investigate less harmful treatment options.
This was unacceptable, according to Katie's doctor, who was so certain that his plan for Katie's treatment was the one and only course of action that he reported the Werneckes to TCPS. For the unforgivable offense of disagreeing with a doctor, Katie was removed from her family and ordered to undergo treatments. Just as all this was happening, Katie's cancer was found to be active again. At that point her parents agreed to additional chemo treatments, but not radiation.
Finally Some Good News
Court hearings continued throughout the summer, with the Werneckes fighting for custody of their daughter while Katie refused treatment. Then, last week a small ray of good news came from the Texas Supreme Court. Recognizing that Katie's parents are not monsters who would do their daughter harm, the court wisely overturned two lower court rulings:
Katie's father may now visit her
Katie's mother may now visit without being forced to promise authorities that she will encourage Katie to comply with the treatment plan
If this seems like small potatoes, it is. But the Werneckes - especially Katie's dad - are grateful to have more access to their daughter, even though visits are still strictly supervised. If a supervisor determines that Katie's parents are encouraging her to refuse any treatment, permission to visit their daughter will be revoked. Is this how you "care" for a cancer patient? Especially a patient who's a child?
Tyranny of Experts
Less than two weeks ago Katie's mother visited her daughter and encouraged her to allow further chemo treatments. Katie agreed, and this is most likely a good decision. Chemotherapy is used on a wide range of cancers, but most cancer patients don't realize that only nine types of cancer have been proven "highly responsive" to chemo. Hodgkin's disease is one of them.
Katie's doctors continue to recommend radiation therapy after four more months of chemo, so how her long-range treatment will play out is still unresolved. Attorneys for the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services have stated in court that the Werneckes are "medically neglectful" for refusing radiation. Apparently these attorneys are blissfully unaware of the irony of that statement. Hello! Earth to Texas! Removing an ailing child from loving parents is neglectful in ways you apparently can't conceive of.
In a U.S. News and World Report article about Katie's case, Bernadine Healy, M.D., notes that Texas state officials are mistakenly convinced that radiation treatment is the standard of care in this instance. Dr. Healy's article is appropriately titled "The Tyranny of Experts." Dr. Healy quotes James Nachman, M.D., a pediatric oncologist and a professor of pediatrics at the University of Chicago medical school. Dr. Nachman states that he approves of intervention by child services when it's a matter of life or death. And he adds that the use of radiation in a case like Katie's is NOT a case of life or death.
A new hearing to decide on Katie's custody will be held on November 18th. I'll watch for the results and keep you posted.
posted by Katie W. @ Sunday, February 12, 2006
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
The Truth and Nothing But the Truth, Thats All You'll Get Here
Sorry for the delay in posting information to the blog. There were technical difficulties to resolve. I reached the 1 meg limit. I have had to delete a few posts and discontinue comments to buy a little new space.
As a rancher we are in a terrible drought so half my time is spent caring for Katie and the other half spent feeding the cows. This blog is not a priority for me right now. I realize people want to know, but Katie wants her privacy. We turned down numerous TV appearances like CNN and ABC and others. It is also not safe to paste specific medical information on this blog. We are still being watched and scrutinized and so legally we cannot post this information. I can tell you that Katie is ok and is under the care of two doctors, one who is a radiologist. Katie is doing ok, she attends school daily, and is seen by the community daily. The Rebecca Poe comment says it all.
Posts will be infrequent and likely only on Saturday or Sunday. The comment section will be shut off again, because such negativity is not good for Katie or us. The comments are full of misinformation and out right lies and slander. We know that most of these are being done my Margie, Katie's foster mom in Houston. Everything she said is a lie i.e. being able to visit, writing a book for a million dollars, starting and stopping treatments, caring for Katie, and getting kicked out of church. None of these things are true. If she cared for Katie, Katie would have had good things to say about her and she does not. She did things like pull her out of school 1.5 hours early every day just so she could be home for the other girl. She never bought her clothes she needed, yet she received over $600 a month to care for her plus travel expenses. Katie could add a lot more information if you Margie want to keep slandering us with outright lies. Other posts are coming from M.D. Anderson itself. In fact M.D. Anderson itself caused all the delays in treatment. Margie sat there and did nothing when Katie drank that coke and she was supposed to be caring for and watching her. We were banned during this time. Katie herself refused the High Dose Chemo and M.D. Anderson sat there and did nothing for 30 days. I will remind you that M.D. Anderson treated her with Phase I clinical trial chemicals, in which only two treatments were allowed and they used four treatments of these unproven and unsafe chemicals on my daughter. Katie wasn't even placed in that Phase I Clinical Trial, nor did that have a right to use these experimental treatments on our daughter. I believe these things contributed to her chances being lowered to 20%. CPS and M.D. Anderson handed her back because they didn't want her to die in their care. Now if she dies we will be blamed and probably go to jail for it. How convienient. She had no active cancer when they took her and her immune system was taking over. We were actively seaking care at the time.
It is a different situation now and we are doing our best to see that she beats this cancer and recovers. That's what happens when over zealous doctors and the government sticks its nose into families lives where they do not belong. If you want to help then give us prayer, support and information we can use to beat this cancer. If you want to prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again, then contact your Texas legislaturers and insist that they fix the problem. One fix is to change the law to allow an immediate trial by jury in family courts. As it stands now you can't get a trial for at least 12 months.
As a rancher we are in a terrible drought so half my time is spent caring for Katie and the other half spent feeding the cows. This blog is not a priority for me right now. I realize people want to know, but Katie wants her privacy. We turned down numerous TV appearances like CNN and ABC and others. It is also not safe to paste specific medical information on this blog. We are still being watched and scrutinized and so legally we cannot post this information. I can tell you that Katie is ok and is under the care of two doctors, one who is a radiologist. Katie is doing ok, she attends school daily, and is seen by the community daily. The Rebecca Poe comment says it all.
Posts will be infrequent and likely only on Saturday or Sunday. The comment section will be shut off again, because such negativity is not good for Katie or us. The comments are full of misinformation and out right lies and slander. We know that most of these are being done my Margie, Katie's foster mom in Houston. Everything she said is a lie i.e. being able to visit, writing a book for a million dollars, starting and stopping treatments, caring for Katie, and getting kicked out of church. None of these things are true. If she cared for Katie, Katie would have had good things to say about her and she does not. She did things like pull her out of school 1.5 hours early every day just so she could be home for the other girl. She never bought her clothes she needed, yet she received over $600 a month to care for her plus travel expenses. Katie could add a lot more information if you Margie want to keep slandering us with outright lies. Other posts are coming from M.D. Anderson itself. In fact M.D. Anderson itself caused all the delays in treatment. Margie sat there and did nothing when Katie drank that coke and she was supposed to be caring for and watching her. We were banned during this time. Katie herself refused the High Dose Chemo and M.D. Anderson sat there and did nothing for 30 days. I will remind you that M.D. Anderson treated her with Phase I clinical trial chemicals, in which only two treatments were allowed and they used four treatments of these unproven and unsafe chemicals on my daughter. Katie wasn't even placed in that Phase I Clinical Trial, nor did that have a right to use these experimental treatments on our daughter. I believe these things contributed to her chances being lowered to 20%. CPS and M.D. Anderson handed her back because they didn't want her to die in their care. Now if she dies we will be blamed and probably go to jail for it. How convienient. She had no active cancer when they took her and her immune system was taking over. We were actively seaking care at the time.
It is a different situation now and we are doing our best to see that she beats this cancer and recovers. That's what happens when over zealous doctors and the government sticks its nose into families lives where they do not belong. If you want to help then give us prayer, support and information we can use to beat this cancer. If you want to prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again, then contact your Texas legislaturers and insist that they fix the problem. One fix is to change the law to allow an immediate trial by jury in family courts. As it stands now you can't get a trial for at least 12 months.
posted by Katie W. @ Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Friday, February 03, 2006
This Comment Says It All
We really loved having the boys for a few hours the other day. They are such a joy. I love seeing a completness and trust with you all having Katie back. Family is such a powerful thing,God put you all together so wonderfully, you make a beautiful family. I remember the first time I ever saw Katie she was six or seven running full speed with the sun catching her golden hair. She looks so happy to be with you all now. I,like so many people check this blog every day. It is hard when there is time between posts. But when I see you in person I see the struggle to tell everyone the latest details and the fear that any miss step will do more harm. Please let me apologize for all of us out there who are pushing with our want to know. We are Faithful in our support. We will still love you when you don't know what to say. We will give you room to love your child to breath her in. To put her security and trust back together. If there is no medical news I understand. Please dont put Katie's details out here where your enemys can use it.
Love Rebecca
Love Rebecca
posted by Katie W. @ Friday, February 03, 2006
Friday, January 13, 2006
Katie is Doing Ok
We are going for a new MRI next week and that should tell us about Katie's cancer and whether treatments have been effective. We are still doing the IVC therapy three times a week. Please continue to pray for Katie's complete healing and recovery.
Thanks
Edward
Thanks
Edward
posted by Katie W. @ Friday, January 13, 2006
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Compassion Childrens Donation Site is Back Up
Compassion Children's site is back up. You may make a tax deductible donation by clicking on their link on the right side of this page under Katie's picture. We incurred about $150,000 in legal expenses in getting Katie returned to us, and we also have unpaid medical bills. Katie's ongoing medical bills are about $3000 a month which are not covered by any insurance. If you are able to help then please make a contribution. Thank you for your donation and may God bless you richly. You can also go to the site by www.saveakid.us.
Edward
Edward
posted by Katie W. @ Thursday, January 12, 2006
Sunday, January 08, 2006
Sorry, Compassion Children Site is Down for Donations
For those of you who have tried to make a donation by going to the Compassion Children site at http://www.compassionchildren.org or the companion site of http://www.saveakid.us, the site has been down for about 4 days and they are working on the problem. Compassion Children is a 503c corporation and all donations made through them are tax deductible.
The problem should be fixed shortly, so please bookmark us and come back. For those who don't need a tax deductible receipt you can mail donations to: Katie Wernecke, P.O. Box 132, Agua Dulce, Tx 78330. All donations are used for the legal or medical expenses of Katie Wernecke and you can specify which if you want. Thank you very much. May God bless you richly.
Edward Wernecke
The problem should be fixed shortly, so please bookmark us and come back. For those who don't need a tax deductible receipt you can mail donations to: Katie Wernecke, P.O. Box 132, Agua Dulce, Tx 78330. All donations are used for the legal or medical expenses of Katie Wernecke and you can specify which if you want. Thank you very much. May God bless you richly.
Edward Wernecke
posted by Katie W. @ Sunday, January 08, 2006
Friday, January 06, 2006
State-sponsored medical terrorism: Texas authorities arrest parents, kidnap their teenage daughter and force her through chemotherapy against her will
Months after a Texas teenager was diagnosed with cancer, state authorities have finally decided to let her return home to her family after a long legal battle in which Texas officials – not the girl's parents – attempted to determine the course of treatment for her disease.
Thirteen-year-old Katie Wernecke was diagnosed with Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymph nodes, in January 2005. The teenager underwent chemotherapy after being taken to the emergency room with what her parents had suspected was pneumonia, and doctors recommended she also receive radiation treatments. However, Katie's parents, Michelle and Edward Wernecke, refused the treatments for fear it could cause complications such as an increased risk of breast cancer, learning problems or stunted physical growth. That's when Texas authorities intervened, making private matters public in a way that many feel violated parental rights as well as principles of health freedom.
In what amounted to an attempt to force the Werneckes to submit their daughter to radiation treatments, officials with Texas' Child Protective Services took Katie away from her parents in June, after receiving a tip that Katie and her mother were hiding out at a family ranch in order to avoid the radiation that doctors claimed she needed to survive. Authorities promptly took Katie into custody and arrested her mother on charges of interfering with child custody.
Although Michelle Wernecke was released on $50,000 bond shortly after her arrest, she returned home to find her family in shambles. The state had – in effect – kidnapped her daughter, placed her three sons in a foster home and labeled her and her husband neglectful parents, even though they were only trying to protect their daughter from conventional medicine's harsh cancer treatments. Thus began a long and difficult struggle for the family that received national attention and raised significant questions about medical freedom and parental rights.
On a June 9 episode of NBC's Today show, Michele Wernecke said of her daughter: "I think they should treat her for what her body calls for and not for standard protocol. Nobody will look at that. Not every cancer is the same. Nobody understands that. Her body is not standard, and her cancer is not standard." A videotaped statement, recorded by Katie's parents, shows the girl saying, "I don't need radiation treatment. And nobody asked me what I wanted. It's my body."
On Oct. 21, Texas District Judge Jack Hunter ruled that the Werneckes would be allowed, as they had hoped, to take Katie to Kansas for a consultation with a physician on alternative intravenous vitamin C treatments. However, the judge also ruled that, before her parents could pursue the alternative treatment, Katie must first receive five days of traditional chemotherapy at the University of Texas' M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. This once again thwarted her parents' efforts to protect their daughter from treatments they fear will result in side effects that are more harmful than her actual disease.
Throughout the Werneckes' battle with CPS and the Texas legal system, the family has maintained a blog dedicated to their daughter and her condition at http://prayforkatie.blogspot.com. There, they post news articles, charity information, letters and prayers from people concerned for Katie and disturbed by the drastic actions taken by Texas officials to keep her out of her parents' care.
An Oct. 23 post on the site reads, "Katie has been left all alone in M.D. Anderson undergoing this fourth round of chemotherapy. CPS has not allowed the parents to be present in the hospital during this treatment. I don't have the right words and enough words to express how awful I feel about that. It is unbelievably cruel and just sickening that Katie would have to suffer through that ordeal all alone with no parent beside her. That is emotional abuse and child abuse on the part of CPS."
Although the Werneckes have stuck to their beliefs about what they feel is best for their daughter's health, they have been continuously met by the threats and scare tactics used by CPS. As a result, their daughter has not only suffered through treatment she does not want – and arguably does not need – but she has done so without her parents comfort and support.
On Oct. 31, Judge Hunter finally ruled that Katie should be returned to her family, saying, "CPS and the Werneckes are never, ever going to agree," according to the New York Times. Katie will be allowed to go home after a round of chemotherapy in Houston, but what course her treatment will take after that is unknown. However, her father said at Monday's hearing that the family "wanted to try other treatments for Katie before considering radiation as a last resort," the New York Times reported.
The good news is, Katie will be able to return to her family and receive their love and support, but the decision seems long overdue. The Werneckes' situation over the past months is a prime example of how modern medicine has gotten out of control in this country. It seems we now live in a terrifying world where medical professionals are able to enlist the help of government agencies in order to force people into medical treatments that can actually pose significant health dangers. It is a climate in which diagnosis and medical treatment may be accompanied by threats and legal action for those who dare to select an alternative path of healing for themselves or their loved ones. It is an atmosphere in which parents can actually lose their sick children to the system of modern conventional medicine.
A disease like cancer is traumatic enough; it does not need to be complicated with the stresses of custody battles and legal threats. What a child really needs when suffering through something as daunting as cancer is her parents. The Werneckes may have been fighting to block the treatment of their daughter with conventional cancer treatments that can cause severe health problems, but Texas authorities, in the past months, were playing a much more dangerous game by fighting to remove Katie from the love and support of her parents, which is some of the best medicine.
Note by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
The events reported in this story are true. If you thought you lived in a "free" society, think again. Right now, under the direct supervision of misguided oncologists and Big Pharma drug pushers, your children can be kidnapped at gunpoint (by the "authorities"), dragged into medical facilities, and poisoned with radiation and chemotherapy, all under the orders of a court judge.
And after all that's done, by the way, they'll send you the medical bills.
With this demonstration of grossly misplaced authority, organized medicine is no longer merely an outdated system of dangerous treatments, it is a direct threat to the fundamental freedoms of individuals, families and children. With forced vaccination programs that inject mercury into our childrens' bodies, the overdosing of our nation's youth with psychiatric drugs, and now forced radiation poisoning of teenage girls, the U.S. medical system has become the most cruel and harmful system of health care in the world.
Under what possible system of "healing" would a family be broken apart, arrested, kidnapped, and the parents be denied access to the bedside of their daughter as life-threatening chemical toxins are being dripped into her veins under the orders of medical "authorities?" By what insane justification can this be called a system of health care?
The answer is that this is not a system of health care at all, folks. It's a system of control. How do you control a population? Drug them, from cradle to grave. Keep 'em in a mental haze. Bewilder them with television images. Bankrupt them with medical bills. And if they don't comply, arrest them at gunpoint and terrorize their family to set an example. I call it state-sponsored medical terrorism. In this case, the state is Texas.
Personally, I think that in a just society, the Texas Child Protective Services personnel would be arrested and charged with kidnapping, and the oncologists who took part in this cancer conspiracy would be tried in an international court for crimes against humanity. Is it not a crime to inject a child with deadly chemicals against her will and against her parents' will? If I loaded a syringe with the exact same chemicals used on this girl, and injected them into your arm without your permission, I'd be (rightly) charged with attempted murder.
Where's the health in health care reform?
Don't stand for this. Spread the word. Forward this article. Support the Wernecke family's battle against organized medicine. If we don't stand up to this, then we surrender any semblance of health freedom left in this country. Let the Texas CPS and health authorities know that we, the free-thinking citizens of this nation, won't stand by idly while our children are taken from us and chemically assaulted by men who lead a dangerous, for-profit industry of so-called cancer "treatments." This madness must be stopped.
http://www.newstarget.com/016387.html
Thirteen-year-old Katie Wernecke was diagnosed with Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymph nodes, in January 2005. The teenager underwent chemotherapy after being taken to the emergency room with what her parents had suspected was pneumonia, and doctors recommended she also receive radiation treatments. However, Katie's parents, Michelle and Edward Wernecke, refused the treatments for fear it could cause complications such as an increased risk of breast cancer, learning problems or stunted physical growth. That's when Texas authorities intervened, making private matters public in a way that many feel violated parental rights as well as principles of health freedom.
In what amounted to an attempt to force the Werneckes to submit their daughter to radiation treatments, officials with Texas' Child Protective Services took Katie away from her parents in June, after receiving a tip that Katie and her mother were hiding out at a family ranch in order to avoid the radiation that doctors claimed she needed to survive. Authorities promptly took Katie into custody and arrested her mother on charges of interfering with child custody.
Although Michelle Wernecke was released on $50,000 bond shortly after her arrest, she returned home to find her family in shambles. The state had – in effect – kidnapped her daughter, placed her three sons in a foster home and labeled her and her husband neglectful parents, even though they were only trying to protect their daughter from conventional medicine's harsh cancer treatments. Thus began a long and difficult struggle for the family that received national attention and raised significant questions about medical freedom and parental rights.
On a June 9 episode of NBC's Today show, Michele Wernecke said of her daughter: "I think they should treat her for what her body calls for and not for standard protocol. Nobody will look at that. Not every cancer is the same. Nobody understands that. Her body is not standard, and her cancer is not standard." A videotaped statement, recorded by Katie's parents, shows the girl saying, "I don't need radiation treatment. And nobody asked me what I wanted. It's my body."
On Oct. 21, Texas District Judge Jack Hunter ruled that the Werneckes would be allowed, as they had hoped, to take Katie to Kansas for a consultation with a physician on alternative intravenous vitamin C treatments. However, the judge also ruled that, before her parents could pursue the alternative treatment, Katie must first receive five days of traditional chemotherapy at the University of Texas' M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. This once again thwarted her parents' efforts to protect their daughter from treatments they fear will result in side effects that are more harmful than her actual disease.
Throughout the Werneckes' battle with CPS and the Texas legal system, the family has maintained a blog dedicated to their daughter and her condition at http://prayforkatie.blogspot.com. There, they post news articles, charity information, letters and prayers from people concerned for Katie and disturbed by the drastic actions taken by Texas officials to keep her out of her parents' care.
An Oct. 23 post on the site reads, "Katie has been left all alone in M.D. Anderson undergoing this fourth round of chemotherapy. CPS has not allowed the parents to be present in the hospital during this treatment. I don't have the right words and enough words to express how awful I feel about that. It is unbelievably cruel and just sickening that Katie would have to suffer through that ordeal all alone with no parent beside her. That is emotional abuse and child abuse on the part of CPS."
Although the Werneckes have stuck to their beliefs about what they feel is best for their daughter's health, they have been continuously met by the threats and scare tactics used by CPS. As a result, their daughter has not only suffered through treatment she does not want – and arguably does not need – but she has done so without her parents comfort and support.
On Oct. 31, Judge Hunter finally ruled that Katie should be returned to her family, saying, "CPS and the Werneckes are never, ever going to agree," according to the New York Times. Katie will be allowed to go home after a round of chemotherapy in Houston, but what course her treatment will take after that is unknown. However, her father said at Monday's hearing that the family "wanted to try other treatments for Katie before considering radiation as a last resort," the New York Times reported.
The good news is, Katie will be able to return to her family and receive their love and support, but the decision seems long overdue. The Werneckes' situation over the past months is a prime example of how modern medicine has gotten out of control in this country. It seems we now live in a terrifying world where medical professionals are able to enlist the help of government agencies in order to force people into medical treatments that can actually pose significant health dangers. It is a climate in which diagnosis and medical treatment may be accompanied by threats and legal action for those who dare to select an alternative path of healing for themselves or their loved ones. It is an atmosphere in which parents can actually lose their sick children to the system of modern conventional medicine.
A disease like cancer is traumatic enough; it does not need to be complicated with the stresses of custody battles and legal threats. What a child really needs when suffering through something as daunting as cancer is her parents. The Werneckes may have been fighting to block the treatment of their daughter with conventional cancer treatments that can cause severe health problems, but Texas authorities, in the past months, were playing a much more dangerous game by fighting to remove Katie from the love and support of her parents, which is some of the best medicine.
Note by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
The events reported in this story are true. If you thought you lived in a "free" society, think again. Right now, under the direct supervision of misguided oncologists and Big Pharma drug pushers, your children can be kidnapped at gunpoint (by the "authorities"), dragged into medical facilities, and poisoned with radiation and chemotherapy, all under the orders of a court judge.
And after all that's done, by the way, they'll send you the medical bills.
With this demonstration of grossly misplaced authority, organized medicine is no longer merely an outdated system of dangerous treatments, it is a direct threat to the fundamental freedoms of individuals, families and children. With forced vaccination programs that inject mercury into our childrens' bodies, the overdosing of our nation's youth with psychiatric drugs, and now forced radiation poisoning of teenage girls, the U.S. medical system has become the most cruel and harmful system of health care in the world.
Under what possible system of "healing" would a family be broken apart, arrested, kidnapped, and the parents be denied access to the bedside of their daughter as life-threatening chemical toxins are being dripped into her veins under the orders of medical "authorities?" By what insane justification can this be called a system of health care?
The answer is that this is not a system of health care at all, folks. It's a system of control. How do you control a population? Drug them, from cradle to grave. Keep 'em in a mental haze. Bewilder them with television images. Bankrupt them with medical bills. And if they don't comply, arrest them at gunpoint and terrorize their family to set an example. I call it state-sponsored medical terrorism. In this case, the state is Texas.
Personally, I think that in a just society, the Texas Child Protective Services personnel would be arrested and charged with kidnapping, and the oncologists who took part in this cancer conspiracy would be tried in an international court for crimes against humanity. Is it not a crime to inject a child with deadly chemicals against her will and against her parents' will? If I loaded a syringe with the exact same chemicals used on this girl, and injected them into your arm without your permission, I'd be (rightly) charged with attempted murder.
Where's the health in health care reform?
Don't stand for this. Spread the word. Forward this article. Support the Wernecke family's battle against organized medicine. If we don't stand up to this, then we surrender any semblance of health freedom left in this country. Let the Texas CPS and health authorities know that we, the free-thinking citizens of this nation, won't stand by idly while our children are taken from us and chemically assaulted by men who lead a dangerous, for-profit industry of so-called cancer "treatments." This madness must be stopped.
http://www.newstarget.com/016387.html
posted by Katie W. @ Friday, January 06, 2006
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Back from Hawaii
The flight home was not too enjoyable. We spent 3 days in the Honolulu airport on standby trying to get a flight to Dallas, Texas. We didn't even have a change of clothes. Our luggage went out on December 31. The airport was busy and flights were all overbooked. The airline agents were not helpful in Honolulu. On our designated flight there were 50 people on standby. We kept rolling over from flight to flight. There were about 8 flights a day, from 8am to 11pm. One man was in the airport for 6 days another for 4 days before they got flights out. We were there 3 days and had to take a flight to Chicago to get out of Honolulu. That was quite a bit out of the way to get home to the Corpus Christi, Texas area. Agents in Chicago and Dallas were more understanding and helpful knowing we had to get Katie her cancer treatments which should have been done on Monday. We got home on Tuesday January 3rd about 12 noon, which was 4 days late.
We learned a lot of stuff about fighting cancer nutritionally and detoxing the body, and will continue to use what we learned at home. We are also continuing with the intravenous Vit C treatments.
Katie's hair is growing back and is almost a half inch long now. She continues in public school. She got all A's and just one B in keyboarding. Her joints still suffer from the effects of the chemo. She was disappointed about the B. We are very proud of her. Katie is very energetic and is feeling good.
Thank you for your prayers, emails, and concerns. With good nutritional support, the IV Vit C and your prayers I believe we can beat this cancer.
We learned a lot of stuff about fighting cancer nutritionally and detoxing the body, and will continue to use what we learned at home. We are also continuing with the intravenous Vit C treatments.
Katie's hair is growing back and is almost a half inch long now. She continues in public school. She got all A's and just one B in keyboarding. Her joints still suffer from the effects of the chemo. She was disappointed about the B. We are very proud of her. Katie is very energetic and is feeling good.
Thank you for your prayers, emails, and concerns. With good nutritional support, the IV Vit C and your prayers I believe we can beat this cancer.
posted by Katie W. @ Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Vitamin D Lowers Risk of Cancer by 50%
Researchers found that Vitamin D can dramatically lower a person's risk of developing common types of cancers and can reduce the likelihood of getting breast, ovarian, and even colon cancer in half.
Could something as simple as getting enough vitamin D, which is found in milk, eggs, salmon and sunlight, really protect you from cancer? Researchers, after reviewing 63 studies, say "yes." They found taking large amounts of vitamin D can lower cancer risk by as much as 50 percent.
Researchers say a person needs about 1,000 international units (IU) daily. There are only 100 units in an 8-ounce glass of milk, so you would need to consume ten 8-ounce glasses of milk to meet the requirement. However, doctors temper this by advising that downing a gallon of milk is not going to stop you from getting cancer. Sunshine is a good source for vitamin D, but it has its own risks.
Foods rich in vitamin D include cod liver oil, eggs, milk and vitamin D supplemented processed foods. Researchers recommend that vitamin D supplements may be needed because the food sources of vitamin D are not likely to provide the recommended 1,000 IU daily allowance.
"I think vitamin D is a component of a healthy diet that will have potential benefit," says Dr. David Fishman, who runs the National Ovarian Cancer Early Detection Program at New York University. "I wish it was as simple as saying 'If you take vitamin D, cancer will be cured.' I don't think it's that simple."
Although the role of vitamin D in cancer prevention is not largely understood, a vitamin D deficiency can lead to health problems. Certain groups of people are at a higher risk of vitamin D deficiency. The risk factors include women breastfeeding, dark skin, fat malabsorption syndromes, inflammatory bowel disease and obesity.
Sources:
American Journal of Public Health
University of California at San Diego Moores Cancer Center
MY COMMENTS: Vitamin D and iodine are two nutrients often missing. As for Vit D, our kids might get two pints of milk at school and most never get outside for any sunshine during prime time 10-2 for vitamin D, as sports are played in the gym. Consider supplementing with Vit D and Cod Liver Oil. Poor nutrition lets cancer take hold. Lack of Vitamin D and sunshine in the winter is one reason why flu viruses are worse at this time of year. Also consider taking about 12 mg of Iodine and 4 grams of Vit C a day.
Edward
Could something as simple as getting enough vitamin D, which is found in milk, eggs, salmon and sunlight, really protect you from cancer? Researchers, after reviewing 63 studies, say "yes." They found taking large amounts of vitamin D can lower cancer risk by as much as 50 percent.
Researchers say a person needs about 1,000 international units (IU) daily. There are only 100 units in an 8-ounce glass of milk, so you would need to consume ten 8-ounce glasses of milk to meet the requirement. However, doctors temper this by advising that downing a gallon of milk is not going to stop you from getting cancer. Sunshine is a good source for vitamin D, but it has its own risks.
Foods rich in vitamin D include cod liver oil, eggs, milk and vitamin D supplemented processed foods. Researchers recommend that vitamin D supplements may be needed because the food sources of vitamin D are not likely to provide the recommended 1,000 IU daily allowance.
"I think vitamin D is a component of a healthy diet that will have potential benefit," says Dr. David Fishman, who runs the National Ovarian Cancer Early Detection Program at New York University. "I wish it was as simple as saying 'If you take vitamin D, cancer will be cured.' I don't think it's that simple."
Although the role of vitamin D in cancer prevention is not largely understood, a vitamin D deficiency can lead to health problems. Certain groups of people are at a higher risk of vitamin D deficiency. The risk factors include women breastfeeding, dark skin, fat malabsorption syndromes, inflammatory bowel disease and obesity.
Sources:
American Journal of Public Health
University of California at San Diego Moores Cancer Center
MY COMMENTS: Vitamin D and iodine are two nutrients often missing. As for Vit D, our kids might get two pints of milk at school and most never get outside for any sunshine during prime time 10-2 for vitamin D, as sports are played in the gym. Consider supplementing with Vit D and Cod Liver Oil. Poor nutrition lets cancer take hold. Lack of Vitamin D and sunshine in the winter is one reason why flu viruses are worse at this time of year. Also consider taking about 12 mg of Iodine and 4 grams of Vit C a day.
Edward
posted by Katie W. @ Sunday, January 01, 2006
Saturday, December 31, 2005
Katie in Hawaii
Katie and I are spending two weeks in Hawaii learning and undergoing a nutritional program for cancer and a detoxification program for the previous chemotherapy she received. It is a difficult program. Maybe not the most enjoyable way to spend the holidays for a 13 year old girl. The weather in Hawaii is nice with 68 to 83 degree days. We have been out sight seeing for about 2 hours a day this last week. The scenery and beaches are beautiful. We even went swimming in a warm water pool warmed by a volcano right on the beach front. It was a once in a lifetime experience for both of us. A very special thanks to Tom, Crystal, Karen and Sandy for getting us over here.
Texas Monthly ran an article on Katie and the whole ordeal in the January 2006 issue. Check it out below. I am sorry there have not been more updates but evil eyes are watching everything we do. Katie is doing well and feeling good. We will have some more tests done in January after we return. Then we should know more.
We are still accepting donations to help with the legal and medical bills at http://www.saveakid.us. Thanks to Tony and Laureen at Compassion Children for providing this service.
Happy New Year to all.
Edward
Texas Monthly ran an article on Katie and the whole ordeal in the January 2006 issue. Check it out below. I am sorry there have not been more updates but evil eyes are watching everything we do. Katie is doing well and feeling good. We will have some more tests done in January after we return. Then we should know more.
We are still accepting donations to help with the legal and medical bills at http://www.saveakid.us. Thanks to Tony and Laureen at Compassion Children for providing this service.
Happy New Year to all.
Edward
posted by Katie W. @ Saturday, December 31, 2005
10 comments
Monday, December 26, 2005
Whose Life Is It Anyway? - Texas Monthly Magazine
Texas Monthly Magazine January 2006
Katy Vine
Reporter
Whose Life Is It Anyway?
When Edward and Michele Wernecke rejected standard medical treatment for their cancer-stricken daughter, the state took twelve-year-old Katie out of their custody—and set off a nationwide debate over the meaning of parents’ rights.
ON THE SATURDAY BEFORE HALLOWEEN, Edward Wernecke stood in his kitchen, thumbing through a stack of file folders filled with photocopies and Internet printouts of medical articles. The solemn 53-year-old rancher was indifferent to the flies that buzzed around the room and landed once in a while on his face and white Resistol. Edward’s wife, 37-year-old Michele, stood nearby. Despite the cheering crescendos of the couple’s 3-, 5-, and 14-year-old sons, who chased a toy monster truck through the hallways, Michele and Edward seemed unruffled. It was hard to know whether they were intensely focused or simply dazed.
Speaking in a methodical, relaxed monotone, Edward laid out his family’s ten-month-long ordeal, a story made famous by TV reports and newspaper headlines. It had all started the previous December, when Edward and Michele’s twelve-year-old daughter, Katie, had developed a severe cough. It had seemed like bronchitis, but on January 7, when her breathing grew labored, Edward took Katie to the emergency room. The news he received was devastating: A fifteen-by-eighteen-centimeter mass in Katie’s chest was choking her. By eight o’clock that night, she had been diagnosed with Hodgkin’s disease, a cancer of the lymph nodes. “Talk about your world stopping,” Michele said. “All I could think is that my baby has cancer and she’s dying.”
The Werneckes would barely have time for heartache. Instead, they soon found themselves entrenched in a prolonged legal battle. When they refused doctor-recommended radiation treatment for Katie, fearing its toxic side effects, she was removed from their custody by Child Protective Services. Taken from their ranch in Banquete, thirty miles west of Corpus Christi, their daughter spent the summer being shuttled between M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, in Houston, and a nearby foster home. In early fall, when doctors worried that Edward was still impeding Katie’s treatment, a judge in Corpus Christi severed Edward’s communication with her altogether.
The case garnered national attention. Parents around the country were surprised to learn that if they dismissed a doctor’s recommendation, their child could be taken from them. But that is indeed the case. In Texas, losing custody of a child in such situations is unusual but not unheard of. While the most-common instances involve religious objections, such as the refusal of blood transfusions by Christian Scientists or Jehovah’s Witnesses—which legally constitutes medical neglect—the state has also intervened when religion has played no part in the failure to comply with the prescribed care for a minor. In a well-publicized case in 1996, for example, Fort Worth ten-year-old Rachel Stout found herself at the center of a custody battle with CPS when her family whisked her off to Canada for alternative treatment to a life-saving colectomy. Ultimately, Rachel was given court-ordered surgery and returned to her parents. University of Texas at Austin law professor Jack Sampson says that this is typical of cases he has seen, though he doesn’t see as many as he used to. Often, he says, “if the parents have talked to a lawyer, they know they’ll lose.”
In the case of the Werneckes, the question of medical neglect was perhaps the murkiest the state had seen. F. Scott McCown, the executive director for Austin’s Center for Public Policy Priorities and a retired state district court judge who has handled more than two thousand child abuse cases, says, “You either say children are the property of the parents, or you say there is a point at which parents don’t get to make decisions. If you go the second route, you have to leave it up to judges to decide the child’s fate. It’s almost impossible from a distance to find out whether the decision is right or not. Even when you have the facts, sometimes it’s difficult to say what’s the right thing to do.”
In October the Texas Supreme Court had finally restored supervised meetings, and Edward was excited now to have scheduled a reunion for October 30, his first chance to see his daughter in six weeks. When Michele received a call on her cell phone to confirm the appointment, Edward watched as she paced the kitchen. Their five-year-old had come down with strep throat, which they knew might complicate their meeting with Katie. Michele put the phone to her shoulder to consult with Edward.
“This is the social worker,” she said matter-of-factly. “She wants to know if we’re coming. I told them we might not be able to, and now Katie is crying. What do I tell her?”
“Any trace of strep could kill her after her chemo treatment,” Edward replied.
“Should I say that?” she asked.
Edward stared silently at the kitchen counter for a minute, then said, “My parents could take the boys, but they’re so old the strep could kill them too.”
“Well, the social worker needs to know if we’re coming. Should I call them back?”
He nodded yes.
THE WERNECKES HAD ALWAYS been a busy family, and the kids had had the run of the ranch while Michele managed a feed store in nearby Kingsville and Edward worked cattle. Once in a while, Edward and Michele’s lax supervision caused concern, like the time a CPS worker found Katie and her older brother wandering near a road. But Edward and Michele considered their children independent, not like smothered city kids. Katie was a precocious, freckle-faced Bible-drill champ, the valedictorian of her seventh-grade class, and when her hacking cough had worsened around New Year’s Day, she’d done her best to ignore it, reluctant to ruin her perfect school-attendance record with a trip to the clinic. When Edward finally took her to Driscoll Children’s Hospital, in Corpus Christi, he wasn’t surprised by her confident response to the diagnosis. “This is just a bump in the road,” she reassured her family. “It’s only cancer.”
Edward was less optimistic. He staggered through the halls of the hospital in tears after Dr. Nejemie Alter, Katie’s pediatric hematologist-oncologist, told him that she might have died of suffocation within 24 hours had she not come in. Given the right treatment, however, she would have an 80 to 95 percent chance of recovery. Edward called Michele that night from the hospital to explain the treatment options for a child with Hodgkin’s disease: either four rounds of chemotherapy or two rounds of chemotherapy followed by radiation.
In late April, there was good news. After four rounds of chemo, Katie’s PET scan showed no active cancer. Edward felt victorious. So when Alter suggested following up with radiation from Katie’s neck to her diaphragm to ensure the cancer’s eradication, Edward hesitated. Since his daughter’s diagnosis, he’d been combing the Internet for articles on Hodgkin’s and its cures, and what he’d learned about radiation disturbed him. With a doctorate in agriculture from Texas A&M University, he prided himself on being an independent thinker. One article in the New England Journal of Medicine, written by Vincent DeVita, the former director of the National Cancer Institute, said that radiotherapy “by itself increases the risk of late second solid tumors in the irradiated field and the incidence rises steeply when radiotherapy and chemotherapy are combined.” Radiation, it turned out, could stunt Katie’s growth, make her sterile, and increase her chances of getting breast cancer.
Requests to avoid radiation, Edward learned, are not unusual when there are viable alternatives. When cyclist Lance Armstrong, for example, was diagnosed with testicular cancer, he decided against conventional radiation in favor of customized therapy. Emboldened by his research, Edward requested another oncologist’s opinion. Alter referred Katie to a pediatric oncologist in Corpus Christi, then suggested oncologists in McAllen, San Antonio, and Houston. But Edward was skeptical, worried that anyone whom Alter referred would of course parrot the standard treatment.
The Werneckes dragged their feet. It was hard to justify subjecting their daughter to radiation if the cancer was inactive. Alter’s worries, meanwhile, escalated with each idle day. In his mind, the Werneckes’ hesitancy was not only disastrous; according to state law, it constituted medical neglect, as defined by the Texas Family Code: “the failure to seek, obtain, or follow through with medical care for the 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.” In early May Alter called CPS. “[Edward] was reluctant to take his daughter for radiation treatment,” he would later testify in court. “That’s when I had to call [the state].”
CPS investigator Kim Garcia, hearing that the Werneckes showed no intention of making a radiation appointment, issued an ultimatum: Make the appointment by May 31 or the state will remove Katie from your custody. On June 1, when the Werneckes had still not scheduled an appointment, Garcia drove out to Banquete for Katie. But she was too late. Michele and Katie were already roaming the coast in search of a hiding place.
When Garcia pulled up to the house with two police officers, Edward tried to bar the door, but they forced him aside. “She’s not here,” he insisted as they checked rooms and closets. Garcia took note of the house: Stacks of paper from that year’s tax returns were piled around the living room. Unwashed dishes and Katie’s medicine sat on the kitchen counter alongside livestock syringes (Edward claims they were sealed with plastic caps). Before leaving, she filled out a report stating that the house was a safety hazard. As Edward read the paperwork, officers loaded his stunned boys into a car and issued an Amber Alert for Katie. He paced his empty house for days. “It was a completely devastating feeling,” he said.
Within two weeks, CPS had found Katie hiding at a relative’s ranch and taken her into state custody; the boys were returned home. As Katie spent the summer at M.D. Anderson, Edward and Michele went to court repeatedly to fight the state and get her back. They also worked to publicize their cause, igniting debates nationwide over parents’ rights and medical decisions. Talking to Katie Couric on the Today show, Michele said, “Treat her for what her body calls for and not standard protocol.” Edward’s blog, prayforkatie.blogspot.com, received thousands of hits. Letters poured in to the Corpus Christi Caller-Times, some giving voice to the question that was on every parent’s mind. As one Washington woman put it, “Does this mean that all of us must now abdicate our rights to decide our own methods of medical treatment and let the state decide?” Soon the Werneckes would be petitioning Governor Rick Perry for a meeting, broadcasting their plea on area billboards: “Katie Wernecke wants to go home to her parents.”
ON JUNE 10 THE WERNECKES listened in shock as a radiologist reported in court that Katie’s cancer had returned, her chances of recovery now down to 50 percent. Though Katie needed her parents’ support more than ever, their access continued to be monitored; when they visited at M.D. Anderson, guards followed them everywhere. The presiding judge in Corpus Christi, Carl Lewis, was torn. Medical neglect cases rely heavily on a judge’s discretion, and his information on Katie was constantly changing. At the court hearings throughout the following weeks, CPS argued for radiation based on the opinions of Katie’s M.D. Anderson doctors, including pediatric oncologist Robert Wells. Sometimes radiation can be avoided, he explained in court testimony, but “with patients like Katie, with [a] large mass, the relapse rate is fifty percent. That’s why chemo-only wasn’t considered.” While it was a sound argument, Lewis was eager to hear the Werneckes’ proposal. But even though they had been campaigning against radiation—going so far as to threaten Katie’s radiologist with a lawsuit—they offered few alternatives in the courtroom. Still, Lewis remained open-minded: He would let two independent Hodgkin’s disease specialists review Katie’s medical records for a hearing in early September before making a decision.
By the time of the hearing, however, the family’s lawyers didn’t have the necessary opinions. “We couldn’t find a doctor to testify on our behalf,” Luis Corona, the Werneckes’ local counsel, would explain later. “The problem was, we couldn’t have her examined because she was in state custody. A lot of doctors don’t want to go against conventional treatments. They didn’t want to get involved in the controversy.” It was a costly holdup; the judge could not evaluate a nonexistent alternative. After almost half a dozen hearings, and with no viable options to consider, Lewis had had enough. “This isn’t poker,” he said. “I’m not waiting anymore. Every hour we wait is an hour that’s critical to this child’s life.”
Katie had had enough too. After months of hearing the side effects of high-dose chemo, she’d made a choice herself: She was not going to take the next scheduled round. Refusing to cooperate with nurses or doctors, she pulled the catheters out of her shoulder and drank a soda when she was told it would interfere with the procedure. Alarmed, Lewis met with Katie in person, alone. Three days later, on September 19, he told the Werneckes that their disapproval of standard protocol was affecting Katie’s cooperation. “How long are we going to do this...dance?” he pleaded. Lewis cut off all communication between Edward and Katie; Michele would be allowed visits provided she sign a contract in which she’d agree to encourage doctors’ recommendations. Immediately after the hearing, Lewis underwent open-heart surgery for a torn aorta. He signed the orders the next morning in his recovery bed.
ON OCTOBER 31 EDWARD CARRIED a box full of files into the courtroom. As he silently approached his place across the aisle from CPS workers and lawyers, he wore the same grave expression he had shown in newspaper photos. Michele smiled and bounced a little as she talked. She and Edward had found a way to visit Katie the previous day after all, and Katie had seemed to be in good spirits. With Lewis recovering from his surgery, a new judge, Jack Hunter, was presiding, and Michele was optimistic that she’d finally get Katie back for good.
Hunter had made it clear before the hearing that he wasn’t going to rehash who did what to whom, stating, “My job is to save this baby, and I’m going to do it.” He admonished the lawyers when they traded accusations about Katie’s condition. “Let’s say you’re right, and in nine months we find you’re right and the child has died,” he said. “Every hour [we argue] is one less she has to live.”
Katie’s chances of beating Hodgkin’s had now slipped to 20 percent. Although she had resumed chemotherapy, her doctors attributed the relapse to her unwillingness to stay on their treatment schedule. Edward and Michele, who blamed the doctors for her deteriorating condition, had an alternative to suggest. A doctor in Wichita, Kansas, at the Center for the Improvement of Human Functioning International, would give Katie vitamin C treatments as a next step. After lengthy arguments by the lawyers about guarantees and “true treatment plans,” Dr. Wells testified via speakerphone, urging Katie’s continued treatment at M.D. Anderson. “Two times when the therapy stopped, the disease has come back within a month,” he said. “If Katie leaves for a month...I’m afraid she’ll have a recurrence, and I don’t know if I’d have any therapies that can help her...At some point you run out of time...At some point this disease will be incurable.”
Finally, Hunter asked for Katie on speakerphone. Her voice was weak, and she sounded tired. “Do you feel like everyone is pulling on you?” he asked.
“Kinda,” she said.
“What do you want to do?”
“I want to go home.”
“Do you want to talk to a doctor in Wichita?”
“Yeah.”
“We’ve all gotten off whack,” Hunter said after the final arguments. “The court is of the opinion to dismiss the department.” Katie could return home.
EMERGING FROM THE HOSPITAL on November 3, Katie shrunk from the press as she stood between her parents, looking pale in the bright sun. She stared at the ground and answered only a few questions. “I’m feeling better,” she told the Caller-Times. “It was very boring and kind of lonely without my parents.” Edward, for the first time in a while, was smiling. “Today,” his lawyer’s press release read, “all Texas parents have achieved a substantial victory protecting their rights to decide how their children will be cared for when a medical crisis occurs.”
It will be a while before anyone knows the measure of victory. Lingering questions about the wisdom of the CPS intervention, the doctors’ persistence, and the Werneckes’ determination can only be answered by Katie’s outcome. Given the many variables, any family-law attorneys hoping to learn hard-and-fast rules from a case like this will be disappointed.
Although Judge Hunter had asked that Katie return to M.D. Anderson for follow-up treatment, Edward canceled all of Katie’s appointments at the facility. At home, Katie received vitamin C injections from a registered nurse, and that alone would be her treatment until further notice.
“Dr. Wells called me the other day,” Edward said in November, as Katie received her treatments in the next room. “He said that if Katie doesn’t get radiation, she’ll die. I told him we were in another doctor’s care. I said, ‘Why do you ask? Are you thinking of turning us in to CPS again?’”
The answer, Edward was surprised to hear, was yes.
Find this article at:
http://www.texasmonthly.com/mag/issues/2006-01-01/reporter.php?click_code=a51f5bde54562307ed376d1581bb4fcf
Katy Vine
Reporter
Whose Life Is It Anyway?
When Edward and Michele Wernecke rejected standard medical treatment for their cancer-stricken daughter, the state took twelve-year-old Katie out of their custody—and set off a nationwide debate over the meaning of parents’ rights.
ON THE SATURDAY BEFORE HALLOWEEN, Edward Wernecke stood in his kitchen, thumbing through a stack of file folders filled with photocopies and Internet printouts of medical articles. The solemn 53-year-old rancher was indifferent to the flies that buzzed around the room and landed once in a while on his face and white Resistol. Edward’s wife, 37-year-old Michele, stood nearby. Despite the cheering crescendos of the couple’s 3-, 5-, and 14-year-old sons, who chased a toy monster truck through the hallways, Michele and Edward seemed unruffled. It was hard to know whether they were intensely focused or simply dazed.
Speaking in a methodical, relaxed monotone, Edward laid out his family’s ten-month-long ordeal, a story made famous by TV reports and newspaper headlines. It had all started the previous December, when Edward and Michele’s twelve-year-old daughter, Katie, had developed a severe cough. It had seemed like bronchitis, but on January 7, when her breathing grew labored, Edward took Katie to the emergency room. The news he received was devastating: A fifteen-by-eighteen-centimeter mass in Katie’s chest was choking her. By eight o’clock that night, she had been diagnosed with Hodgkin’s disease, a cancer of the lymph nodes. “Talk about your world stopping,” Michele said. “All I could think is that my baby has cancer and she’s dying.”
The Werneckes would barely have time for heartache. Instead, they soon found themselves entrenched in a prolonged legal battle. When they refused doctor-recommended radiation treatment for Katie, fearing its toxic side effects, she was removed from their custody by Child Protective Services. Taken from their ranch in Banquete, thirty miles west of Corpus Christi, their daughter spent the summer being shuttled between M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, in Houston, and a nearby foster home. In early fall, when doctors worried that Edward was still impeding Katie’s treatment, a judge in Corpus Christi severed Edward’s communication with her altogether.
The case garnered national attention. Parents around the country were surprised to learn that if they dismissed a doctor’s recommendation, their child could be taken from them. But that is indeed the case. In Texas, losing custody of a child in such situations is unusual but not unheard of. While the most-common instances involve religious objections, such as the refusal of blood transfusions by Christian Scientists or Jehovah’s Witnesses—which legally constitutes medical neglect—the state has also intervened when religion has played no part in the failure to comply with the prescribed care for a minor. In a well-publicized case in 1996, for example, Fort Worth ten-year-old Rachel Stout found herself at the center of a custody battle with CPS when her family whisked her off to Canada for alternative treatment to a life-saving colectomy. Ultimately, Rachel was given court-ordered surgery and returned to her parents. University of Texas at Austin law professor Jack Sampson says that this is typical of cases he has seen, though he doesn’t see as many as he used to. Often, he says, “if the parents have talked to a lawyer, they know they’ll lose.”
In the case of the Werneckes, the question of medical neglect was perhaps the murkiest the state had seen. F. Scott McCown, the executive director for Austin’s Center for Public Policy Priorities and a retired state district court judge who has handled more than two thousand child abuse cases, says, “You either say children are the property of the parents, or you say there is a point at which parents don’t get to make decisions. If you go the second route, you have to leave it up to judges to decide the child’s fate. It’s almost impossible from a distance to find out whether the decision is right or not. Even when you have the facts, sometimes it’s difficult to say what’s the right thing to do.”
In October the Texas Supreme Court had finally restored supervised meetings, and Edward was excited now to have scheduled a reunion for October 30, his first chance to see his daughter in six weeks. When Michele received a call on her cell phone to confirm the appointment, Edward watched as she paced the kitchen. Their five-year-old had come down with strep throat, which they knew might complicate their meeting with Katie. Michele put the phone to her shoulder to consult with Edward.
“This is the social worker,” she said matter-of-factly. “She wants to know if we’re coming. I told them we might not be able to, and now Katie is crying. What do I tell her?”
“Any trace of strep could kill her after her chemo treatment,” Edward replied.
“Should I say that?” she asked.
Edward stared silently at the kitchen counter for a minute, then said, “My parents could take the boys, but they’re so old the strep could kill them too.”
“Well, the social worker needs to know if we’re coming. Should I call them back?”
He nodded yes.
THE WERNECKES HAD ALWAYS been a busy family, and the kids had had the run of the ranch while Michele managed a feed store in nearby Kingsville and Edward worked cattle. Once in a while, Edward and Michele’s lax supervision caused concern, like the time a CPS worker found Katie and her older brother wandering near a road. But Edward and Michele considered their children independent, not like smothered city kids. Katie was a precocious, freckle-faced Bible-drill champ, the valedictorian of her seventh-grade class, and when her hacking cough had worsened around New Year’s Day, she’d done her best to ignore it, reluctant to ruin her perfect school-attendance record with a trip to the clinic. When Edward finally took her to Driscoll Children’s Hospital, in Corpus Christi, he wasn’t surprised by her confident response to the diagnosis. “This is just a bump in the road,” she reassured her family. “It’s only cancer.”
Edward was less optimistic. He staggered through the halls of the hospital in tears after Dr. Nejemie Alter, Katie’s pediatric hematologist-oncologist, told him that she might have died of suffocation within 24 hours had she not come in. Given the right treatment, however, she would have an 80 to 95 percent chance of recovery. Edward called Michele that night from the hospital to explain the treatment options for a child with Hodgkin’s disease: either four rounds of chemotherapy or two rounds of chemotherapy followed by radiation.
In late April, there was good news. After four rounds of chemo, Katie’s PET scan showed no active cancer. Edward felt victorious. So when Alter suggested following up with radiation from Katie’s neck to her diaphragm to ensure the cancer’s eradication, Edward hesitated. Since his daughter’s diagnosis, he’d been combing the Internet for articles on Hodgkin’s and its cures, and what he’d learned about radiation disturbed him. With a doctorate in agriculture from Texas A&M University, he prided himself on being an independent thinker. One article in the New England Journal of Medicine, written by Vincent DeVita, the former director of the National Cancer Institute, said that radiotherapy “by itself increases the risk of late second solid tumors in the irradiated field and the incidence rises steeply when radiotherapy and chemotherapy are combined.” Radiation, it turned out, could stunt Katie’s growth, make her sterile, and increase her chances of getting breast cancer.
Requests to avoid radiation, Edward learned, are not unusual when there are viable alternatives. When cyclist Lance Armstrong, for example, was diagnosed with testicular cancer, he decided against conventional radiation in favor of customized therapy. Emboldened by his research, Edward requested another oncologist’s opinion. Alter referred Katie to a pediatric oncologist in Corpus Christi, then suggested oncologists in McAllen, San Antonio, and Houston. But Edward was skeptical, worried that anyone whom Alter referred would of course parrot the standard treatment.
The Werneckes dragged their feet. It was hard to justify subjecting their daughter to radiation if the cancer was inactive. Alter’s worries, meanwhile, escalated with each idle day. In his mind, the Werneckes’ hesitancy was not only disastrous; according to state law, it constituted medical neglect, as defined by the Texas Family Code: “the failure to seek, obtain, or follow through with medical care for the 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.” In early May Alter called CPS. “[Edward] was reluctant to take his daughter for radiation treatment,” he would later testify in court. “That’s when I had to call [the state].”
CPS investigator Kim Garcia, hearing that the Werneckes showed no intention of making a radiation appointment, issued an ultimatum: Make the appointment by May 31 or the state will remove Katie from your custody. On June 1, when the Werneckes had still not scheduled an appointment, Garcia drove out to Banquete for Katie. But she was too late. Michele and Katie were already roaming the coast in search of a hiding place.
When Garcia pulled up to the house with two police officers, Edward tried to bar the door, but they forced him aside. “She’s not here,” he insisted as they checked rooms and closets. Garcia took note of the house: Stacks of paper from that year’s tax returns were piled around the living room. Unwashed dishes and Katie’s medicine sat on the kitchen counter alongside livestock syringes (Edward claims they were sealed with plastic caps). Before leaving, she filled out a report stating that the house was a safety hazard. As Edward read the paperwork, officers loaded his stunned boys into a car and issued an Amber Alert for Katie. He paced his empty house for days. “It was a completely devastating feeling,” he said.
Within two weeks, CPS had found Katie hiding at a relative’s ranch and taken her into state custody; the boys were returned home. As Katie spent the summer at M.D. Anderson, Edward and Michele went to court repeatedly to fight the state and get her back. They also worked to publicize their cause, igniting debates nationwide over parents’ rights and medical decisions. Talking to Katie Couric on the Today show, Michele said, “Treat her for what her body calls for and not standard protocol.” Edward’s blog, prayforkatie.blogspot.com, received thousands of hits. Letters poured in to the Corpus Christi Caller-Times, some giving voice to the question that was on every parent’s mind. As one Washington woman put it, “Does this mean that all of us must now abdicate our rights to decide our own methods of medical treatment and let the state decide?” Soon the Werneckes would be petitioning Governor Rick Perry for a meeting, broadcasting their plea on area billboards: “Katie Wernecke wants to go home to her parents.”
ON JUNE 10 THE WERNECKES listened in shock as a radiologist reported in court that Katie’s cancer had returned, her chances of recovery now down to 50 percent. Though Katie needed her parents’ support more than ever, their access continued to be monitored; when they visited at M.D. Anderson, guards followed them everywhere. The presiding judge in Corpus Christi, Carl Lewis, was torn. Medical neglect cases rely heavily on a judge’s discretion, and his information on Katie was constantly changing. At the court hearings throughout the following weeks, CPS argued for radiation based on the opinions of Katie’s M.D. Anderson doctors, including pediatric oncologist Robert Wells. Sometimes radiation can be avoided, he explained in court testimony, but “with patients like Katie, with [a] large mass, the relapse rate is fifty percent. That’s why chemo-only wasn’t considered.” While it was a sound argument, Lewis was eager to hear the Werneckes’ proposal. But even though they had been campaigning against radiation—going so far as to threaten Katie’s radiologist with a lawsuit—they offered few alternatives in the courtroom. Still, Lewis remained open-minded: He would let two independent Hodgkin’s disease specialists review Katie’s medical records for a hearing in early September before making a decision.
By the time of the hearing, however, the family’s lawyers didn’t have the necessary opinions. “We couldn’t find a doctor to testify on our behalf,” Luis Corona, the Werneckes’ local counsel, would explain later. “The problem was, we couldn’t have her examined because she was in state custody. A lot of doctors don’t want to go against conventional treatments. They didn’t want to get involved in the controversy.” It was a costly holdup; the judge could not evaluate a nonexistent alternative. After almost half a dozen hearings, and with no viable options to consider, Lewis had had enough. “This isn’t poker,” he said. “I’m not waiting anymore. Every hour we wait is an hour that’s critical to this child’s life.”
Katie had had enough too. After months of hearing the side effects of high-dose chemo, she’d made a choice herself: She was not going to take the next scheduled round. Refusing to cooperate with nurses or doctors, she pulled the catheters out of her shoulder and drank a soda when she was told it would interfere with the procedure. Alarmed, Lewis met with Katie in person, alone. Three days later, on September 19, he told the Werneckes that their disapproval of standard protocol was affecting Katie’s cooperation. “How long are we going to do this...dance?” he pleaded. Lewis cut off all communication between Edward and Katie; Michele would be allowed visits provided she sign a contract in which she’d agree to encourage doctors’ recommendations. Immediately after the hearing, Lewis underwent open-heart surgery for a torn aorta. He signed the orders the next morning in his recovery bed.
ON OCTOBER 31 EDWARD CARRIED a box full of files into the courtroom. As he silently approached his place across the aisle from CPS workers and lawyers, he wore the same grave expression he had shown in newspaper photos. Michele smiled and bounced a little as she talked. She and Edward had found a way to visit Katie the previous day after all, and Katie had seemed to be in good spirits. With Lewis recovering from his surgery, a new judge, Jack Hunter, was presiding, and Michele was optimistic that she’d finally get Katie back for good.
Hunter had made it clear before the hearing that he wasn’t going to rehash who did what to whom, stating, “My job is to save this baby, and I’m going to do it.” He admonished the lawyers when they traded accusations about Katie’s condition. “Let’s say you’re right, and in nine months we find you’re right and the child has died,” he said. “Every hour [we argue] is one less she has to live.”
Katie’s chances of beating Hodgkin’s had now slipped to 20 percent. Although she had resumed chemotherapy, her doctors attributed the relapse to her unwillingness to stay on their treatment schedule. Edward and Michele, who blamed the doctors for her deteriorating condition, had an alternative to suggest. A doctor in Wichita, Kansas, at the Center for the Improvement of Human Functioning International, would give Katie vitamin C treatments as a next step. After lengthy arguments by the lawyers about guarantees and “true treatment plans,” Dr. Wells testified via speakerphone, urging Katie’s continued treatment at M.D. Anderson. “Two times when the therapy stopped, the disease has come back within a month,” he said. “If Katie leaves for a month...I’m afraid she’ll have a recurrence, and I don’t know if I’d have any therapies that can help her...At some point you run out of time...At some point this disease will be incurable.”
Finally, Hunter asked for Katie on speakerphone. Her voice was weak, and she sounded tired. “Do you feel like everyone is pulling on you?” he asked.
“Kinda,” she said.
“What do you want to do?”
“I want to go home.”
“Do you want to talk to a doctor in Wichita?”
“Yeah.”
“We’ve all gotten off whack,” Hunter said after the final arguments. “The court is of the opinion to dismiss the department.” Katie could return home.
EMERGING FROM THE HOSPITAL on November 3, Katie shrunk from the press as she stood between her parents, looking pale in the bright sun. She stared at the ground and answered only a few questions. “I’m feeling better,” she told the Caller-Times. “It was very boring and kind of lonely without my parents.” Edward, for the first time in a while, was smiling. “Today,” his lawyer’s press release read, “all Texas parents have achieved a substantial victory protecting their rights to decide how their children will be cared for when a medical crisis occurs.”
It will be a while before anyone knows the measure of victory. Lingering questions about the wisdom of the CPS intervention, the doctors’ persistence, and the Werneckes’ determination can only be answered by Katie’s outcome. Given the many variables, any family-law attorneys hoping to learn hard-and-fast rules from a case like this will be disappointed.
Although Judge Hunter had asked that Katie return to M.D. Anderson for follow-up treatment, Edward canceled all of Katie’s appointments at the facility. At home, Katie received vitamin C injections from a registered nurse, and that alone would be her treatment until further notice.
“Dr. Wells called me the other day,” Edward said in November, as Katie received her treatments in the next room. “He said that if Katie doesn’t get radiation, she’ll die. I told him we were in another doctor’s care. I said, ‘Why do you ask? Are you thinking of turning us in to CPS again?’”
The answer, Edward was surprised to hear, was yes.
Find this article at:
http://www.texasmonthly.com/mag/issues/2006-01-01/reporter.php?click_code=a51f5bde54562307ed376d1581bb4fcf
posted by Katie W. @ Monday, December 26, 2005
Saturday, December 24, 2005
Prayer Vigil for Katie Tonight
A prayer vigil for the healing of Katie Wernecke is being held on December 24th at 6:00pm 7:00pm 8:00pm and 9:00pm across this country. New York to California and Wisconsin to Texas and Utah to Florida. Ohio, North and South Carolina, and Texas. Join us for prayer for the complete healing of Katie Wernecke on Christmas Eve. We are united in prayer with one voice and one purpose. Thanks to Arthur and Sharon Raiche in South Carolina for making this happen and the many gifts.
Edward
Edward
posted by Katie W. @ Saturday, December 24, 2005
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Radiation Risk From CT Scans
Radiation Risk From CT Scans: A Call for Patient-Focused Imaging Posted 01/26/2005
Richard C. Semelka, MD Editor's Note:Richard Semelka, MD, is one of the preeminent practitioners of abdominal MRI in the United States and is a frequent contributor to Medscape Radiology..
Hippocrates is credited with the expression "First, do no harm" (ca 460-ca 377 B.C.), which has become the oath of all physicians in their doctoral graduation. The radiology community adheres to the fundamental precept of ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) in order to limit patients' exposure to harmful radiation."First, Do No Harm": The Present-Day Fallacy.
In recent years, there has been an increased awareness of the rights of patients and their need for information and protection. Despite this, one egregious example in which patients are not provided sufficient information to make informed decisions on their healthcare involves the limited information provided to them on diagnostic imaging tools, including their merits and potential adverse effects. A recent article in the radiology literature describes how patients are generally not informed about the potential deleterious effects of radiation exposure related to undergoing computed tomographic (CT) investigation.[1] Only 7% of patients stated that they were informed about the risks and benefits of the examination, and only 3% reported that they were informed about the increased lifetime cancer risk associated with CT. Referring emergency physicians were also largely unaware that there were any potential harmful effects from the radiation exposure, with only 9% aware of the increased cancer risk. Of even greater concern is the fact that the majority of the radiologists performing the CT examinations considered the radiation exposure of limited concern and were unaware of the amount of radiation delivered to the patient with CT. Only 47% of radiologists were cognizant of the increased risk for cancer associated with CT. The article stopped short of describing a further inadequacy of the information provided, in that the patients were not made aware that alternative, less harmful imaging techniques were available, notably, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).Why Perform CT When MRI Is Safer -- and Perhaps Better. MRI is an imaging modality that is considerably safer than CT on the basis of a number of factors, of which radiation exposure is perhaps the most serious. In addition, MRI may actually be much more accurate in describing disease. Although MRI is recognized to be superior to CT in a number of organ systems, a recent pivotal article also has shown that screening MRI of the entire body may be as accurate or more accurate than individual "gold-standard" diagnostic investigations of individual organ systems.[2] The accuracy of modern MRI to evaluate the full range of organ systems should cause reevaluation of how different imaging investigations should be used to ensure the welfare of patients and optimize their care.CT Scanning: More Harm Than Good?It is beyond question that radiation delivered by x-ray-based imaging modalities has deleterious health effects.[3-7] The problem is that an exact quantification of these harmful effects is difficult to ascertain -- which explains why physicians in general have not been overly concerned about the radiation related to CT investigation. One prior study, however, described the increased risk of breast cancer in patients who are women who received serial spine x-rays for the investigation of scoliosis,[5] and another study described the increased incidence of leukemia in patients who underwent serial radiographic examination during childhood.[8] One of the most recent of these articles[4] estimates that, per year, diagnostic x-ray use in the United States causes .9% of the cumulative risk of cancer to age 75 in men and women, equivalent to 5695 cases. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) estimates that a CT examination with an effective dose of 10 millisieverts (mSv), for example, 1 CT examination of the abdomen, may be associated with an increase in the possibility of fatal cancer of approximately 1 chance in 2000 (http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/ct/risks.html).This statistic becomes even more alarming if one considers the potential public health problem, when one contemplates that 60 million CT scans are performed per year in the United States.[9] The pediatric population represents an especially vulnerable group of patients at increased risk for cancer development secondary to low-level ionizing radiation. Recent studies show that 600,000 abdominal and head CT examinations annually in children under the age of 15 years could result in 500 deaths from cancer attribute to CT radiation.[10] These estimates are terrifying and particularly tragic if safe, alternative radiology modalities are available.Balancing Risks and BenefitsIt has been more than 50 years since physicians had direct physical evidence of the dangers of radiation exposure,[11,12] which is older than the career experience of even the most senior practicing physicians. The understandable excitement that current practicing radiologists experience with the increased imaging capability of modern multidetector CT is therefore not tempered with the direct experience of the harmful effects of excessive radiation exposure. Techniques that employ modern multidetector CT technology, multiphase contrast-enhanced CT of the liver or kidneys, and CT urography are generally performed with the intention of acquiring sufficient data to provide maximal image quality and diagnostic information, but often without enough attention paid to limiting radiation exposure. Attention has been directed in a number of reports to diminish the amount of radiation delivered by CT studies in settings, such as pediatric CT studies or lung screening studies.[13] At the same time, it is clear that often radiation settings are not adjusted to lower levels for pediatric patients and small adults.[14]The Case for MRI: Especially in ChildrenIn my opinion, an even better approach is to avoid radiation altogether by performing MRI. As mentioned previously, consideration is not often placed as to whether another technique may provide equivalent diagnostic information with no radiation risk. The fact that modern CT equipment provides highly collimated beams and adjustable milliamperes may serve to even further lower the level of concern of radiologists and referring physicians to the dangers of radiation, and create the sense that CT is risk-free. Serial CT examinations of patients with various long-standing disorders or chronic disease are especially worrisome.Of particular importance is the pediatric patient, a population in which the radiation exposure is directed to developing organs that are extremely radiosensitive, or breast tissue in women. Examples of this circumstance include patients with Crohn's disease or of childhood abdominal malignancies, such as Wilms' tumor or neuroblastoma.Up to now, MRI has often been thought of as an alternative to CT investigation, either in patients who have contraindications to CT (allergy to contrast agents or poor renal function) or in whom CT findings are considered inconclusive. The prudent approach for the future may be a change in the paradigm of imaging investigation to less harmful techniques, with the preferential use of ultrasound (US) or MRI when accuracy of these techniques is approximately equivalent to CT, and CT reserved as a problem-solving modality and for those indications in which CT is clearly superior. CT is clearly superior for the evaluation of primary lung disease, eg, interstitial lung disease, the majority of chest and abdominal trauma, the evaluation of tubes and catheters in postoperative or intensive care patients, and the search for renal calculi.The majority of benign, malignant, and inflammatory diseases are well shown on MRI, and in the hands of experienced practitioners are better elucidated than on CT, including diseases of the spleen, adrenals, kidneys, pancreas, and male and female pelvis. Patients should undergo CT for indications in which CT is clearly superior, including primary lung disease, acute chest and abdomen trauma, the evaluation of tubes and catheters in postoperative and intensive care patients, and the evaluation of urinary tract calculi.Putting Patients FirstPatients should be made aware of the potential harmful effects of CT, including cancer death, allergic events and renal functional impairment with contrast agents, and possible complications of subcutaneous injection and discomfort with large-bore intravenous catheter insertion. Furthermore, they should be made aware that there are safer alternatives, especially MRI, which may in fact be more accurate for the evaluation of many disease processes.[15,16] Image investigation should also be thought of in terms of and categorized as single-use situations, in which exposure to one CT study may not have substantial deleterious health effects, and those circumstances of which serial use is anticipated, in which case effort should be made to using an alternative imaging strategy, such as MRI. In my opinion, one of the greatest potential harms that exists in patient care today is the injudicious use of CT by many physicians, as they unwittingly subject patients to the untoward effects of ionizing radiation. This is especially unfortunate because often MRI may be employed instead, with greater diagnostic accuracy and greater patient comfort. In diagnostic situations in which the diagnostic information of CT is superior to MRI at the present moment, eg, coronary vessel imaging, CT should be treated as the temporary imaging method of choice, until technical improvements in MRI result in an image quality that approaches the consistent accurate information of CT, and at that time replacing CT with MRI as the primary tool for these imaging indications.If we as healthcare workers are truly effective in our roles as protectors and healers of patients, then we have the obligation to inform them of the risks of radiation exposure and other adverse aspects of CT, and provide them with the information that there are alternative imaging modalities that provide comparable or superior diagnostic information. A common sentiment expressed to me by radiologists is that they would do more MRI examinations for various indications, such as liver investigation, but that they do not have enough MRI scanners to serve all of their patients. My response to them is simple: Invest in more MRI systems for the benefit of patients.In summary, although the exact risks of radiation exposure are difficult to accurately quantify, it is inarguable that radiation exposure is dangerous and undesirable. The use of CT should be used judiciously, especially when safer alternatives, namely, MRI or US, exist for the diagnosis of certain disease processes.Whether MRI or US can replace CT for various indications should be continuously reevaluated, including circumstances in which CT is diagnostically more accurate. US or MRI may evolve to achieve similar diagnostic accuracy. For many neurologic and musculoskeletal applications, the evolution of MRI to replace CT has largely taken place. This same effort should be undertaken in other anatomic regions. In my opinion, the superiority of MRI has already been well established in the liver,[15] to the extent that there is very little indication for the use of CT in liver investigation. In experienced radiologists' hands, many other abdominal and pelvic disease procedures are also better studied by MRI.[2,15,16]Toward a New Way of ImagingIn the present healthcare system, it is ironic that considerable energy and financial investment have been directed toward patient-protection practices, such as HIPPA, with little measurable benefit to the health of the patient, while the health risks of radiation from CT proceed unchecked and a lack of guidelines for physicians and information for patients goes unnoticed.
Medscape Radiology 6(1), 2005. © 2005 Medscape
Richard C. Semelka, MD Editor's Note:Richard Semelka, MD, is one of the preeminent practitioners of abdominal MRI in the United States and is a frequent contributor to Medscape Radiology..
Hippocrates is credited with the expression "First, do no harm" (ca 460-ca 377 B.C.), which has become the oath of all physicians in their doctoral graduation. The radiology community adheres to the fundamental precept of ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) in order to limit patients' exposure to harmful radiation."First, Do No Harm": The Present-Day Fallacy.
In recent years, there has been an increased awareness of the rights of patients and their need for information and protection. Despite this, one egregious example in which patients are not provided sufficient information to make informed decisions on their healthcare involves the limited information provided to them on diagnostic imaging tools, including their merits and potential adverse effects. A recent article in the radiology literature describes how patients are generally not informed about the potential deleterious effects of radiation exposure related to undergoing computed tomographic (CT) investigation.[1] Only 7% of patients stated that they were informed about the risks and benefits of the examination, and only 3% reported that they were informed about the increased lifetime cancer risk associated with CT. Referring emergency physicians were also largely unaware that there were any potential harmful effects from the radiation exposure, with only 9% aware of the increased cancer risk. Of even greater concern is the fact that the majority of the radiologists performing the CT examinations considered the radiation exposure of limited concern and were unaware of the amount of radiation delivered to the patient with CT. Only 47% of radiologists were cognizant of the increased risk for cancer associated with CT. The article stopped short of describing a further inadequacy of the information provided, in that the patients were not made aware that alternative, less harmful imaging techniques were available, notably, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).Why Perform CT When MRI Is Safer -- and Perhaps Better. MRI is an imaging modality that is considerably safer than CT on the basis of a number of factors, of which radiation exposure is perhaps the most serious. In addition, MRI may actually be much more accurate in describing disease. Although MRI is recognized to be superior to CT in a number of organ systems, a recent pivotal article also has shown that screening MRI of the entire body may be as accurate or more accurate than individual "gold-standard" diagnostic investigations of individual organ systems.[2] The accuracy of modern MRI to evaluate the full range of organ systems should cause reevaluation of how different imaging investigations should be used to ensure the welfare of patients and optimize their care.CT Scanning: More Harm Than Good?It is beyond question that radiation delivered by x-ray-based imaging modalities has deleterious health effects.[3-7] The problem is that an exact quantification of these harmful effects is difficult to ascertain -- which explains why physicians in general have not been overly concerned about the radiation related to CT investigation. One prior study, however, described the increased risk of breast cancer in patients who are women who received serial spine x-rays for the investigation of scoliosis,[5] and another study described the increased incidence of leukemia in patients who underwent serial radiographic examination during childhood.[8] One of the most recent of these articles[4] estimates that, per year, diagnostic x-ray use in the United States causes .9% of the cumulative risk of cancer to age 75 in men and women, equivalent to 5695 cases. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) estimates that a CT examination with an effective dose of 10 millisieverts (mSv), for example, 1 CT examination of the abdomen, may be associated with an increase in the possibility of fatal cancer of approximately 1 chance in 2000 (http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/ct/risks.html).This statistic becomes even more alarming if one considers the potential public health problem, when one contemplates that 60 million CT scans are performed per year in the United States.[9] The pediatric population represents an especially vulnerable group of patients at increased risk for cancer development secondary to low-level ionizing radiation. Recent studies show that 600,000 abdominal and head CT examinations annually in children under the age of 15 years could result in 500 deaths from cancer attribute to CT radiation.[10] These estimates are terrifying and particularly tragic if safe, alternative radiology modalities are available.Balancing Risks and BenefitsIt has been more than 50 years since physicians had direct physical evidence of the dangers of radiation exposure,[11,12] which is older than the career experience of even the most senior practicing physicians. The understandable excitement that current practicing radiologists experience with the increased imaging capability of modern multidetector CT is therefore not tempered with the direct experience of the harmful effects of excessive radiation exposure. Techniques that employ modern multidetector CT technology, multiphase contrast-enhanced CT of the liver or kidneys, and CT urography are generally performed with the intention of acquiring sufficient data to provide maximal image quality and diagnostic information, but often without enough attention paid to limiting radiation exposure. Attention has been directed in a number of reports to diminish the amount of radiation delivered by CT studies in settings, such as pediatric CT studies or lung screening studies.[13] At the same time, it is clear that often radiation settings are not adjusted to lower levels for pediatric patients and small adults.[14]The Case for MRI: Especially in ChildrenIn my opinion, an even better approach is to avoid radiation altogether by performing MRI. As mentioned previously, consideration is not often placed as to whether another technique may provide equivalent diagnostic information with no radiation risk. The fact that modern CT equipment provides highly collimated beams and adjustable milliamperes may serve to even further lower the level of concern of radiologists and referring physicians to the dangers of radiation, and create the sense that CT is risk-free. Serial CT examinations of patients with various long-standing disorders or chronic disease are especially worrisome.Of particular importance is the pediatric patient, a population in which the radiation exposure is directed to developing organs that are extremely radiosensitive, or breast tissue in women. Examples of this circumstance include patients with Crohn's disease or of childhood abdominal malignancies, such as Wilms' tumor or neuroblastoma.Up to now, MRI has often been thought of as an alternative to CT investigation, either in patients who have contraindications to CT (allergy to contrast agents or poor renal function) or in whom CT findings are considered inconclusive. The prudent approach for the future may be a change in the paradigm of imaging investigation to less harmful techniques, with the preferential use of ultrasound (US) or MRI when accuracy of these techniques is approximately equivalent to CT, and CT reserved as a problem-solving modality and for those indications in which CT is clearly superior. CT is clearly superior for the evaluation of primary lung disease, eg, interstitial lung disease, the majority of chest and abdominal trauma, the evaluation of tubes and catheters in postoperative or intensive care patients, and the search for renal calculi.The majority of benign, malignant, and inflammatory diseases are well shown on MRI, and in the hands of experienced practitioners are better elucidated than on CT, including diseases of the spleen, adrenals, kidneys, pancreas, and male and female pelvis. Patients should undergo CT for indications in which CT is clearly superior, including primary lung disease, acute chest and abdomen trauma, the evaluation of tubes and catheters in postoperative and intensive care patients, and the evaluation of urinary tract calculi.Putting Patients FirstPatients should be made aware of the potential harmful effects of CT, including cancer death, allergic events and renal functional impairment with contrast agents, and possible complications of subcutaneous injection and discomfort with large-bore intravenous catheter insertion. Furthermore, they should be made aware that there are safer alternatives, especially MRI, which may in fact be more accurate for the evaluation of many disease processes.[15,16] Image investigation should also be thought of in terms of and categorized as single-use situations, in which exposure to one CT study may not have substantial deleterious health effects, and those circumstances of which serial use is anticipated, in which case effort should be made to using an alternative imaging strategy, such as MRI. In my opinion, one of the greatest potential harms that exists in patient care today is the injudicious use of CT by many physicians, as they unwittingly subject patients to the untoward effects of ionizing radiation. This is especially unfortunate because often MRI may be employed instead, with greater diagnostic accuracy and greater patient comfort. In diagnostic situations in which the diagnostic information of CT is superior to MRI at the present moment, eg, coronary vessel imaging, CT should be treated as the temporary imaging method of choice, until technical improvements in MRI result in an image quality that approaches the consistent accurate information of CT, and at that time replacing CT with MRI as the primary tool for these imaging indications.If we as healthcare workers are truly effective in our roles as protectors and healers of patients, then we have the obligation to inform them of the risks of radiation exposure and other adverse aspects of CT, and provide them with the information that there are alternative imaging modalities that provide comparable or superior diagnostic information. A common sentiment expressed to me by radiologists is that they would do more MRI examinations for various indications, such as liver investigation, but that they do not have enough MRI scanners to serve all of their patients. My response to them is simple: Invest in more MRI systems for the benefit of patients.In summary, although the exact risks of radiation exposure are difficult to accurately quantify, it is inarguable that radiation exposure is dangerous and undesirable. The use of CT should be used judiciously, especially when safer alternatives, namely, MRI or US, exist for the diagnosis of certain disease processes.Whether MRI or US can replace CT for various indications should be continuously reevaluated, including circumstances in which CT is diagnostically more accurate. US or MRI may evolve to achieve similar diagnostic accuracy. For many neurologic and musculoskeletal applications, the evolution of MRI to replace CT has largely taken place. This same effort should be undertaken in other anatomic regions. In my opinion, the superiority of MRI has already been well established in the liver,[15] to the extent that there is very little indication for the use of CT in liver investigation. In experienced radiologists' hands, many other abdominal and pelvic disease procedures are also better studied by MRI.[2,15,16]Toward a New Way of ImagingIn the present healthcare system, it is ironic that considerable energy and financial investment have been directed toward patient-protection practices, such as HIPPA, with little measurable benefit to the health of the patient, while the health risks of radiation from CT proceed unchecked and a lack of guidelines for physicians and information for patients goes unnoticed.
Medscape Radiology 6(1), 2005. © 2005 Medscape
posted by Katie W. @ Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Monday, December 19, 2005
Prayer Vigil for Katie on December 24th Across the Land
A prayer vigil for the healing of Katie Wernecke is being held on December 24th at 6:00pm 7:00pm 8:00pm and 9:00pm across this country. New York to California and Wisconsin to Texas and Utah to Florida. Ohio, North and South Carolina, and Texas. Join us for prayer for the complete healing of Katie Wernecke on Christmas Eve. We are united in prayer with one voice and one purpose. Thanks to Arthur and Sharon Raiche in South Carolina for making this happen and the many gifts.
Edward
Edward
posted by Katie W. @ Monday, December 19, 2005
Sunday, December 18, 2005
Chemotherapy and Supplements
When Katie was in our care during chemotherapy the first five months we gave her nutritional supplements.
When CPS and M.D. Anderson had control of my daughter Katie for the next five months they wouldn't allow her to have any nutritional supplements.
There was a lot of damage done to Katie mentally and physically by the chemotherapy without the supplements during the last five months. Consider the following article:
If You're on Chemotherapy, You Should Avoid Supplements, Right? Wrong!
10/06/2005
I don't want you to be the victims of junk science, and especially if you have cancer. Take the recent "report" published by the American Cancer Society (ACS). This organization dares to suggest that taking antioxidants might hurt cancer patients.
However, report is nothing more than unsupported opinion. It's the ACS that has given us the horrific slash (surgery), burn (radiation), and poison (chemotherapy) approach to cancer. Amazing! They dare to assert that antioxidants might interfere with therapies that kill. What an oxymoron.
Truth is, this attack on supplements is nothing new. In fact, Kenneth Conklin published a fine review on the subject five years ago.
Conklin reviewed several antioxidants including vitamin C, glutathione, vitamin E, NAC, selenium, and more. He did give a few precautions for specific antioxidants when taken with chemo agents. In particular, glutathione and NAC shouldn't be administered simultaneously with platinum agents.
However, the general report not only suggested protection from the ravages of chemo. The report went on to say that antioxidants actually increase the effectiveness of it!
Some agents, such as adriamycin and its family of chemicals, have well known and irreversible cardiac toxicity. CoQ10 can likely protect your heart against destruction wrought by this feared complication. I wonder how many chemo-induced heart attacks could have been prevented by CoQ10.
In scores of my own cancer patients, I consistently find a far higher quality of life in my patients who take antioxidants - with or without chemo. I've witnessed miraculous cancer reversals. Patients with even stage-4 cancer who undergo a major metabolic program of detoxification and nutritional supplementation have recovered!
As far as the alleged scientific studies showing antioxidants fail at expectations, we need to look at the methods of study. Typically, they're conducted with synthetic or refined nutrients. For example, most vitamin E studies are conducted with purified alpha tocopherol, not the more beneficial gamma tocopherol. Alpha tocopherol may actually displace what little good gamma tocopherol you have in your body.
I say you can't beat nature. So your best bet to prevent cancer is to eat an organic diet as fresh and living as possible. Supplements are just that - supplements. And you should buy only quality brands. Even some supplements are synthetic and devoid of the biological cofactors God put together in a whole living food.
Robert J. Rowen, MD
Ref: Conklin, Kenneth A. "Dietary Antioxidants During Cancer Chemotherapy: Impact on Chemotherapeutic Effectiveness and Development of Side Effects," Nutrition and Cancer 37(1):1-18, 2000
When CPS and M.D. Anderson had control of my daughter Katie for the next five months they wouldn't allow her to have any nutritional supplements.
There was a lot of damage done to Katie mentally and physically by the chemotherapy without the supplements during the last five months. Consider the following article:
If You're on Chemotherapy, You Should Avoid Supplements, Right? Wrong!
10/06/2005
I don't want you to be the victims of junk science, and especially if you have cancer. Take the recent "report" published by the American Cancer Society (ACS). This organization dares to suggest that taking antioxidants might hurt cancer patients.
However, report is nothing more than unsupported opinion. It's the ACS that has given us the horrific slash (surgery), burn (radiation), and poison (chemotherapy) approach to cancer. Amazing! They dare to assert that antioxidants might interfere with therapies that kill. What an oxymoron.
Truth is, this attack on supplements is nothing new. In fact, Kenneth Conklin published a fine review on the subject five years ago.
Conklin reviewed several antioxidants including vitamin C, glutathione, vitamin E, NAC, selenium, and more. He did give a few precautions for specific antioxidants when taken with chemo agents. In particular, glutathione and NAC shouldn't be administered simultaneously with platinum agents.
However, the general report not only suggested protection from the ravages of chemo. The report went on to say that antioxidants actually increase the effectiveness of it!
Some agents, such as adriamycin and its family of chemicals, have well known and irreversible cardiac toxicity. CoQ10 can likely protect your heart against destruction wrought by this feared complication. I wonder how many chemo-induced heart attacks could have been prevented by CoQ10.
In scores of my own cancer patients, I consistently find a far higher quality of life in my patients who take antioxidants - with or without chemo. I've witnessed miraculous cancer reversals. Patients with even stage-4 cancer who undergo a major metabolic program of detoxification and nutritional supplementation have recovered!
As far as the alleged scientific studies showing antioxidants fail at expectations, we need to look at the methods of study. Typically, they're conducted with synthetic or refined nutrients. For example, most vitamin E studies are conducted with purified alpha tocopherol, not the more beneficial gamma tocopherol. Alpha tocopherol may actually displace what little good gamma tocopherol you have in your body.
I say you can't beat nature. So your best bet to prevent cancer is to eat an organic diet as fresh and living as possible. Supplements are just that - supplements. And you should buy only quality brands. Even some supplements are synthetic and devoid of the biological cofactors God put together in a whole living food.
Robert J. Rowen, MD
Ref: Conklin, Kenneth A. "Dietary Antioxidants During Cancer Chemotherapy: Impact on Chemotherapeutic Effectiveness and Development of Side Effects," Nutrition and Cancer 37(1):1-18, 2000
posted by Katie W. @ Sunday, December 18, 2005
Friday, December 16, 2005
Attacking Cancer's Secret Weakness
There are other ways to fight cancer other than surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation. It's time for doctors and the cancer industry to wake up and see that traditional cancer treatments have been a failure and search for new promising cures. Occassionally we run across an article like this:
Edward
Article from Second Opinion Health Alert:
******************************************************
Herbal "Smart Bomb" Tricks Cancer
into Self-Destructing
******************************************************
Donald, a 47-year-old mechanic, had just been
diagnosed by an oncologist with an ugly egg-sized
tumor on the left side of his head.
I gave him a new cancer-fighting supplement derived
from a plant that grows in Southeast Asia.
After two weeks, there was a slight depression in
the center of the lump. And a month later, the tumor
was totally gone! The skin where it had been was
completely smooth.
Donald was one of my first cases using this new
therapy. After many more, I now believe this may be
the future of cancer treatment - and the breakthrough
of our lifetime.
It works by attacking cancer's secret weakness.
You see, most doctors attack cancer head-on. They
poison it with chemotherapy. Burn it with radiation.
Cut it out with surgery. Any of which can have a
devastating effect on the patient's health.
But I prefer to take advantage of cancer's hidden
weaknesses - like its need for iron.
All cells need iron to reproduce. But since cancer
cells multiply very rapidly, they need lots of iron.
In fact, they actually hoard iron.
That's the key to this amazing cancer-fighting
supplement. Called artemisinin (from Artesmesia annua),
it has an amazing effect on iron. When it comes in
contact with it, the iron releases a huge burst of
highly reactive free radicals - a "smart bomb" that
literally blows up the deadly cancer cell.
In laboratory experiments, the doctor who first
reported this phenomenon documented an amazing 100%
kill rate in cancer cells in just hours.
Just as importantly, artemisinin left normal cells
completely unharmed!
Recently, a study published in a major cancer journal
found artemisinin showed significant anti-cancer
activity against many different types of cancer cells.
And even cancers resistant to chemotherapy drugs
showed no such resistance to this herb!
Take Diane for example. She was 47 years old when she
came to me with breast cancer that had spread to her
spine.
All doctors could offer her was full dose chemotherapy -
but not a drop of hope.
She even tried various alternative therapies. But the
cancer refused to budge. Yet after being treated with
artemisinin, she felt totally well. Her latest CT scan
indicates she may well be cancer free.
One physician I know has been using this amazing
supplement for over a decade. He tells me he has seen
hundreds of long-term remissions - including many
patients who had been declared "terminal."
In fact, with the exception of patients who were
already very near death, artemisinin has stabilized,
improved, or cured every cancer patient I have
personally followed.
Unfortunately, most health food stores do not sell
the concentrated form of artemisinin that stopped
cancer in clinical trials.
In fact, most artemisinin products usually contain
less than 10 to 20 percent of the anti-cancer
activity.
The only artemisinin product I recommend is distributed
by Allergy Research Group. It's a high-grade product,
and its potency is confirmed by independent lab
analysis.
Artemisinin is truly a revolution in the treatment of
cancer. In studies, it's been shown to be nontoxic
and free of side effects.
However, if you or a loved one intends to use it, I
strongly suggest supervision by a medical professional
familiar with its use. Please have your blood count
and liver function monitored while on the therapy
to be as safe as possible.
Yours for better health and medical freedom,
Robert Jay Rowen, MD
Edward
Article from Second Opinion Health Alert:
******************************************************
Herbal "Smart Bomb" Tricks Cancer
into Self-Destructing
******************************************************
Donald, a 47-year-old mechanic, had just been
diagnosed by an oncologist with an ugly egg-sized
tumor on the left side of his head.
I gave him a new cancer-fighting supplement derived
from a plant that grows in Southeast Asia.
After two weeks, there was a slight depression in
the center of the lump. And a month later, the tumor
was totally gone! The skin where it had been was
completely smooth.
Donald was one of my first cases using this new
therapy. After many more, I now believe this may be
the future of cancer treatment - and the breakthrough
of our lifetime.
It works by attacking cancer's secret weakness.
You see, most doctors attack cancer head-on. They
poison it with chemotherapy. Burn it with radiation.
Cut it out with surgery. Any of which can have a
devastating effect on the patient's health.
But I prefer to take advantage of cancer's hidden
weaknesses - like its need for iron.
All cells need iron to reproduce. But since cancer
cells multiply very rapidly, they need lots of iron.
In fact, they actually hoard iron.
That's the key to this amazing cancer-fighting
supplement. Called artemisinin (from Artesmesia annua),
it has an amazing effect on iron. When it comes in
contact with it, the iron releases a huge burst of
highly reactive free radicals - a "smart bomb" that
literally blows up the deadly cancer cell.
In laboratory experiments, the doctor who first
reported this phenomenon documented an amazing 100%
kill rate in cancer cells in just hours.
Just as importantly, artemisinin left normal cells
completely unharmed!
Recently, a study published in a major cancer journal
found artemisinin showed significant anti-cancer
activity against many different types of cancer cells.
And even cancers resistant to chemotherapy drugs
showed no such resistance to this herb!
Take Diane for example. She was 47 years old when she
came to me with breast cancer that had spread to her
spine.
All doctors could offer her was full dose chemotherapy -
but not a drop of hope.
She even tried various alternative therapies. But the
cancer refused to budge. Yet after being treated with
artemisinin, she felt totally well. Her latest CT scan
indicates she may well be cancer free.
One physician I know has been using this amazing
supplement for over a decade. He tells me he has seen
hundreds of long-term remissions - including many
patients who had been declared "terminal."
In fact, with the exception of patients who were
already very near death, artemisinin has stabilized,
improved, or cured every cancer patient I have
personally followed.
Unfortunately, most health food stores do not sell
the concentrated form of artemisinin that stopped
cancer in clinical trials.
In fact, most artemisinin products usually contain
less than 10 to 20 percent of the anti-cancer
activity.
The only artemisinin product I recommend is distributed
by Allergy Research Group. It's a high-grade product,
and its potency is confirmed by independent lab
analysis.
Artemisinin is truly a revolution in the treatment of
cancer. In studies, it's been shown to be nontoxic
and free of side effects.
However, if you or a loved one intends to use it, I
strongly suggest supervision by a medical professional
familiar with its use. Please have your blood count
and liver function monitored while on the therapy
to be as safe as possible.
Yours for better health and medical freedom,
Robert Jay Rowen, MD
posted by Katie W. @ Friday, December 16, 2005
0 comments
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Any One Have Experience With Cancer Metabolic?
CANCER METABOLIC
DR JULIAN F MEJIA
HOSPITAL SAINT MARK
Blvd. Playas # 401 Playas
TIJUANA B. C. MEXICO
619 251 7233
TREATMENTS OFFERRED
• Metabolic Therapy -First described by Dr .Manner at Harold Manner Memorial Hospital, this, along with the Manner Cocktail, forms the foundation of our approach. Essentially, Metabolic Therapy is a re- balancing of the entire body's system through the use of natural and nutritional approaches (including vitamins, minerals, supplements and herbs). Once the body's system is re-balanced, the body is capable of a stronger and more effective immune response.
• The Manner Cocktail -Dr. Harold Manner designed what has been called the "Manner Cocktail". It contains 9 to 18 grams of Laetrile, 25 to 50cc of DMSO, and up to 25 to 50 grams of Vitamin C. The Cocktail is administered by intravenous drip over a period of three to four hours every day during the patient's stay at Manner Hospital. The Cocktail's major ingredients are:
1. Laetrile: Also called amygdalin or Vitamin B 17, its function is to attack malignant cells specifically without hurting healthy, normal cells. Laetrile also has an analgesic effect, but it does not depress the immune system.
2. Macrodoses of Vitamin C: Vitamin C is well known as an antioxidant but in macrodoses is also an excellent way of stimulating our body's production of interferon a strong immune system stimulant.
3. DMSO: This has no specific action against cancer, but it is used as a carrier for laetrile, due to its ability to cross all of the body's tissue barriers (including the central nervous system).
I emailed this center and got this reply below and information above from Dr. Julian Mejia:
Please find attach files which explain in more details all of he treatments we offer at our hospital, All of this therapies has demonstrated to be successful and non-toxic, with very minimum side effects.
In my personal experience we have treated over 500 cases of lymphomas on different stages, we have been successful in over 90% stages I-III and 75-80% on stage IV with bone marrow or liver metastasis.
Please read carefully our program on attach file and if further questions please do not hesitate to contact us again.
Your in health
Dr Julian Mejia
Medical Director
Cancer Metabolic
www.cancermetabolic.com
research@cancermetabolic.com
If you have had any personal experience with Cancer Metabolic than please email me and tell me about it at edwardw@awesomenet.net or leave a comment below. I would like to reseach other alternative cancer treatments available. And I want to know people who have used them. Thanks, Edward.
DR JULIAN F MEJIA
HOSPITAL SAINT MARK
Blvd. Playas # 401 Playas
TIJUANA B. C. MEXICO
619 251 7233
TREATMENTS OFFERRED
• Metabolic Therapy -First described by Dr .Manner at Harold Manner Memorial Hospital, this, along with the Manner Cocktail, forms the foundation of our approach. Essentially, Metabolic Therapy is a re- balancing of the entire body's system through the use of natural and nutritional approaches (including vitamins, minerals, supplements and herbs). Once the body's system is re-balanced, the body is capable of a stronger and more effective immune response.
• The Manner Cocktail -Dr. Harold Manner designed what has been called the "Manner Cocktail". It contains 9 to 18 grams of Laetrile, 25 to 50cc of DMSO, and up to 25 to 50 grams of Vitamin C. The Cocktail is administered by intravenous drip over a period of three to four hours every day during the patient's stay at Manner Hospital. The Cocktail's major ingredients are:
1. Laetrile: Also called amygdalin or Vitamin B 17, its function is to attack malignant cells specifically without hurting healthy, normal cells. Laetrile also has an analgesic effect, but it does not depress the immune system.
2. Macrodoses of Vitamin C: Vitamin C is well known as an antioxidant but in macrodoses is also an excellent way of stimulating our body's production of interferon a strong immune system stimulant.
3. DMSO: This has no specific action against cancer, but it is used as a carrier for laetrile, due to its ability to cross all of the body's tissue barriers (including the central nervous system).
I emailed this center and got this reply below and information above from Dr. Julian Mejia:
Please find attach files which explain in more details all of he treatments we offer at our hospital, All of this therapies has demonstrated to be successful and non-toxic, with very minimum side effects.
In my personal experience we have treated over 500 cases of lymphomas on different stages, we have been successful in over 90% stages I-III and 75-80% on stage IV with bone marrow or liver metastasis.
Please read carefully our program on attach file and if further questions please do not hesitate to contact us again.
Your in health
Dr Julian Mejia
Medical Director
Cancer Metabolic
www.cancermetabolic.com
research@cancermetabolic.com
If you have had any personal experience with Cancer Metabolic than please email me and tell me about it at edwardw@awesomenet.net or leave a comment below. I would like to reseach other alternative cancer treatments available. And I want to know people who have used them. Thanks, Edward.
posted by Katie W. @ Thursday, December 15, 2005
1 comments
Monday, December 12, 2005
Katie Is Doing Well - Keep Her in Your Prayers
Just a short note to let everyone know Katie is doing well. She continues to receive the IVC treatments three times a week. Doses were adjusted last Friday based on test results. Baseline MRI was done and another will be done in early January to compare results and progress. A blood test CBC will be done tomorrow. Please keep her in your prayers. Expenses are piling up. Please leave a donation at www.saveakid.us.
God Bless You,
Edward
God Bless You,
Edward
posted by Katie W. @ Monday, December 12, 2005
Texas CPS Admits to Using Phony Story to Boost Holiday Donations
Texas caseworkers admit to using phony story to boost holiday donations
Updated Dec. 9, 2005, 4:56 p.m. ET
HOUSTON (AP) — It was a heart-wrenching story: A 10-year-old boy named John, separated from his mother since the hurricane, was living with other foster children in an emergency shelter, and he had one Christmas wish — to go home.
"But there's no way I'll get gifts for Christmas. I don't even believe in Santa anymore," he was quoted as saying.
The Brazosport Facts ran the profile on its front page Nov. 29 as part of its Fill-a-Stocking series, which features a different foster child each day from Thanksgiving through Christmas and solicits donations for a local charity to help fulfill the child's holiday wish.
But the story was a work of fiction.
State caseworkers apparently made it up to tug at readers' heartstrings.
Dan Lauck, a reporter with KHOU-TV in Houston, discovered the story was phony after calling state officials to request an interview with the child. He believed that if the boy's story was told on television, the youngster might find his mother.
Lauck said his requests were repeatedly denied because of what he was told were privacy concerns. Eventually he was told that the boy was living with relatives. Finally, an agency spokesman told him the profile had been made up.
Caseworkers with state Child Protective Services in Brazoria County, outside Houston, were responsible for writing the profiles for the newspaper's charity drive, which has been a holiday fixture in the 19,000-circulation paper since 1982.
CPS has apologized to the paper, which immediately suspended its series and returned the $1,070 collected so far this year from donors.
Bill Cornwell, publisher of The Facts, said the newspaper trusted the agency to present accurate stories, and believed only minor changes — such as names and ages — were made to protect the children's privacy. Given privacy issues related to foster children, Cornwell said there was only so much verification the newspaper could do.
CPS is investigating how it all happened, spokesman Patrick Crimmins said.
Lauck said it does not appear the CPS caseworkers had any bad intentions.
"They were just trying to tell stories that would clearly tug at the heart, capture the emotions of the readers and inspire them to give more money," the TV reporter said. "But they did it in a way that misled the public."
Bob Steele, a former TV news director who teaches ethics at the Poynter Institute, a school for journalists, said the problem could have been averted if the profiles had been done by reporters rather than caseworkers.
"The integrity of the paper is damaged, the good cause that was intended is eroded and those in need are then not served as they should be," Steele said.
Cornwell said his newspaper is now trying to determine whether previous stories were falsified, too. He said he does not understand why a caseworker would resort to fiction, since foster children's real stories that are compelling enough.
Meanwhile, he said some readers are frustrated with the newspaper for canceling the series and think The Facts abandoned the children.
"We are not going to walk away from the kids' needs monetarily," Cornwell said. But he said: "We are out to get to the bottom of the situation so people can trust what they read."
Article URL:
http://www.courttv.com/news/2005/1209/donations_ap.html
Updated Dec. 9, 2005, 4:56 p.m. ET
HOUSTON (AP) — It was a heart-wrenching story: A 10-year-old boy named John, separated from his mother since the hurricane, was living with other foster children in an emergency shelter, and he had one Christmas wish — to go home.
"But there's no way I'll get gifts for Christmas. I don't even believe in Santa anymore," he was quoted as saying.
The Brazosport Facts ran the profile on its front page Nov. 29 as part of its Fill-a-Stocking series, which features a different foster child each day from Thanksgiving through Christmas and solicits donations for a local charity to help fulfill the child's holiday wish.
But the story was a work of fiction.
State caseworkers apparently made it up to tug at readers' heartstrings.
Dan Lauck, a reporter with KHOU-TV in Houston, discovered the story was phony after calling state officials to request an interview with the child. He believed that if the boy's story was told on television, the youngster might find his mother.
Lauck said his requests were repeatedly denied because of what he was told were privacy concerns. Eventually he was told that the boy was living with relatives. Finally, an agency spokesman told him the profile had been made up.
Caseworkers with state Child Protective Services in Brazoria County, outside Houston, were responsible for writing the profiles for the newspaper's charity drive, which has been a holiday fixture in the 19,000-circulation paper since 1982.
CPS has apologized to the paper, which immediately suspended its series and returned the $1,070 collected so far this year from donors.
Bill Cornwell, publisher of The Facts, said the newspaper trusted the agency to present accurate stories, and believed only minor changes — such as names and ages — were made to protect the children's privacy. Given privacy issues related to foster children, Cornwell said there was only so much verification the newspaper could do.
CPS is investigating how it all happened, spokesman Patrick Crimmins said.
Lauck said it does not appear the CPS caseworkers had any bad intentions.
"They were just trying to tell stories that would clearly tug at the heart, capture the emotions of the readers and inspire them to give more money," the TV reporter said. "But they did it in a way that misled the public."
Bob Steele, a former TV news director who teaches ethics at the Poynter Institute, a school for journalists, said the problem could have been averted if the profiles had been done by reporters rather than caseworkers.
"The integrity of the paper is damaged, the good cause that was intended is eroded and those in need are then not served as they should be," Steele said.
Cornwell said his newspaper is now trying to determine whether previous stories were falsified, too. He said he does not understand why a caseworker would resort to fiction, since foster children's real stories that are compelling enough.
Meanwhile, he said some readers are frustrated with the newspaper for canceling the series and think The Facts abandoned the children.
"We are not going to walk away from the kids' needs monetarily," Cornwell said. But he said: "We are out to get to the bottom of the situation so people can trust what they read."
Article URL:
http://www.courttv.com/news/2005/1209/donations_ap.html
posted by Katie W. @ Monday, December 12, 2005
0 comments
Saturday, December 10, 2005
When Life is Too Much To Handle
THE MAYONNAISE JAR and 2 CUPS OF COFFEE
When things in your life seem almost too much to handle, when 24 hours in a
day are not enough, remember the mayonnaise jar and 2 cups of coffee.
A professor stood before his philosophy class and had some items in front of
him. When the class began, wordlessly, he picked up a very large and empty
mayonnaise jar and proceeded to fill it with golf balls. He then asked the
students if the jar was full. They agreed that it was. The professor then
picked up a box of pebbles and poured them into the jar. He shook the jar
lightly. The pebbles rolled into the open areas between the golf balls. He
then asked the students again if the jar was full. They agreed it was. The
professor next picked up a box of sand and poured it into the jar. Of
course, the sand filled up everything else. He asked once more if the jar
was full. The students responded with a unanimous "yes."
The professor then produced two cups of coffee from under the table and
poured the entire contents into the jar, effectively filling the empty space
between the sand.
The students laughed.
"Now," said the professor, as the laughter subsided, "I want you to
recognize that this jar represents your life. The golf balls are the
important things - God, family, children, health, friends, and favorite
passions -- things that if everything else was lost and only they remained,
your life would still be full.
The pebbles are the other things that matter like your job, house, and car.
The sand is everything else -- the small stuff.
"If you put the sand into the jar first," he continued, "there is no room
for the pebbles or the golf balls. The same goes for life. If you spend all
your time and energy on the small stuff, you will never have room for the
things that are important to you.
So...
Pay attention to the things that are critical to your happiness. Play With
your children. Take time to get medical checkups. Take your partner out to
dinner.
Play another 18. There will always be time ! to clean the house and fix the
disposal.
"Take care of the golf balls first -- the things that really matter. Set
your priorities. The rest is just sand."
One of the students raised her hand and inquired what the coffee
represented. The professor smiled. "I'm glad you asked. It just goes to show
you that no matter how full your life may seem, there's always room for a
couple of cups of coffee with a friend."
When things in your life seem almost too much to handle, when 24 hours in a
day are not enough, remember the mayonnaise jar and 2 cups of coffee.
A professor stood before his philosophy class and had some items in front of
him. When the class began, wordlessly, he picked up a very large and empty
mayonnaise jar and proceeded to fill it with golf balls. He then asked the
students if the jar was full. They agreed that it was. The professor then
picked up a box of pebbles and poured them into the jar. He shook the jar
lightly. The pebbles rolled into the open areas between the golf balls. He
then asked the students again if the jar was full. They agreed it was. The
professor next picked up a box of sand and poured it into the jar. Of
course, the sand filled up everything else. He asked once more if the jar
was full. The students responded with a unanimous "yes."
The professor then produced two cups of coffee from under the table and
poured the entire contents into the jar, effectively filling the empty space
between the sand.
The students laughed.
"Now," said the professor, as the laughter subsided, "I want you to
recognize that this jar represents your life. The golf balls are the
important things - God, family, children, health, friends, and favorite
passions -- things that if everything else was lost and only they remained,
your life would still be full.
The pebbles are the other things that matter like your job, house, and car.
The sand is everything else -- the small stuff.
"If you put the sand into the jar first," he continued, "there is no room
for the pebbles or the golf balls. The same goes for life. If you spend all
your time and energy on the small stuff, you will never have room for the
things that are important to you.
So...
Pay attention to the things that are critical to your happiness. Play With
your children. Take time to get medical checkups. Take your partner out to
dinner.
Play another 18. There will always be time ! to clean the house and fix the
disposal.
"Take care of the golf balls first -- the things that really matter. Set
your priorities. The rest is just sand."
One of the students raised her hand and inquired what the coffee
represented. The professor smiled. "I'm glad you asked. It just goes to show
you that no matter how full your life may seem, there's always room for a
couple of cups of coffee with a friend."
posted by Katie W. @ Saturday, December 10, 2005
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Parents of Kids Have No Choice of Medical Care in Texas
Young cancer patients actively participate in end-of-life decisions
Wise Child
Kids today - what are they thinking?
According to researchers at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, kids come up with some pretty impressive and surprising ideas when faced with life and death decisions about their own cancer care.
Pamela Hinds (the head of nursing research at St. Jude) lead a recent study of terminally ill children. Describing the results to ABC News she said her team was "stunned" to find that children are not only up to the task of participating in end-of-life decisions, they're also good at it.
This is in stark contrast to how it's done in Texas. Consult with children? Not a chance. Consult with parents? Sure, as long as the parents completely surrender their right to have any say at all in their own child's course of treatment. Otherwise, Texas parents should prepare to be treated like criminals.
--------------------------------------------
Can kids participate?
--------------------------------------------
Pamela Hinds' St. Jude team recruited twenty patients who ranged in age from 10 to 20 (the average age of the group was 17). All of the young subjects had advanced stages of cancer, and all of them participated in three types of end-of-life decisions: initiation of terminal care, agreeing to a do-not-resuscitate order, or enrollment in a cancer drug trial.
Each of the subjects was interviewed one week after meeting with parents and doctors to decide on a course of action. Eighteen patients accurately recalled all of the treatment options available to them, and each of the patients in this group recognized that the decision they made would most likely result in their own death.
According to child developmental theories, children in this age group should be somewhat narcissistic about their personal desires. But the St. Jude research found that the children were primarily concerned for others. For instance, the ABC report notes that a patient named Samantha agreed to participate in a trial for a new drug because it might lead to a cure for someone else. Another patient - 17-year-old Jaleesa - also signed on for a drug trial. "I would want someone to do the same for me," she said.
Ironically, it's the prospect of death that seems to give these kids a positive perspective. St. Jude Chaplin Lisa Anderson told ABC that the young patients have "a very strong sense of finding meaning in this experience."
--------------------------------------------
Stacking the deck
--------------------------------------------
Imagine how comforting the feeling of support must be when a child with a life-threatening disease participates with doctors and parents in making treatment decisions.
Now imagine just the opposite. Imagine what the negative health consequences might be if an adolescent cancer patient was given no say at all, forcibly removed from her home and family, and given a treatment she and her parents were adamantly opposed to.
That's exactly what happened to 12-year-old cancer patient Katie Wernecke of Agua Dulce, Texas. (You can read the details about Katie's case in the e-Alert "Heart of Texas" 10/17/05.) In October, Katie was finally returned to her parents after months of separation. The Wernecke's immediately took their daughter to a Kansas clinic where she underwent intravenous vitamin C therapy.
Last month, the Texas Supreme Court dismissed the Wernecke's request to absolve them from charges of medical neglect. Edward Wernecke responded with a powerful and angry statement posted on the Wernecke's blog (prayforkatie.blogspot.com). Written as an open letter to all parents in Texas, it also serves as a sort of Amber Alert regarding Texas Child Protection Services (CPS).
Mr. Wernecke insists that the issue put before the Texas Supreme Court was not just an attempt to clear himself and his wife of medical neglect charges. The larger issue is "the right of fit parents to make the medical decisions for their children." In chilling detail, Mr. Wernecke describes the broad powers of CPS - powers for which he says there is no oversight or accountability.
Mr. Wernecke writes: "We didn't sign anything refusing treatment. The next thing we knew CPS was knocking on our door with two police officers to take our daughter Katie. There was no discussion, no hearing before a judge, nothing at all."
--------------------------------------------
"Just so wrong"
--------------------------------------------
The Werneckes have accumulated more than $150,000 in legal expenses, most of it unpaid. "Here we are with a child with cancer," he says, "and every dime should have went into caring for and finding a cure for that child's cancer."
Could it get any worse? It almost did, according to the Wernecke's attorney. He told them that at one point CPS filed for complete termination of the Wernecke's parental rights over Katie.
In addition to their daughter's cancer care and mounting legal and medical bills, the Werneckes now have another concern. In the wake of the Texas Supreme Court decision refusing to clear them of medical neglect, Mr. Wernecke anticipates that he and his wife could be vulnerable to prosecution if Katie dies in their care. He writes: "This is just so wrong and just so unnecessary and just makes me sick to my stomach."
I feel sick to my stomach too when I read the St. Jude study and think of how different this situation would be if Katie and her parents had been allowed to participate in treatment decisions right from the beginning.
An organization called Compassion Children's Foundation has set up a special fund to help Katie's family pay medical and legal expenses: compassionchildren.org.
****************************************************
From: http://www.hsibaltimore.com/ealerts/ea200512/ea20051206.html Health Science Institue e-Alert
Wise Child
Kids today - what are they thinking?
According to researchers at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, kids come up with some pretty impressive and surprising ideas when faced with life and death decisions about their own cancer care.
Pamela Hinds (the head of nursing research at St. Jude) lead a recent study of terminally ill children. Describing the results to ABC News she said her team was "stunned" to find that children are not only up to the task of participating in end-of-life decisions, they're also good at it.
This is in stark contrast to how it's done in Texas. Consult with children? Not a chance. Consult with parents? Sure, as long as the parents completely surrender their right to have any say at all in their own child's course of treatment. Otherwise, Texas parents should prepare to be treated like criminals.
--------------------------------------------
Can kids participate?
--------------------------------------------
Pamela Hinds' St. Jude team recruited twenty patients who ranged in age from 10 to 20 (the average age of the group was 17). All of the young subjects had advanced stages of cancer, and all of them participated in three types of end-of-life decisions: initiation of terminal care, agreeing to a do-not-resuscitate order, or enrollment in a cancer drug trial.
Each of the subjects was interviewed one week after meeting with parents and doctors to decide on a course of action. Eighteen patients accurately recalled all of the treatment options available to them, and each of the patients in this group recognized that the decision they made would most likely result in their own death.
According to child developmental theories, children in this age group should be somewhat narcissistic about their personal desires. But the St. Jude research found that the children were primarily concerned for others. For instance, the ABC report notes that a patient named Samantha agreed to participate in a trial for a new drug because it might lead to a cure for someone else. Another patient - 17-year-old Jaleesa - also signed on for a drug trial. "I would want someone to do the same for me," she said.
Ironically, it's the prospect of death that seems to give these kids a positive perspective. St. Jude Chaplin Lisa Anderson told ABC that the young patients have "a very strong sense of finding meaning in this experience."
--------------------------------------------
Stacking the deck
--------------------------------------------
Imagine how comforting the feeling of support must be when a child with a life-threatening disease participates with doctors and parents in making treatment decisions.
Now imagine just the opposite. Imagine what the negative health consequences might be if an adolescent cancer patient was given no say at all, forcibly removed from her home and family, and given a treatment she and her parents were adamantly opposed to.
That's exactly what happened to 12-year-old cancer patient Katie Wernecke of Agua Dulce, Texas. (You can read the details about Katie's case in the e-Alert "Heart of Texas" 10/17/05.) In October, Katie was finally returned to her parents after months of separation. The Wernecke's immediately took their daughter to a Kansas clinic where she underwent intravenous vitamin C therapy.
Last month, the Texas Supreme Court dismissed the Wernecke's request to absolve them from charges of medical neglect. Edward Wernecke responded with a powerful and angry statement posted on the Wernecke's blog (prayforkatie.blogspot.com). Written as an open letter to all parents in Texas, it also serves as a sort of Amber Alert regarding Texas Child Protection Services (CPS).
Mr. Wernecke insists that the issue put before the Texas Supreme Court was not just an attempt to clear himself and his wife of medical neglect charges. The larger issue is "the right of fit parents to make the medical decisions for their children." In chilling detail, Mr. Wernecke describes the broad powers of CPS - powers for which he says there is no oversight or accountability.
Mr. Wernecke writes: "We didn't sign anything refusing treatment. The next thing we knew CPS was knocking on our door with two police officers to take our daughter Katie. There was no discussion, no hearing before a judge, nothing at all."
--------------------------------------------
"Just so wrong"
--------------------------------------------
The Werneckes have accumulated more than $150,000 in legal expenses, most of it unpaid. "Here we are with a child with cancer," he says, "and every dime should have went into caring for and finding a cure for that child's cancer."
Could it get any worse? It almost did, according to the Wernecke's attorney. He told them that at one point CPS filed for complete termination of the Wernecke's parental rights over Katie.
In addition to their daughter's cancer care and mounting legal and medical bills, the Werneckes now have another concern. In the wake of the Texas Supreme Court decision refusing to clear them of medical neglect, Mr. Wernecke anticipates that he and his wife could be vulnerable to prosecution if Katie dies in their care. He writes: "This is just so wrong and just so unnecessary and just makes me sick to my stomach."
I feel sick to my stomach too when I read the St. Jude study and think of how different this situation would be if Katie and her parents had been allowed to participate in treatment decisions right from the beginning.
An organization called Compassion Children's Foundation has set up a special fund to help Katie's family pay medical and legal expenses: compassionchildren.org.
****************************************************
From: http://www.hsibaltimore.com/ealerts/ea200512/ea20051206.html Health Science Institue e-Alert
posted by Katie W. @ Tuesday, December 06, 2005
2 comments
From Our E-Mail
Dear Edward,
Greetings. That is great news to hear that Katie is doing well. Thanks for the information on IVC.
If Intavenous Vitamin C is as worthless as M.D. Anderson says it is, then you wonder why the National Institutes of Health are currently running clinical trials on it.
http://www.foodnavigator.com/news/news-ng.asp?n=62465-vitamin-c-cancer-supplements
I am sorry to hear that MD Anderson and CPS are still harassing you, but with that much money and ego involved it doesn’t surprise me. I think they realize they are in a win/win situation if they take Katie. If she survives they can claim credit, if she dies in their care, they simply blame you and the Bright Spot Clinic. Insidious, to say the least. If worst comes to worst you may seriously want to consider moving to Utah. When the Parker Jensen fiasco finally played itself out, the Utah Legislature passed a law (SB 83) to protect parents in your situation, not to mention the fact that Utah DoCS took such a beating over the Jensen case that it’s unlikely they would attempt anything like it again.
J.T.
Greetings. That is great news to hear that Katie is doing well. Thanks for the information on IVC.
If Intavenous Vitamin C is as worthless as M.D. Anderson says it is, then you wonder why the National Institutes of Health are currently running clinical trials on it.
http://www.foodnavigator.com/news/news-ng.asp?n=62465-vitamin-c-cancer-supplements
I am sorry to hear that MD Anderson and CPS are still harassing you, but with that much money and ego involved it doesn’t surprise me. I think they realize they are in a win/win situation if they take Katie. If she survives they can claim credit, if she dies in their care, they simply blame you and the Bright Spot Clinic. Insidious, to say the least. If worst comes to worst you may seriously want to consider moving to Utah. When the Parker Jensen fiasco finally played itself out, the Utah Legislature passed a law (SB 83) to protect parents in your situation, not to mention the fact that Utah DoCS took such a beating over the Jensen case that it’s unlikely they would attempt anything like it again.
J.T.
posted by Katie W. @ Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Sunday, December 04, 2005
Children With Cancer Can Plan Own Treatment
Children with Cancer Can Plan Own Treatment
'They Tell Me Everything,' 13-Year-Old Says, 'And I Tell Them What I Think'
By NILS KONGSHAUG
Nov. 20, 2005 — - Samantha Weber knows what she's missing. She is 13. Her friends are starting to talk about boys, about school, to worry about the future.
"I'm supposed to be there," she says.
Instead, she is at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, Tenn.
A year ago, she learned the pain in her knee was cancer. She wears a brace that doctors hope will save her leg. She carries an intravenous feeding device in a bag on her shoulder, trying to regain some of the 20 pounds she has lost.
But she is smiling and sunny, even when she talks about the chemotherapy.
"The last chemotherapy I had, it just knocked me down," she says. "It was horrible."
Samantha just learned the cancer has spread to her lungs. She is realistic about what that means.
"It can kill me and I know that," she says. "This might be my last year or so here with my family. You just have to live it day by day."
'Tell Me Everything'
Samantha's mother traveled with her to Memphis, but it is Samantha herself who is making the decisions with her doctors about her care.
"They tell me everything," she says. "They're not keeping anything from me, and I tell them what I think."
Samantha is not unusual. Researchers at St. Jude say even very young children can understand and participate in difficult end-of-life decisions.
Pamela Hinds, head of nursing research at St. Jude, was the first to ask the question, and she authored a study that appeared in the Sept. 19 online issue of Journal of Clinical Oncology.
Hinds says existing research in pediatric oncology focused on caregivers and on parents. She decided clinicians needed to understand more about the patients themselves.
Her study followed 20 terminally ill children between 10 and 20 years old to find out just how much they understood and how much they could participate in their own care.
"It's very common in health care for us to worry that a child would be too burdened by being involved in such serious decision making," she says. "We were stunned in this study to learn [that] not only are they quite able to participate, they're good at it. They know the options they have to consider, and they know the consequences."
Concern for Others
The most striking finding, says Hinds, is that the main concern of the children was for others.
Children, "particularly adolescents, are thought to be quite narcissistic -- self-centered -- about their own desires," she says. "But our findings clearly counter that, and suggest that children and adolescents who have been ill for quite a while are making decisions in consideration of others, and at times at their own personal expense."
Samantha, for example, has agreed to try an experimental chemotherapy drug, even though she knows it will not cure her.
"They may not find a cure for me just yet with that," she says, "but they might find it for somebody else, save somebody else."
Jaleesa Williams, a 17-year-old patient at St. Jude, has made the same decision.
"I'm really glad to be able to help somebody," she says, even though the drug makes her sick. "Because if it was me, I would want somebody to do the same for me."
Lisa Anderson, the chaplain at St. Jude who knows Samantha and Jaleesa and countless other children like them, thinks she understands something of what drives their altruism.
"They have a very strong sense of finding meaning in this experience," she says, "and sometimes that meaning comes from being able to help others, in research especially."
In other words, children have as much desire to leave a legacy as the rest of us. These children are simply forced to learn that too early.
Correspondent Laura Marquez and producer Nils Kongshaug originally reported this story for "World News Tonight."
Copyright © 2005 ABC News Internet Ventures
'They Tell Me Everything,' 13-Year-Old Says, 'And I Tell Them What I Think'
By NILS KONGSHAUG
Nov. 20, 2005 — - Samantha Weber knows what she's missing. She is 13. Her friends are starting to talk about boys, about school, to worry about the future.
"I'm supposed to be there," she says.
Instead, she is at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, Tenn.
A year ago, she learned the pain in her knee was cancer. She wears a brace that doctors hope will save her leg. She carries an intravenous feeding device in a bag on her shoulder, trying to regain some of the 20 pounds she has lost.
But she is smiling and sunny, even when she talks about the chemotherapy.
"The last chemotherapy I had, it just knocked me down," she says. "It was horrible."
Samantha just learned the cancer has spread to her lungs. She is realistic about what that means.
"It can kill me and I know that," she says. "This might be my last year or so here with my family. You just have to live it day by day."
'Tell Me Everything'
Samantha's mother traveled with her to Memphis, but it is Samantha herself who is making the decisions with her doctors about her care.
"They tell me everything," she says. "They're not keeping anything from me, and I tell them what I think."
Samantha is not unusual. Researchers at St. Jude say even very young children can understand and participate in difficult end-of-life decisions.
Pamela Hinds, head of nursing research at St. Jude, was the first to ask the question, and she authored a study that appeared in the Sept. 19 online issue of Journal of Clinical Oncology.
Hinds says existing research in pediatric oncology focused on caregivers and on parents. She decided clinicians needed to understand more about the patients themselves.
Her study followed 20 terminally ill children between 10 and 20 years old to find out just how much they understood and how much they could participate in their own care.
"It's very common in health care for us to worry that a child would be too burdened by being involved in such serious decision making," she says. "We were stunned in this study to learn [that] not only are they quite able to participate, they're good at it. They know the options they have to consider, and they know the consequences."
Concern for Others
The most striking finding, says Hinds, is that the main concern of the children was for others.
Children, "particularly adolescents, are thought to be quite narcissistic -- self-centered -- about their own desires," she says. "But our findings clearly counter that, and suggest that children and adolescents who have been ill for quite a while are making decisions in consideration of others, and at times at their own personal expense."
Samantha, for example, has agreed to try an experimental chemotherapy drug, even though she knows it will not cure her.
"They may not find a cure for me just yet with that," she says, "but they might find it for somebody else, save somebody else."
Jaleesa Williams, a 17-year-old patient at St. Jude, has made the same decision.
"I'm really glad to be able to help somebody," she says, even though the drug makes her sick. "Because if it was me, I would want somebody to do the same for me."
Lisa Anderson, the chaplain at St. Jude who knows Samantha and Jaleesa and countless other children like them, thinks she understands something of what drives their altruism.
"They have a very strong sense of finding meaning in this experience," she says, "and sometimes that meaning comes from being able to help others, in research especially."
In other words, children have as much desire to leave a legacy as the rest of us. These children are simply forced to learn that too early.
Correspondent Laura Marquez and producer Nils Kongshaug originally reported this story for "World News Tonight."
Copyright © 2005 ABC News Internet Ventures
posted by Katie W. @ Sunday, December 04, 2005
Thursday, December 01, 2005
TDFPS CLOSES CASE
The following is a letter from TDFPS closing case received about 3pm:
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
December 1, 2005
James A. Pikl
Attorney at Law
McKinney, Tx 75070
RE: Katie Wernecke
Dear Mr. Pikl:
Enclosed please find the information you requested regarding the closure of the referal involving Katie Wernecke.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Phillips
Managing Attorney.
Attached was a case file coversheet showing the dispostion of the case as below:
DISPOSTION:
Administrative Closure:
In accordance with CPS Handbook Policy Section 2224.42 regarding closure of preliminary investigations, this case will be closed adminstratively. Based on the information gathered from collateral witnesses, including the letter signed by Dr. XXXX, Ph.D., M.D., stating that he is involved in Katie's cae, there is information that refutes the allegations.
(I deleted the Dr.'s name for privacy issues. Edward)
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
December 1, 2005
James A. Pikl
Attorney at Law
McKinney, Tx 75070
RE: Katie Wernecke
Dear Mr. Pikl:
Enclosed please find the information you requested regarding the closure of the referal involving Katie Wernecke.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Phillips
Managing Attorney.
Attached was a case file coversheet showing the dispostion of the case as below:
DISPOSTION:
Administrative Closure:
In accordance with CPS Handbook Policy Section 2224.42 regarding closure of preliminary investigations, this case will be closed adminstratively. Based on the information gathered from collateral witnesses, including the letter signed by Dr. XXXX, Ph.D., M.D., stating that he is involved in Katie's cae, there is information that refutes the allegations.
(I deleted the Dr.'s name for privacy issues. Edward)
posted by Katie W. @ Thursday, December 01, 2005
Attorney's Letter Requesting Closure of Case
1 December 2005
Ms. Kathleen Phillips
Managing Attorney
CPS - Corpus Christi, Tx
RE: Concerning:Katie Wernecke Closing of Case
Dear Ms. Phillips:
In accordance with your letter of today, enclosed is the letter from Dr. XXXX regarding Katie Wernecke. Also in accordance with our conversations, please be advised that we consider the recent referral to your office to be frivolous, in bad faith, and done for purposes of harassment. There is absolutely no merit to it, as shown by the attached letter. ...
I think your office should do a much better job exercising its discretion in these matters before you hassle any family about such a hopelessly-frivolous complaint, especialy a family like the Werneckes who have just been though 5 months of hell at the hands of the DFPS. If I worked for your department, I would be ashamed of myself.
Please fax to me, no later than 2:00 p.m. TODAY, a copy of the document showing this referral is now closed. As you know, I only have until tommorrow to petition Judge Hunter for his assistance should that be necessary. so I do not have the luxury of waiting any additional time to receive your formal notice of dismissal. Unless I receive the dismissal confirmation by this time, I will have to file a motion with Judge Hunter for modification of the November 2, 2005 judgment latter this afternoon. I trust you understand my positon on this.
Very truly yours,
James A. Pikl
Ms. Kathleen Phillips
Managing Attorney
CPS - Corpus Christi, Tx
RE: Concerning:Katie Wernecke Closing of Case
Dear Ms. Phillips:
In accordance with your letter of today, enclosed is the letter from Dr. XXXX regarding Katie Wernecke. Also in accordance with our conversations, please be advised that we consider the recent referral to your office to be frivolous, in bad faith, and done for purposes of harassment. There is absolutely no merit to it, as shown by the attached letter. ...
I think your office should do a much better job exercising its discretion in these matters before you hassle any family about such a hopelessly-frivolous complaint, especialy a family like the Werneckes who have just been though 5 months of hell at the hands of the DFPS. If I worked for your department, I would be ashamed of myself.
Please fax to me, no later than 2:00 p.m. TODAY, a copy of the document showing this referral is now closed. As you know, I only have until tommorrow to petition Judge Hunter for his assistance should that be necessary. so I do not have the luxury of waiting any additional time to receive your formal notice of dismissal. Unless I receive the dismissal confirmation by this time, I will have to file a motion with Judge Hunter for modification of the November 2, 2005 judgment latter this afternoon. I trust you understand my positon on this.
Very truly yours,
James A. Pikl
posted by Katie W. @ Thursday, December 01, 2005
CPS Wants Letter From Oncologist Treating Katie
CPS's attorney, Ms. Kathleen Phillips, wanted proof Katie was under another oncologists care. Katie was also being seen by another radiation oncologist. He has asked that his name be kept confidential as this case is high profile and he did not have time for the press. A phone request and this doctor faxed a letter to our attorney Mr. Pikl for delivery to CPS. Mr. Pikl wanted assurance that they would close the case upon delivery of the letter.
Edward
ps
Who made the rule that only an oncologist is qualifed to treat cancer? Yes, an oncologist is specially trained to treat cancer with chemotherapy and/or radiation, but there are other effective treatments out there. An oncologist limits his treatments to chemotherapy and radiation. I believe that as long as Katie is being treated by a licensed physican that should suffice. Who is to say that one doctor is more qualified than another as both pass the same state exam. Advances in medicine would never happen if it weren't for free thinking and researching doctors who think outside of the box and find solutions and cures for disease. Again we see the bureaucracy limiting the choices of doctors we can choose for our kids in fighting cancer to oncologists only. And when standard treatments do not hold the answer or provide a cure for the child's cancer parents are faced with watching their child die in front of their face and feel hopeless, while there are alternative treatments out there that might have provided some hope and maybe that cure. Many children before ours have died needlessly because the courts and hospitals refused to allow them the freedom to seek alternative cures for their child. This must stop. WE NEED MEDICAL FREEDOM FOR OUR CHILDREN!
Edward
Edward
ps
Who made the rule that only an oncologist is qualifed to treat cancer? Yes, an oncologist is specially trained to treat cancer with chemotherapy and/or radiation, but there are other effective treatments out there. An oncologist limits his treatments to chemotherapy and radiation. I believe that as long as Katie is being treated by a licensed physican that should suffice. Who is to say that one doctor is more qualified than another as both pass the same state exam. Advances in medicine would never happen if it weren't for free thinking and researching doctors who think outside of the box and find solutions and cures for disease. Again we see the bureaucracy limiting the choices of doctors we can choose for our kids in fighting cancer to oncologists only. And when standard treatments do not hold the answer or provide a cure for the child's cancer parents are faced with watching their child die in front of their face and feel hopeless, while there are alternative treatments out there that might have provided some hope and maybe that cure. Many children before ours have died needlessly because the courts and hospitals refused to allow them the freedom to seek alternative cures for their child. This must stop. WE NEED MEDICAL FREEDOM FOR OUR CHILDREN!
Edward
posted by Katie W. @ Thursday, December 01, 2005
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Attorney's Letter to CPS - Stop Unlawful Harassment
The following is a portion of a letter from our attorney James Pikl to CPS:
Ms. Kathleen Phillips
Managing Attorney
Child Protective Services
Corpus Christi, Texas
RE: Concerning: Katie Wernecke, MDA #651172 Current referral
Dear Ms. Phillips:
....As you may or may not know, the Werneckes were recently involved in a court preceeding that terminated on November 2, 2005. The Court issued a final order terminating the proceeding and returning Katie to the full care and custody of her parents. I am enclosing a copy of that court order. You might also speak to Thomas Stuckey in the Nueces County Attorney's office about what occured in that case, and he will tell you that his request that M.D. Anderson remain Katie's teating physicians, and that Katie be required to attend the appointments you reference in your letter, were expressly and adamantly denied by the Court. If he won't do so, let me know and I will send you a copy of the 11/2/05 hearing transcript. We thus have a court order "canceling" those appointments.
...In response to the allegations that Katie "missed" appointments at M.D. Anderson, you should know that this allegation is false. First, the court specifically ruled that the Werneckes need not attend those appointments (see above). Second, those appointments were verbally canceled by Dr. Wernecke in telephone calls to M.D. Anderson since Katie was under the care of new doctors, one of whom is a radiation oncologist. Any reports from M.D. Anderson after November 5, 2005 (the day Katie was finally returned to her parents) would necessarily be wholly uninformed, as that facility and its personnel could not possibly have any knowledge of her current medical condition, treatment, or prognosis.
We urge you to close the file on this referral immediately. There is no basis for it whatsover, and it simply constitues unlawful harassment. We have no idea why personnel at M.D. Anderson would be continuing to insinuate themselves into the affairs of this family, especially after the long court battle recently won by the Werneckes, but no further harassment will be tolerated.
....
Very truly yours,
James A. Pikl
Ms. Kathleen Phillips
Managing Attorney
Child Protective Services
Corpus Christi, Texas
RE: Concerning: Katie Wernecke, MDA #651172 Current referral
Dear Ms. Phillips:
....As you may or may not know, the Werneckes were recently involved in a court preceeding that terminated on November 2, 2005. The Court issued a final order terminating the proceeding and returning Katie to the full care and custody of her parents. I am enclosing a copy of that court order. You might also speak to Thomas Stuckey in the Nueces County Attorney's office about what occured in that case, and he will tell you that his request that M.D. Anderson remain Katie's teating physicians, and that Katie be required to attend the appointments you reference in your letter, were expressly and adamantly denied by the Court. If he won't do so, let me know and I will send you a copy of the 11/2/05 hearing transcript. We thus have a court order "canceling" those appointments.
...In response to the allegations that Katie "missed" appointments at M.D. Anderson, you should know that this allegation is false. First, the court specifically ruled that the Werneckes need not attend those appointments (see above). Second, those appointments were verbally canceled by Dr. Wernecke in telephone calls to M.D. Anderson since Katie was under the care of new doctors, one of whom is a radiation oncologist. Any reports from M.D. Anderson after November 5, 2005 (the day Katie was finally returned to her parents) would necessarily be wholly uninformed, as that facility and its personnel could not possibly have any knowledge of her current medical condition, treatment, or prognosis.
We urge you to close the file on this referral immediately. There is no basis for it whatsover, and it simply constitues unlawful harassment. We have no idea why personnel at M.D. Anderson would be continuing to insinuate themselves into the affairs of this family, especially after the long court battle recently won by the Werneckes, but no further harassment will be tolerated.
....
Very truly yours,
James A. Pikl
posted by Katie W. @ Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Katie Learns Of CPS Investigation - Becomes Depressed
Katie learned that CPS has opened another investigation. This means they could take and pick her up any minute at school or at home and place her back in custody and at M.D. Anderson.
Katie became very depressed and withdrawn beginning that afternoon. She spent most of the day on the couch curled up into a tight ball with a crying look on her face. She didn't watch TV, or do anything, and I couldn't get her up. She slept most of the daytime and into evening, something she normally never would do.
I have to admit it stressed me out too, I got an ulcer in one day, and had to go on Tagamet pills. Michele was also very stressed out and did not sleep at all just worrying about it and waiting for that dreaded knock on the door again. Jonathan, Katie's brother, was having nightmares that they took Katie again.
We are doing what we feel is best for Katie and Katie agrees with our decisions. Why does M.D. Anderson have to stick their nose in here and put us all through this living hell again. It is enough to give an older man like myself a heart attack or to make a pregnant woman lose a baby.
Edward
Katie became very depressed and withdrawn beginning that afternoon. She spent most of the day on the couch curled up into a tight ball with a crying look on her face. She didn't watch TV, or do anything, and I couldn't get her up. She slept most of the daytime and into evening, something she normally never would do.
I have to admit it stressed me out too, I got an ulcer in one day, and had to go on Tagamet pills. Michele was also very stressed out and did not sleep at all just worrying about it and waiting for that dreaded knock on the door again. Jonathan, Katie's brother, was having nightmares that they took Katie again.
We are doing what we feel is best for Katie and Katie agrees with our decisions. Why does M.D. Anderson have to stick their nose in here and put us all through this living hell again. It is enough to give an older man like myself a heart attack or to make a pregnant woman lose a baby.
Edward
posted by Katie W. @ Wednesday, November 30, 2005
CPS Opens New Investigation of Medical Neglect of Katie
In a letter from the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services dated November 30, 2005 addressed to our attorney James Pikl:
Dear Mr. Pikl:
Please be advised that our agency has received a new referral alleging medical neglect of Katie Wernecke by Edward and Michele Wernecke. Specifically, the report alleges that Katie missed scheduled appointments at MD Anderson Cancer Center on 11/14/2005 ande 11/16/2005. Additionally, it alleges that Katie is receiving only high dose Vitamin C, which is unproven or complimentary therapy.
Due to this open investigation, I am requesting the following information:.....
Sincerely,
Kathleen Phillips
Managing Attorney
Corpus Christi, Texas
Dear Mr. Pikl:
Please be advised that our agency has received a new referral alleging medical neglect of Katie Wernecke by Edward and Michele Wernecke. Specifically, the report alleges that Katie missed scheduled appointments at MD Anderson Cancer Center on 11/14/2005 ande 11/16/2005. Additionally, it alleges that Katie is receiving only high dose Vitamin C, which is unproven or complimentary therapy.
Due to this open investigation, I am requesting the following information:.....
Sincerely,
Kathleen Phillips
Managing Attorney
Corpus Christi, Texas
posted by Katie W. @ Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Katie is Active and Feeling Good
Katie is active and feeling good. She continues to attend full time school and participate in physical education. CPS screwed up her course work when Katie transferred to Houston so Katie was thrown into several courses that were not the same as she was taking in Houston. We requested of CPS, at the time, that the courses must match up. Leave it to the government to screw things up. Now Katie is struggling to catch up.
Medically, Katie continues to receive the IVC treatments 3 times a week along with nutritional support. She had an MRI done this morning to follow the progress. She had two ingrown toenails cut out in the afternoon. These had bothered her for months but they wouldn't cut them when she was on the chemo and had low blood and platelet counts. What a pain relief for her. Tomorrow on Wednesday she gets another IVC treatment, a Vit C plasma level, and then a comprehensive metablic panel on her blood. So you can see her treatments and condition is being monitored closely.
Katie said she does not want to go back to M.D. Anderson.
Edward
Medically, Katie continues to receive the IVC treatments 3 times a week along with nutritional support. She had an MRI done this morning to follow the progress. She had two ingrown toenails cut out in the afternoon. These had bothered her for months but they wouldn't cut them when she was on the chemo and had low blood and platelet counts. What a pain relief for her. Tomorrow on Wednesday she gets another IVC treatment, a Vit C plasma level, and then a comprehensive metablic panel on her blood. So you can see her treatments and condition is being monitored closely.
Katie said she does not want to go back to M.D. Anderson.
Edward
posted by Katie W. @ Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Monday, November 28, 2005
M.D. Anderson Reports Us to CPS
Here is the content of that report to CPS:
Katie has recurrent Hodgkin's disease. She was found to have this disease in January 2005 and received treatment in Corpus Christi. When she failed to complete the initial teatment {false}, a complaint of medical neglect was filed with CPS. Katie was then brought to the UT M.D. Anderson Cancer Center for treatment. In June 2005, it was noted that Katie had delveloped recurrent or relapsed Hodgkin's disease. A salvage treatment was initiated, but Katie relapsed. Following this, a third therapy plan was started{false}, but that plan was not completed. In November 2005, Katie's custody was reassigned to the parents. Katie has not been seen at M.D. Anderson since 11/03/05. Katie missed a scheduled appointment on 11/14/05, to evaluate the effectiveness of the most recent chemotherapy at M.D. Anderson and also missed a scheduled appointment on 11/16/05, to plan radiation therapy {false canceled as indicated in blog below and now under other doctors care}. As of early November 2005, Katie had a one in four chance of surviving Hodgkin's disease. Katie's only hope for survival is that the radiation therapy be curative. High dose Vitamin C "therapy" is an unproven or complimentary therapy. It has no documented benefit for patients with Hodgkin's disease. Radiation therapy, however, has cured many people with this disease.
Katie has recurrent Hodgkin's disease. She was found to have this disease in January 2005 and received treatment in Corpus Christi. When she failed to complete the initial teatment {false}, a complaint of medical neglect was filed with CPS. Katie was then brought to the UT M.D. Anderson Cancer Center for treatment. In June 2005, it was noted that Katie had delveloped recurrent or relapsed Hodgkin's disease. A salvage treatment was initiated, but Katie relapsed. Following this, a third therapy plan was started{false}, but that plan was not completed. In November 2005, Katie's custody was reassigned to the parents. Katie has not been seen at M.D. Anderson since 11/03/05. Katie missed a scheduled appointment on 11/14/05, to evaluate the effectiveness of the most recent chemotherapy at M.D. Anderson and also missed a scheduled appointment on 11/16/05, to plan radiation therapy {false canceled as indicated in blog below and now under other doctors care}. As of early November 2005, Katie had a one in four chance of surviving Hodgkin's disease. Katie's only hope for survival is that the radiation therapy be curative. High dose Vitamin C "therapy" is an unproven or complimentary therapy. It has no documented benefit for patients with Hodgkin's disease. Radiation therapy, however, has cured many people with this disease.
posted by Katie W. @ Monday, November 28, 2005
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
No One is Getting any Sleep
Michele and I are both worrying about Dr. Wells and M.D. Anderson turning us back into CPS and taking Katie away again. We are not getting any sleep at night. We hope Mr. Pikl's letter to M.D. will take care of the problem. They definitely do not want us continuing with the high dose ascorbic acid intravenous treatments.
posted by Katie W. @ Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
LAWYERS LETTER TO M. D. ANDERSON -- STOP INTERFERING IN THE WERNECKE'S AFFAIRS
22 November 2005
Laurel Hyle, J.D.
Associate Legal Officer
M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Box 537
Houston, Texas 77030
RE: Concerning: Katie Wernecke
Continuing Medical Interference
Dear Ms. Hyle:
As you know, this firm represents Dr. Edward and Michele Wernecke, the parents of Katie Wernecke. It also represents Katie Wernecke. Katie Wernecke was for a time an involuntary patient at M.D. Anderson, under the auspices of Dr. Wells.
As you are aware, on November 2, 2005, the court ordered Katie returned to the care and custody of her parents, finding no just cause to have Katie remain in DFPS custody or under the auspices of your doctors.
In fact, the court considered a specific request by DFPS to require Katie to undergo continuing diagnosis and/or treatment at M.D. Anderson hospital, and the court expressly rejected that request, releasing Katie to the care of her parents and fully restoring their rights to make all future medical decisions for Katie without conditions or restrictions of any kind. See transcript of hearings dated 10/31/05 and 11/2/05, and order of dismissal dated 11/2/05. [YOU CAN FIND THE CONTENTS OF THE NOV 2 COURT ORDER ON THE NOV 2 BLOG ENTRY BELOW]
This decision by the court was based, at least in part, on Dr. Wells’ testimony that Katie only had a 20 to 25% chance of survival if she underwent the M.D. Anderson-prescribed treatment. See Newmark v. Williams, 588 A.2d 1108 (Del. 1991)(holding that parents’ desire to refuse cancer treatment for child with a 40% chance of survival was justified and lawful).
The court was informed that the Werneckes intended to treat Katie with different treatment at a clinic in Kansas, and that treatment took place right on schedule and is ongoing at this time. See In re Hofbauer, 47 N.Y.2d 648, 393 N.E.2d 1009, 419 N.Y.S.2d 936 (1979)(holding that parents, not state bureaucrats or doctors, are the proper decision-makers when alternative treatments are possible for their children’s medical care).
It has now come to my attention that Dr. Wells is continuing to attempt to intermeddle in Katie’s medical decisions and care. He has also made thinly-veiled threats to make a complaint to DFPS if Dr. Wernecke does not bring Katie in for additional consultation and/or treatment, even though any such complaint would be completely groundless, unethical, and would subject him to liability—potentially even jeopardizing his medical license—for making knowingly-false statements to a government agency.
You might also take a look at 45 C.F.R. 46.116, since Dr. Wells has already subjected Katie to experimental treatments without informing her or her guardian that Katie was the subject of an ongoing clinical trial, and he did not fully inform them of their rights or options (including the option to abstain) regarding that treatment. Hasn’t Dr. Wells already walked as close to the edge of that cliff as he dares to tread?
Dr. Wells has also blatantly lied to Dr. Wernecke, stating that “Katie will die” without his recommended radiation treatment, even though recent scans do not indicate the necessity for such treatment and there is no way possible for Dr. Wells to even know whether Katie will or will not die without this treatment. Dr. Wells does not even know Katie’s current medical condition, so his predictions and diagnoses are wholly uninformed. Such statements thus constitute professional irresponsibility, at the very least.
Such Draconian statements are clearly false and merely represent improper attempts to further coerce the Werneckes into accepting additional harmful, unnecessary, experimental, and unwanted treatments. And, Dr. Wells has made these false statements and unfounded threats even though Dr. Wernecke has repeatedly told Dr. Wells that Katie is now under the care of different medical doctors, and Dr. Wells’s services are no longer required. Please tell Dr. Wells to cease and desist from further pestering the Werneckes.
To the extent this was not made clear before, Dr. Wells and all other M.D. Anderson doctors have been released (read: “fired”) as Katie’s doctors and their services are no longer needed or wanted in this matter. In addition, please tell all other personnel at M.D. Anderson to leave the Werneckes alone.
M.D. Anderson and DFPS have already done quite enough damage to Katie and this family, and no further interference or unsolicited contact will be tolerated. Failure to abide this demand will be met with an immediate lawsuit against your hospital and all personnel involved seeking injunctive relief and damages designed to secure the Werneckes’ peace, enforce their constitutional parental rights, and protect their court-ordered liberty interests.
Please call if you have any questions about this matter.
Sincerely,
James A. Pikl
Laurel Hyle, J.D.
Associate Legal Officer
M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Box 537
Houston, Texas 77030
RE: Concerning: Katie Wernecke
Continuing Medical Interference
Dear Ms. Hyle:
As you know, this firm represents Dr. Edward and Michele Wernecke, the parents of Katie Wernecke. It also represents Katie Wernecke. Katie Wernecke was for a time an involuntary patient at M.D. Anderson, under the auspices of Dr. Wells.
As you are aware, on November 2, 2005, the court ordered Katie returned to the care and custody of her parents, finding no just cause to have Katie remain in DFPS custody or under the auspices of your doctors.
In fact, the court considered a specific request by DFPS to require Katie to undergo continuing diagnosis and/or treatment at M.D. Anderson hospital, and the court expressly rejected that request, releasing Katie to the care of her parents and fully restoring their rights to make all future medical decisions for Katie without conditions or restrictions of any kind. See transcript of hearings dated 10/31/05 and 11/2/05, and order of dismissal dated 11/2/05. [YOU CAN FIND THE CONTENTS OF THE NOV 2 COURT ORDER ON THE NOV 2 BLOG ENTRY BELOW]
This decision by the court was based, at least in part, on Dr. Wells’ testimony that Katie only had a 20 to 25% chance of survival if she underwent the M.D. Anderson-prescribed treatment. See Newmark v. Williams, 588 A.2d 1108 (Del. 1991)(holding that parents’ desire to refuse cancer treatment for child with a 40% chance of survival was justified and lawful).
The court was informed that the Werneckes intended to treat Katie with different treatment at a clinic in Kansas, and that treatment took place right on schedule and is ongoing at this time. See In re Hofbauer, 47 N.Y.2d 648, 393 N.E.2d 1009, 419 N.Y.S.2d 936 (1979)(holding that parents, not state bureaucrats or doctors, are the proper decision-makers when alternative treatments are possible for their children’s medical care).
It has now come to my attention that Dr. Wells is continuing to attempt to intermeddle in Katie’s medical decisions and care. He has also made thinly-veiled threats to make a complaint to DFPS if Dr. Wernecke does not bring Katie in for additional consultation and/or treatment, even though any such complaint would be completely groundless, unethical, and would subject him to liability—potentially even jeopardizing his medical license—for making knowingly-false statements to a government agency.
You might also take a look at 45 C.F.R. 46.116, since Dr. Wells has already subjected Katie to experimental treatments without informing her or her guardian that Katie was the subject of an ongoing clinical trial, and he did not fully inform them of their rights or options (including the option to abstain) regarding that treatment. Hasn’t Dr. Wells already walked as close to the edge of that cliff as he dares to tread?
Dr. Wells has also blatantly lied to Dr. Wernecke, stating that “Katie will die” without his recommended radiation treatment, even though recent scans do not indicate the necessity for such treatment and there is no way possible for Dr. Wells to even know whether Katie will or will not die without this treatment. Dr. Wells does not even know Katie’s current medical condition, so his predictions and diagnoses are wholly uninformed. Such statements thus constitute professional irresponsibility, at the very least.
Such Draconian statements are clearly false and merely represent improper attempts to further coerce the Werneckes into accepting additional harmful, unnecessary, experimental, and unwanted treatments. And, Dr. Wells has made these false statements and unfounded threats even though Dr. Wernecke has repeatedly told Dr. Wells that Katie is now under the care of different medical doctors, and Dr. Wells’s services are no longer required. Please tell Dr. Wells to cease and desist from further pestering the Werneckes.
To the extent this was not made clear before, Dr. Wells and all other M.D. Anderson doctors have been released (read: “fired”) as Katie’s doctors and their services are no longer needed or wanted in this matter. In addition, please tell all other personnel at M.D. Anderson to leave the Werneckes alone.
M.D. Anderson and DFPS have already done quite enough damage to Katie and this family, and no further interference or unsolicited contact will be tolerated. Failure to abide this demand will be met with an immediate lawsuit against your hospital and all personnel involved seeking injunctive relief and damages designed to secure the Werneckes’ peace, enforce their constitutional parental rights, and protect their court-ordered liberty interests.
Please call if you have any questions about this matter.
Sincerely,
James A. Pikl
posted by Katie W. @ Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Monday, November 21, 2005
Dr. Robert Wells Calls - Says Katie Will Die Without Planned Radiation Treatments
Dr. Wells called from M.D. Anderson and asked what treatments Katie was receiving. I explained we were still continuing the IVC treatments under the care of the Kansas doctors, one of whom was Dr. Hunninghake, as he well knew.
Dr. Wells said Katie would die without receiving the planned radiation treatments. I asked him why he was calling and if he was planning to turn us back into CPS. He said he was considering it.
I told him we were under also under the care of another radiologist oncologist in Kansas but that I could not give him the name of the doctor because the doctor had requested that his name be kept confidential, but that the doctor may contact Dr. Wells for more information if needed.
I wondered about Dr. Wells statements after he hung up. Would he turn us back into CPS? What about "Katie would die if she didn't receive the radiation treatments"? Seems that is the same phrase I heard some 5 months ago about June 1st. Seems some Dr. Alter at Driscoll Children's hospital made the same statement and said Katie would die in 10 days if she didn't get the radiation treatments. Seem to recall that the same M.D. Anderson radiologist Dr. Anita Mahajan made the same recommendation to the court about June 10th. If she needed it and would die without it then why wasn't it done five months ago?
Why was nothing except evaluations done at M.D. Anderson for 40 days? They could have completed the radiation treatments in 21 days. Why was some new and dangerous experimental chemo used on Katie instead? They took my healthy child that had no active cancer on June 1 and reduced her changes of surviving to 20 to 25% with their experimental drugs. Their experimental treatments were a failure. Dr. Wells even admitted that. Now they want to take my child away again. Why? Haven't we and Katie been through enough?
Edward
Dr. Wells said Katie would die without receiving the planned radiation treatments. I asked him why he was calling and if he was planning to turn us back into CPS. He said he was considering it.
I told him we were under also under the care of another radiologist oncologist in Kansas but that I could not give him the name of the doctor because the doctor had requested that his name be kept confidential, but that the doctor may contact Dr. Wells for more information if needed.
I wondered about Dr. Wells statements after he hung up. Would he turn us back into CPS? What about "Katie would die if she didn't receive the radiation treatments"? Seems that is the same phrase I heard some 5 months ago about June 1st. Seems some Dr. Alter at Driscoll Children's hospital made the same statement and said Katie would die in 10 days if she didn't get the radiation treatments. Seem to recall that the same M.D. Anderson radiologist Dr. Anita Mahajan made the same recommendation to the court about June 10th. If she needed it and would die without it then why wasn't it done five months ago?
Why was nothing except evaluations done at M.D. Anderson for 40 days? They could have completed the radiation treatments in 21 days. Why was some new and dangerous experimental chemo used on Katie instead? They took my healthy child that had no active cancer on June 1 and reduced her changes of surviving to 20 to 25% with their experimental drugs. Their experimental treatments were a failure. Dr. Wells even admitted that. Now they want to take my child away again. Why? Haven't we and Katie been through enough?
Edward
posted by Katie W. @ Monday, November 21, 2005
Sunday, November 20, 2005
M.D. Anderson Continues to Call Us.
Before we were released from M.D. Anderson on Nov 5th M.D. Anderson had set appointments for Nov. 14 for a PET/CT scan and on Nov 16 for a Follow-Up visit with Dr. Anita Mahajan and Dr. Wells.
Dr. Wells November 5th summary of Katie's condition and future possible treatments at M.D. Anderson left us with no hope for Katie. We weren't satified with that. As you know we went to Kansas where Dr. Hunninghake offered some hope of recovery and a better chance of survival than M.D. Anderson.
After being in Kansas and doing the intravenous ascorbic acid treatments (IVC) and after also contacting and discussing Katies treatment with a radiation oncologist, there in Kansas, we decided to cancel our appointments at M.D. Anderson. I made two different calls from Kansas canceling the appointments. Michele also called and canceled the appointments.
Now we kept getting calls from M.D. Anderson all last week. First from the social workers, and then even the head nurse, and Dr. Wells secretary all called to find out if we really had canceled the appointments. We make it clear we had canceled them and were under other doctors care.
Dr. Wells November 5th summary of Katie's condition and future possible treatments at M.D. Anderson left us with no hope for Katie. We weren't satified with that. As you know we went to Kansas where Dr. Hunninghake offered some hope of recovery and a better chance of survival than M.D. Anderson.
After being in Kansas and doing the intravenous ascorbic acid treatments (IVC) and after also contacting and discussing Katies treatment with a radiation oncologist, there in Kansas, we decided to cancel our appointments at M.D. Anderson. I made two different calls from Kansas canceling the appointments. Michele also called and canceled the appointments.
Now we kept getting calls from M.D. Anderson all last week. First from the social workers, and then even the head nurse, and Dr. Wells secretary all called to find out if we really had canceled the appointments. We make it clear we had canceled them and were under other doctors care.
posted by Katie W. @ Sunday, November 20, 2005
Saturday, November 19, 2005
Texas Supreme Court Fails to Do Their Job -- Parents Unite With One Voice And Be Heard
For Katie's Sake
The issue before the Texas Supreme Court is the right of fit parents to make the medical decisions for their children. By avoiding the real issue here the Texas Supreme Court has failed to make a decision that only they can make that would affect all Texans. It is not just an issue of clearing our name of medical neglect as Kathyrn Garcia has stated below. I talked to her about the real issues involved here and I don't see a one of them mentioned in the Caller-Times. Yes, CPS wants the case dismissed, because they know the effect a ruling in our favor would have on the organization.
CPS apparently can control even the Texas Supreme Court.
CPS already controls the local court systems. They have their judge, their lawyers, the Ad Litem attorney for the child, their CASA representatives, all in the palm of their hand and under their control. Parents have practically no escape from their grasp and control of the system. Katie Wernecke hired her own lawyer because her court appointed attorney Linda Schauer wasn't representing what Katie wanted, and he was thrown out by the assistant county attorney and the court. They couldn't allow an outsider to enter their little system. Judge Carl Lewis was on the board of CASA and just resigned last week. Why was Judge Lewis the only juvinile court judge hearing CPS cases? There was no due process in this court. There was no protection of our constitutional rights. Do you see the conflicts of interest here and possible wrong doings. There is no oversight of the CPS agency.
Texas has no guidelines to decide who gets to decide, the parents or the state. It is time for the Supreme Court to step up to the plate and do what has to be done: Set guidelines for who gets to decide. Does the United States Supreme court have to come in here and do what our Texas Supreme Court should do?
The way it is now: doctors are in charge of the medical decisions of our children. I find that not acceptable and I think most parents would. The doctor says do it or I call in CPS. The doctors are in charge of our kids. They are using our kids in scientific experiments for cancer research. They don't care what is the best treatment for your child; just got to complete the experiment and get those results and that research money for the hospital. Doesn't matter whether this child lives or dies as there is always another child coming for our next experiment.
The way it should work is that the doctor makes a recommendation, tells you all the pros and cons, and side effects, and possible alternatives, and you as fit parents make the decision for your child. After research and study, you may agree with your doctor and go ahead with the recommendation. If you don't agree, or the doctor did not tell you the whole story (most likely), you may want to seek a second and maybe a third opinion, before you reach a conclusion and a decision. Remember, doctors can only make recommendations! This case leaves doctors controlling and directing the medical care of our children.
You, as an adult, can decide if you go along with the doctor's recommendation or if you reject that recommendation. Children do not have that right to decide for themselves. The parents, acting in the best interest of the child, make those decisions for the child. Now, in our case, as in many others, the doctor makes a recommendation and if we don't agree with that recommendation he simply has to pick up the phone and call in CPS to take the child away from the parents and the child gets the treatments. There is an affidavit filed with the court and a court order is issued giving CPS complete physical and medical control over your child for the next 14 days. There is a 14 day period before you can even get a hearing on the issue and meanwhile CPS and the doctors have free reign to do anything medically they want to your child. In most cases the child gets the treatment and is returned to the parents within the 14 days. Fine, if it truly was a life saving emergency treatment and no time for a hearing. Sometimes there are religious issues involved too.
This measure was intended to be used in a life and death situation only. If the doctors and CPS get away with this crime in our case, and misuse of the system of laws, parents everywhere are going to lose complete control of the medical care of their children. We had completed the treatment plan outlined by the doctor. The results were back. My daughter, Katie, had no active cancer anywhere in her body at the time. It was completely dead. There was no medical emergency. We asked for a second opinion. The doctors didn't agree. We asked to seek a third opinion. That was denied and the doctor called in CPS to force us to undergo his "recommendation." Well it was no longer a recommendation but a forced treatment using the power of Child Protective Services.
This was a treatment that we did not want for our daughter or even believed she needed, given the limited information we had at the time. The cancer was dead. The doctors took no time to really answer our questions or explain anything or even consider the alternatives. We didn't sign anything refusing treatment. The next thing we knew CPS was knocking on our door with two police officers to take our daughter Katie. There was no discussion, no hearing before a judge, nothing at all.
The doctor simply reports you to CPS and sends a letter with his "recommendation." The CPS worker prepares an affidavit in cooperation with the county attorney and they take it to an emergency hearing before a judge and on that sworn affidavit the judge signs a court order giving CPS temporary managing conservatorship of your child. The problem is in our case this wasn't an emergency and our daughter was not at risk of dying immediately. The cancer was dead. But with some twisting of the truth, and outright lies and false information, a good CPS worker can make it look that way to the judge. And since this is always a secret emergency hearing where CPS fails to invite the parents and their attorney there is no one to question the validity of the affidavit. A sworn affidavit is considered heresay in all other court proceeding until it is proven in court by cross examination of the person making the affidavit. And so CPS can't have the parents or their attorney present at this emergency hearing or they couldn't accomplish their goal of taking the child.
On the basis of such an affidavit they took Katie away from her parents. At our last court hearing with Judge Hunter, we submitted sworn affidavits from a doctor and another from an expert witness and both were rejected by the court and CPS attorneys because the doctor and expert witness were not present in the court room to be cross examined on their testimony. They can take my child away and have her treated with dangerous radiation against my wishes on the basis of a heresay affidavit with no cross examination yet we cannot submitt the same into evidence in court with supporting documents. Truely the courts and CPS don't have to follow the rules of evidence, unless they want to use the rule against you.
On top of all that CPS and these officers invaded my home without a search warrant and found some so called violations, and took my other three boys away without an emergency court hearing. In doing so the law requires a hearing to be held the next day in which the parents are supposed to appear again. Again we received no notice of this hearing and they manufactured another false ammended affidavit to include all four kids now. Parents, representatives, and judges, CPS believes it is above the law. They do not follow the law in the family codes nor do they follow their own regulations and guidelines. They have no one over seeing the organization. There is no one to appeal your case to. We have an out of control agency. We spend over $150,000 on legal bills and expenses defending our case, most of which is still unpaid. This would bankrupt most families including ours. Here we are with a child with cancer and every dime should have went into caring for and finding a cure for that child's cancer. This is just so wrong and just so unnessary and just makes me sick to my stomach.
People we must stand up and say enough is enough. We must demand the Texas Supreme Court hear the issues involved here. We must call our Governor and legislatures to the task of correcting the Child Protective System. We must have some sort of an oversight committee or panel of parents to review decisions and actions of the agency.
One the other hand, the CPS agency should probably be dissolved. The present system is corrupt and no way to fix it. They do more harm then good. There is more abuse of kids in the system than ever done by parents outside. The more kids they take into the system the more money they make. Take a sick child that has cancer and that means big bucks.
CPS lied to the public and the press. CPS lied to the press and television crews stating that they wanted to keep the lines of communication open with the parents and Katie. Meanwhile in the court room, CPS was requesting to take away Katie's cell phone and computer and phone access and wanted to shut off all communication and visits with her parents. CPS said publically and repeatedly that all they wanted was to get Katie the cancer treatments and get her well and return her back to her parents. That was a lie. According to my attorney Luis Corona, at our next to the last court hearing, CPS had filed for termination of our parental rights over Katie. They never had any intention of returning her to her parents. CPS filed to terminate our parental rights and to take Katie into permanent CPS custody until she could be adopted out.
The state blundered the case and blundered the treatment of my child, Katie. They took a child that didn't have any active cancer and returned us a child with about a 20% chance of surviving, according to M.D. Anderson, who used unproven and experimental drugs on Katie. So they gave her back because they don't wan't her dying in state care. That wouldn't look good. Now, if Katie dies in our care, they will prosecute my wife and I and put us in jail (See Channel III broadcast last Monday). Either way they win and finally get what they wanted -- the rest of our kids back in their care so they can adopt them out and make money on that end.
It is possible that the cancer would never have returned had Katie been left in our care. CPS ripped her from her parents love and health care and put her through severe emotional stress and trauma, with no nutritional support, allowing the cancer to return. Studies have shown that stress is enough to cause cancer.
Do you think it can't happen to you or this don't concern you? Think again. Cancer now happens to 1 in 3 people. That means before long there is a chance for nearly every family to have one member with cancer and one of those might just be your child too. It does not even have to be about cancer, just any illiness where the treatment is controverisble. What about the drugs like ridalyn that some teacher thinks your kid needs because he doesn't sit still in school. Refuse the doctor's order to give it to your kid and CPS comes and takes your child away. It happens every day. The decision, here too, must ultimately be up to the fit parents to decide.
This is an issue for every parent in Texas. It is that important. Who do you want making medical decisions for your child? If you do nothing the doctors will dictate the treatment of your child. Child Protective Services becomes the enforcer of the doctors orders. The doctor is no longer making just a recommendation. As a consequence we have lost our children's care to the state. Big Money and the drug companies influence the doctors heavily. Before long, they will be testing drugs on our kids without our consent. Don't believe it. That is exactly what M.D. Anderson was doing with Katie Wernecke. They used drugs on her that were in a Phase 2 Clinical Trial.
Child Protective Services stole five months of my daughters precious life away from her family. They traumatized the boys in the family for life. The damage and cost of that is so high I cannot even place a figure on it. Yet, there is no one to hold CPS accountable for the damage they have done to my family and our lives. They are even immune from law suit under the law. We must make sure this can never happen to another Texas family again. I am calling, and want you to also, on the Supreme Court to act with out delay and give some guidelines as to who gets to decide.
We don't need any more government intrusion into our lives and we certainly don't need some CPS worker, with 3 months of training, never even had kids of their own, making medical decisions for our children.
Parents join together with us and make your voices heard loud and clear. We are not going to stand for anymore. The time is now! We won't get another chance to change this again. Call the Texas Supreme Court and let your voice be heard. Call your representatives and tell them if you expect my vote then get to work and fix this problem.
Edward Wernecke
The issue before the Texas Supreme Court is the right of fit parents to make the medical decisions for their children. By avoiding the real issue here the Texas Supreme Court has failed to make a decision that only they can make that would affect all Texans. It is not just an issue of clearing our name of medical neglect as Kathyrn Garcia has stated below. I talked to her about the real issues involved here and I don't see a one of them mentioned in the Caller-Times. Yes, CPS wants the case dismissed, because they know the effect a ruling in our favor would have on the organization.
CPS apparently can control even the Texas Supreme Court.
CPS already controls the local court systems. They have their judge, their lawyers, the Ad Litem attorney for the child, their CASA representatives, all in the palm of their hand and under their control. Parents have practically no escape from their grasp and control of the system. Katie Wernecke hired her own lawyer because her court appointed attorney Linda Schauer wasn't representing what Katie wanted, and he was thrown out by the assistant county attorney and the court. They couldn't allow an outsider to enter their little system. Judge Carl Lewis was on the board of CASA and just resigned last week. Why was Judge Lewis the only juvinile court judge hearing CPS cases? There was no due process in this court. There was no protection of our constitutional rights. Do you see the conflicts of interest here and possible wrong doings. There is no oversight of the CPS agency.
Texas has no guidelines to decide who gets to decide, the parents or the state. It is time for the Supreme Court to step up to the plate and do what has to be done: Set guidelines for who gets to decide. Does the United States Supreme court have to come in here and do what our Texas Supreme Court should do?
The way it is now: doctors are in charge of the medical decisions of our children. I find that not acceptable and I think most parents would. The doctor says do it or I call in CPS. The doctors are in charge of our kids. They are using our kids in scientific experiments for cancer research. They don't care what is the best treatment for your child; just got to complete the experiment and get those results and that research money for the hospital. Doesn't matter whether this child lives or dies as there is always another child coming for our next experiment.
The way it should work is that the doctor makes a recommendation, tells you all the pros and cons, and side effects, and possible alternatives, and you as fit parents make the decision for your child. After research and study, you may agree with your doctor and go ahead with the recommendation. If you don't agree, or the doctor did not tell you the whole story (most likely), you may want to seek a second and maybe a third opinion, before you reach a conclusion and a decision. Remember, doctors can only make recommendations! This case leaves doctors controlling and directing the medical care of our children.
You, as an adult, can decide if you go along with the doctor's recommendation or if you reject that recommendation. Children do not have that right to decide for themselves. The parents, acting in the best interest of the child, make those decisions for the child. Now, in our case, as in many others, the doctor makes a recommendation and if we don't agree with that recommendation he simply has to pick up the phone and call in CPS to take the child away from the parents and the child gets the treatments. There is an affidavit filed with the court and a court order is issued giving CPS complete physical and medical control over your child for the next 14 days. There is a 14 day period before you can even get a hearing on the issue and meanwhile CPS and the doctors have free reign to do anything medically they want to your child. In most cases the child gets the treatment and is returned to the parents within the 14 days. Fine, if it truly was a life saving emergency treatment and no time for a hearing. Sometimes there are religious issues involved too.
This measure was intended to be used in a life and death situation only. If the doctors and CPS get away with this crime in our case, and misuse of the system of laws, parents everywhere are going to lose complete control of the medical care of their children. We had completed the treatment plan outlined by the doctor. The results were back. My daughter, Katie, had no active cancer anywhere in her body at the time. It was completely dead. There was no medical emergency. We asked for a second opinion. The doctors didn't agree. We asked to seek a third opinion. That was denied and the doctor called in CPS to force us to undergo his "recommendation." Well it was no longer a recommendation but a forced treatment using the power of Child Protective Services.
This was a treatment that we did not want for our daughter or even believed she needed, given the limited information we had at the time. The cancer was dead. The doctors took no time to really answer our questions or explain anything or even consider the alternatives. We didn't sign anything refusing treatment. The next thing we knew CPS was knocking on our door with two police officers to take our daughter Katie. There was no discussion, no hearing before a judge, nothing at all.
The doctor simply reports you to CPS and sends a letter with his "recommendation." The CPS worker prepares an affidavit in cooperation with the county attorney and they take it to an emergency hearing before a judge and on that sworn affidavit the judge signs a court order giving CPS temporary managing conservatorship of your child. The problem is in our case this wasn't an emergency and our daughter was not at risk of dying immediately. The cancer was dead. But with some twisting of the truth, and outright lies and false information, a good CPS worker can make it look that way to the judge. And since this is always a secret emergency hearing where CPS fails to invite the parents and their attorney there is no one to question the validity of the affidavit. A sworn affidavit is considered heresay in all other court proceeding until it is proven in court by cross examination of the person making the affidavit. And so CPS can't have the parents or their attorney present at this emergency hearing or they couldn't accomplish their goal of taking the child.
On the basis of such an affidavit they took Katie away from her parents. At our last court hearing with Judge Hunter, we submitted sworn affidavits from a doctor and another from an expert witness and both were rejected by the court and CPS attorneys because the doctor and expert witness were not present in the court room to be cross examined on their testimony. They can take my child away and have her treated with dangerous radiation against my wishes on the basis of a heresay affidavit with no cross examination yet we cannot submitt the same into evidence in court with supporting documents. Truely the courts and CPS don't have to follow the rules of evidence, unless they want to use the rule against you.
On top of all that CPS and these officers invaded my home without a search warrant and found some so called violations, and took my other three boys away without an emergency court hearing. In doing so the law requires a hearing to be held the next day in which the parents are supposed to appear again. Again we received no notice of this hearing and they manufactured another false ammended affidavit to include all four kids now. Parents, representatives, and judges, CPS believes it is above the law. They do not follow the law in the family codes nor do they follow their own regulations and guidelines. They have no one over seeing the organization. There is no one to appeal your case to. We have an out of control agency. We spend over $150,000 on legal bills and expenses defending our case, most of which is still unpaid. This would bankrupt most families including ours. Here we are with a child with cancer and every dime should have went into caring for and finding a cure for that child's cancer. This is just so wrong and just so unnessary and just makes me sick to my stomach.
People we must stand up and say enough is enough. We must demand the Texas Supreme Court hear the issues involved here. We must call our Governor and legislatures to the task of correcting the Child Protective System. We must have some sort of an oversight committee or panel of parents to review decisions and actions of the agency.
One the other hand, the CPS agency should probably be dissolved. The present system is corrupt and no way to fix it. They do more harm then good. There is more abuse of kids in the system than ever done by parents outside. The more kids they take into the system the more money they make. Take a sick child that has cancer and that means big bucks.
CPS lied to the public and the press. CPS lied to the press and television crews stating that they wanted to keep the lines of communication open with the parents and Katie. Meanwhile in the court room, CPS was requesting to take away Katie's cell phone and computer and phone access and wanted to shut off all communication and visits with her parents. CPS said publically and repeatedly that all they wanted was to get Katie the cancer treatments and get her well and return her back to her parents. That was a lie. According to my attorney Luis Corona, at our next to the last court hearing, CPS had filed for termination of our parental rights over Katie. They never had any intention of returning her to her parents. CPS filed to terminate our parental rights and to take Katie into permanent CPS custody until she could be adopted out.
The state blundered the case and blundered the treatment of my child, Katie. They took a child that didn't have any active cancer and returned us a child with about a 20% chance of surviving, according to M.D. Anderson, who used unproven and experimental drugs on Katie. So they gave her back because they don't wan't her dying in state care. That wouldn't look good. Now, if Katie dies in our care, they will prosecute my wife and I and put us in jail (See Channel III broadcast last Monday). Either way they win and finally get what they wanted -- the rest of our kids back in their care so they can adopt them out and make money on that end.
It is possible that the cancer would never have returned had Katie been left in our care. CPS ripped her from her parents love and health care and put her through severe emotional stress and trauma, with no nutritional support, allowing the cancer to return. Studies have shown that stress is enough to cause cancer.
Do you think it can't happen to you or this don't concern you? Think again. Cancer now happens to 1 in 3 people. That means before long there is a chance for nearly every family to have one member with cancer and one of those might just be your child too. It does not even have to be about cancer, just any illiness where the treatment is controverisble. What about the drugs like ridalyn that some teacher thinks your kid needs because he doesn't sit still in school. Refuse the doctor's order to give it to your kid and CPS comes and takes your child away. It happens every day. The decision, here too, must ultimately be up to the fit parents to decide.
This is an issue for every parent in Texas. It is that important. Who do you want making medical decisions for your child? If you do nothing the doctors will dictate the treatment of your child. Child Protective Services becomes the enforcer of the doctors orders. The doctor is no longer making just a recommendation. As a consequence we have lost our children's care to the state. Big Money and the drug companies influence the doctors heavily. Before long, they will be testing drugs on our kids without our consent. Don't believe it. That is exactly what M.D. Anderson was doing with Katie Wernecke. They used drugs on her that were in a Phase 2 Clinical Trial.
Child Protective Services stole five months of my daughters precious life away from her family. They traumatized the boys in the family for life. The damage and cost of that is so high I cannot even place a figure on it. Yet, there is no one to hold CPS accountable for the damage they have done to my family and our lives. They are even immune from law suit under the law. We must make sure this can never happen to another Texas family again. I am calling, and want you to also, on the Supreme Court to act with out delay and give some guidelines as to who gets to decide.
We don't need any more government intrusion into our lives and we certainly don't need some CPS worker, with 3 months of training, never even had kids of their own, making medical decisions for our children.
Parents join together with us and make your voices heard loud and clear. We are not going to stand for anymore. The time is now! We won't get another chance to change this again. Call the Texas Supreme Court and let your voice be heard. Call your representatives and tell them if you expect my vote then get to work and fix this problem.
Edward Wernecke
posted by Katie W. @ Saturday, November 19, 2005
Texas Supreme Court Dismissed Wernecke Request
Court dismisses Wernecke request
By Kathryn Garcia Caller-Times
November 19, 2005
The Texas Supreme Court dismissed a request made by Katie Wernecke's parents to absolve them from all charges of medical neglect saying the request no longer was valid after the 13-year-old cancer patient's return home.
Katie's father Edward Wernecke said the Supreme Court's decision is a setback, but he and his wife, Michele, will continue to try to clear their name.
"The fight's not over," Wernecke said. "We're having to jump through more hoops, meanwhile a child's life could be snuffed out."
The state Supreme Court's decision comes after attorneys for Child Protective Services filed a motion to dismiss Wednesday saying the Wernecke's request was moot.
James Pikl, attorney for the Werneckes, did not return messages late Friday. Pikl filed an appeal to reverse all Juvenile Judge Carl Lewis' orders including finding the Werneckes medically neglectful. He filed the appeal with the state Supreme Court Oct. 6 before Judge Jack Hunter ruled Oct. 31 to return Katie to her parents and dismiss Child Protective Services.
Lewis recused himself Oct. 13 from Katie's case, saying he didn't want to become a distraction after The Texas Supreme Court reversed his ruling and allowed Wernecke to visit Katie.
CPS spokesman Patrick Crimmins said CPS filed the motion to conclude the matters still pending in the Supreme Court and end their involvement in the case.
"CPS hopes for a full and complete recovery for Katie and that she can return to health," Crimmins said.
Katie is undergoing intravenous Vitamin C treatments at her home three times a week to treat her cancer, Wernecke said. He said he was attempting to schedule his daughter for an MRI.
Katie returned to class Monday at Banquete Junior High School, where she was treated like a family member coming home to her small community, said the school's Principal Eusebio Torres.
"She was accepted with open arms among her peers," Torres said. "That's just the way the kids are in this community. In Katie's case, she's very popular, and she's always been an excellent kid."
Wernecke said Katie's first week at school has helped her return to normalcy.
"She's gonna have a little catching up to do, and she's working hard to get back up to where the rest of the class is," Wernecke said. "She'll adjust and get back in the swing of things pretty quick. She's a trooper."
Torres said Katie is a straight-A student who should have no problem readjusting.
Katie joined her parents Nov. 3 at their family home in Agua Dulce after spending more than four months in state custody after the Werneckes refused radiation treatment for her Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymph nodes.
Doctors at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, where Katie had been receiving chemotherapy treatments, had said her chances of survial had fallen from 85 percent in August to as low as 20 percent. Dr. Ron Hunninghake, who is treating Katie with Vitamin C, has given Katie a "better-than-average" prognosis.
Copyright 2005, Caller.com. All Rights Reserved.
By Kathryn Garcia Caller-Times
November 19, 2005
The Texas Supreme Court dismissed a request made by Katie Wernecke's parents to absolve them from all charges of medical neglect saying the request no longer was valid after the 13-year-old cancer patient's return home.
Katie's father Edward Wernecke said the Supreme Court's decision is a setback, but he and his wife, Michele, will continue to try to clear their name.
"The fight's not over," Wernecke said. "We're having to jump through more hoops, meanwhile a child's life could be snuffed out."
The state Supreme Court's decision comes after attorneys for Child Protective Services filed a motion to dismiss Wednesday saying the Wernecke's request was moot.
James Pikl, attorney for the Werneckes, did not return messages late Friday. Pikl filed an appeal to reverse all Juvenile Judge Carl Lewis' orders including finding the Werneckes medically neglectful. He filed the appeal with the state Supreme Court Oct. 6 before Judge Jack Hunter ruled Oct. 31 to return Katie to her parents and dismiss Child Protective Services.
Lewis recused himself Oct. 13 from Katie's case, saying he didn't want to become a distraction after The Texas Supreme Court reversed his ruling and allowed Wernecke to visit Katie.
CPS spokesman Patrick Crimmins said CPS filed the motion to conclude the matters still pending in the Supreme Court and end their involvement in the case.
"CPS hopes for a full and complete recovery for Katie and that she can return to health," Crimmins said.
Katie is undergoing intravenous Vitamin C treatments at her home three times a week to treat her cancer, Wernecke said. He said he was attempting to schedule his daughter for an MRI.
Katie returned to class Monday at Banquete Junior High School, where she was treated like a family member coming home to her small community, said the school's Principal Eusebio Torres.
"She was accepted with open arms among her peers," Torres said. "That's just the way the kids are in this community. In Katie's case, she's very popular, and she's always been an excellent kid."
Wernecke said Katie's first week at school has helped her return to normalcy.
"She's gonna have a little catching up to do, and she's working hard to get back up to where the rest of the class is," Wernecke said. "She'll adjust and get back in the swing of things pretty quick. She's a trooper."
Torres said Katie is a straight-A student who should have no problem readjusting.
Katie joined her parents Nov. 3 at their family home in Agua Dulce after spending more than four months in state custody after the Werneckes refused radiation treatment for her Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymph nodes.
Doctors at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, where Katie had been receiving chemotherapy treatments, had said her chances of survial had fallen from 85 percent in August to as low as 20 percent. Dr. Ron Hunninghake, who is treating Katie with Vitamin C, has given Katie a "better-than-average" prognosis.
Copyright 2005, Caller.com. All Rights Reserved.
posted by Katie W. @ Saturday, November 19, 2005
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Teen Tells Her Story on Vitamin C Treatments - Wichita Eagle
Posted on Wed, Nov. 09, 2005
Teen tells her story on vitamin C treatments
BY KAREN SHIDELER
The Wichita Eagle
Katie Wernecke is ready to quit being the center of attention and get back to being a typical Texas 13-year-old.
Katie has had three intravenous vitamin C treatments at Wichita's Center for the Improvement of Human Functioning International and may have one or two more before she and her dad, Edward Wernecke, return to the family's ranch near Corpus Christi, they said Wednesday.
The treatments are a controversial approach to attacking cancer -- Hodgkin's disease, in Katie's case.
Katie said the treatments had been painless, given through the port in her chest that was used to deliver powerful chemotherapy drugs earlier this year.
Intravenous vitamin C is intended as a supplemental treatment. Physician Ron Hunninghake, medical director at the center near K-96 and Hillside, has said vitamin C, in large enough doses, is converted to peroxide, which is toxic to cancer cells.
At a news conference earlier today, Hunninghake said he was pleased with preliminary results of Katie's treatment.
"She has a good foundation... a better than average prognosis from our perspective," he said.
Edward Wernecke chose the vitamin C after exploring several alternative treatments. He said he wasn't sure what would happen after he and Katie return to Texas, though the family's legal fight with that state's Child Protective Services will continue. He wants the Texas Supreme Court to say the family, not CPS, was right in its actions.
CPS stepped into the picture in May, after doctors said Katie needed radiation and more chemotherapy to keep her cancer from returning.
Wernecke and Katie said her symptoms began late last year, with night sweats. In early January, she had a dry, hacking cough and her chest looked a little swollen. An X-ray showed a mass; a doctor said it looked like stage 4 -- advanced -- Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymph nodes.
"It really wasn't, though," said Katie, whose powder blue and white sweat shirt bore what seemed an appropriate message: "It's all about me. Deal with it."
In fact, a biopsy after a healing group prayed over Katie showed she had stage 2 Hodgkin's. Wernecke believed the prayers made the difference.
"We do believe in the power of prayer," he said. But, "We don't rely on it entirely -- we're not against medicine."
Katie's story is on her blog site, http://prayforkatie.blogspot.com/
Her father said the family's legal bills stand at more than $125,000 and many of her medical expenses, including the treatment in Wichita, aren't covered by expenses. The family is accepting donations at www.compassionchildren.org.
For more on this story, see Thursday's Eagle.
Teen tells her story on vitamin C treatments
BY KAREN SHIDELER
The Wichita Eagle
Katie Wernecke is ready to quit being the center of attention and get back to being a typical Texas 13-year-old.
Katie has had three intravenous vitamin C treatments at Wichita's Center for the Improvement of Human Functioning International and may have one or two more before she and her dad, Edward Wernecke, return to the family's ranch near Corpus Christi, they said Wednesday.
The treatments are a controversial approach to attacking cancer -- Hodgkin's disease, in Katie's case.
Katie said the treatments had been painless, given through the port in her chest that was used to deliver powerful chemotherapy drugs earlier this year.
Intravenous vitamin C is intended as a supplemental treatment. Physician Ron Hunninghake, medical director at the center near K-96 and Hillside, has said vitamin C, in large enough doses, is converted to peroxide, which is toxic to cancer cells.
At a news conference earlier today, Hunninghake said he was pleased with preliminary results of Katie's treatment.
"She has a good foundation... a better than average prognosis from our perspective," he said.
Edward Wernecke chose the vitamin C after exploring several alternative treatments. He said he wasn't sure what would happen after he and Katie return to Texas, though the family's legal fight with that state's Child Protective Services will continue. He wants the Texas Supreme Court to say the family, not CPS, was right in its actions.
CPS stepped into the picture in May, after doctors said Katie needed radiation and more chemotherapy to keep her cancer from returning.
Wernecke and Katie said her symptoms began late last year, with night sweats. In early January, she had a dry, hacking cough and her chest looked a little swollen. An X-ray showed a mass; a doctor said it looked like stage 4 -- advanced -- Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymph nodes.
"It really wasn't, though," said Katie, whose powder blue and white sweat shirt bore what seemed an appropriate message: "It's all about me. Deal with it."
In fact, a biopsy after a healing group prayed over Katie showed she had stage 2 Hodgkin's. Wernecke believed the prayers made the difference.
"We do believe in the power of prayer," he said. But, "We don't rely on it entirely -- we're not against medicine."
Katie's story is on her blog site, http://prayforkatie.blogspot.com/
Her father said the family's legal bills stand at more than $125,000 and many of her medical expenses, including the treatment in Wichita, aren't covered by expenses. The family is accepting donations at www.compassionchildren.org.
For more on this story, see Thursday's Eagle.
posted by Katie W. @ Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Katie's Getting Vitamin Therapy
Doctors disagree on effectiveness of the treatment
By Kathryn Garcia Caller-Times
November 8, 2005
Cancer patient Katie Wernecke's father hopes the 13-year-old's first intravenous Vitamin C treatment on Monday will save her life.
"We're hoping that it will help her body heal and her immune system will take over and maybe it will extend her life and cure the cancer," said Edward Wernecke.
Wernecke said Katie will undergo another round of intravenous Vitamin C today and a final round Wednesday before Dr. Ron Hunninghake of the Kansas Center for the Improvement of Human Functioning International in Wichita, Kan., can evaluate the treatment's results.
Hunninghake said the treatment is not an alternative to chemotherapy and radiation treatments but should be used with conventional methods. He said Vitamin C is toxic to cancer cells and boosts one's immune system, helping patients fight the effects of other more common cancer treatments.
Katie, who was unavailable for comment Monday, was released to her parent's custody Friday after being in state custody since June 4 after her parents refused radiation treatment fearing its side effects. She had been staying with a foster family in Houston and undergoing state-authorized chemotherapy treatments at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston for her Hodgkin's disease, a lymphatic cancer. CPS has been dismissed from Katie's case.
The young girl's chances of survival have dropped from 80 percent in August to as low as 20 percent because of delays in treatment, Katie's treating pediatric oncologist Robert Wells of M.D. Anderson said at a hearing last week.
Katie is scheduled to return to M.D. Anderson for a checkup Nov. 14 and a radiation consultation Nov. 16. Wells has said high dosages of Vitamin C could hinder the effects of radiation treatment.
Hunninghake said Wells' theory is a common misunderstanding, one that has been disproved in several studies by the center.
"We think this treatment is going to increase her survivability," Hunninghake said. "It's increasing her chance of getting well and improving her quality of life."
Wernecke said that until Hunninghake evaluates the results of the Vitamin C treatment, he is unsure whether Katie will go to Houston next week for her appointments. Katie's return to her Agua Dulce home, where Katie's mother and three brothers are, also hasn't been determined, he said.
Contact Kathryn Garcia at 886-3792 or HYPERLINK mailto:garciak@caller.com garciak@caller.com
Copyright 2005, Caller.com. All Rights Reserved.
PLEASE GIVE A DONATION TO KATIE'S LEGAL AND MEDICAL FUND AT www.saveakid.us TO HELP THIS FAMILY
By Kathryn Garcia Caller-Times
November 8, 2005
Cancer patient Katie Wernecke's father hopes the 13-year-old's first intravenous Vitamin C treatment on Monday will save her life.
"We're hoping that it will help her body heal and her immune system will take over and maybe it will extend her life and cure the cancer," said Edward Wernecke.
Wernecke said Katie will undergo another round of intravenous Vitamin C today and a final round Wednesday before Dr. Ron Hunninghake of the Kansas Center for the Improvement of Human Functioning International in Wichita, Kan., can evaluate the treatment's results.
Hunninghake said the treatment is not an alternative to chemotherapy and radiation treatments but should be used with conventional methods. He said Vitamin C is toxic to cancer cells and boosts one's immune system, helping patients fight the effects of other more common cancer treatments.
Katie, who was unavailable for comment Monday, was released to her parent's custody Friday after being in state custody since June 4 after her parents refused radiation treatment fearing its side effects. She had been staying with a foster family in Houston and undergoing state-authorized chemotherapy treatments at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston for her Hodgkin's disease, a lymphatic cancer. CPS has been dismissed from Katie's case.
The young girl's chances of survival have dropped from 80 percent in August to as low as 20 percent because of delays in treatment, Katie's treating pediatric oncologist Robert Wells of M.D. Anderson said at a hearing last week.
Katie is scheduled to return to M.D. Anderson for a checkup Nov. 14 and a radiation consultation Nov. 16. Wells has said high dosages of Vitamin C could hinder the effects of radiation treatment.
Hunninghake said Wells' theory is a common misunderstanding, one that has been disproved in several studies by the center.
"We think this treatment is going to increase her survivability," Hunninghake said. "It's increasing her chance of getting well and improving her quality of life."
Wernecke said that until Hunninghake evaluates the results of the Vitamin C treatment, he is unsure whether Katie will go to Houston next week for her appointments. Katie's return to her Agua Dulce home, where Katie's mother and three brothers are, also hasn't been determined, he said.
Contact Kathryn Garcia at 886-3792 or HYPERLINK mailto:garciak@caller.com garciak@caller.com
Copyright 2005, Caller.com. All Rights Reserved.
PLEASE GIVE A DONATION TO KATIE'S LEGAL AND MEDICAL FUND AT www.saveakid.us TO HELP THIS FAMILY
posted by Katie W. @ Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Monday, November 07, 2005
Our First Day At the Center - Donations Desperately Needed
After fasting for 12 hours, Katie arrives at the Center at 7:45 am for a complete evaluation and testing. The appointment and initial evaluation was $500. Tests were then selected to determine Katie's present health condition. Katie was found to be a candidate for the IVC treatments. Additional tests included complete blood tests, urine, minerals, vitamins A,C,D, E, K, the whole range of B vitamins, essential fatty acids, amino acid profiles, tests for viruses, parasites in stool, and enzymes. These tests cost about $2900. Three days of IV ascorbic acid testing to determine the optimum VIT C level for Katie will add about $450. To continue the IVC treatments will probably cost about $500 a week. We don't have insurance to cover this.
Our legal expenses to free Katie from Child Protective Services have exceeded $125,000. The majority of that is unpaid and will have to be paid immediately. This was a battle for parents rights for you and your kids. The battle is being taken back to the Texas Supreme Court. We must make sure this doesn't happen to another child. It takes money to do that. At the same time we have all these medical bills which have to be paid to save Katie's life and are top priority. We don't have the means or income to meet these needs. If you can help a little it would be most appreciated. There is a fund set up for Katie by Compassion Childrens Foundation where donations are tax deductible. Just go to http://www.saveakid.us . You may also send donations directly to Katie Wernecke, P.O. Box 132, Agua Dulce, Tx 78330. Thank you for your donations. May God richly bless you.
Edward
Our legal expenses to free Katie from Child Protective Services have exceeded $125,000. The majority of that is unpaid and will have to be paid immediately. This was a battle for parents rights for you and your kids. The battle is being taken back to the Texas Supreme Court. We must make sure this doesn't happen to another child. It takes money to do that. At the same time we have all these medical bills which have to be paid to save Katie's life and are top priority. We don't have the means or income to meet these needs. If you can help a little it would be most appreciated. There is a fund set up for Katie by Compassion Childrens Foundation where donations are tax deductible. Just go to http://www.saveakid.us . You may also send donations directly to Katie Wernecke, P.O. Box 132, Agua Dulce, Tx 78330. Thank you for your donations. May God richly bless you.
Edward
posted by Katie W. @ Monday, November 07, 2005
Sunday, November 06, 2005
We Get a Tour of the Center
Dr. Ron Hunninghake came over Sunday afternoon and gave us a private tour of the Center. It was a very unique place consisting of geodesic dome shaped buildings that are joined together underground. For more information go to www.brightspot.org.
posted by Katie W. @ Sunday, November 06, 2005
Saturday, November 05, 2005
Katie And Dad Leave for Wichita Kansas
Katie and I leave home, after lunch on Saturday, on a plane for Wichita, Kansas. We are headed to the Center for Improvement of Human Functioning International. It is here where they do the intravenous ascorbic acid treatments with nutritional therapy. Katie hated to leave her brothers and mother behind after just being home less than a day and a half. She had tears in her eyes as she kissed and hugged her momma and little brothers goodbye. We both knew it had to be done and there was no time to lose or waste in getting the treatments for the cancer. The trip would take about 5 hours. We arrived at about 7 pm and rented a car and found a hotel to stay in. Due to the court battle we could not make our reservations timely and had to accept an earlier flight arriving on Saturday instead of Sunday. Our appointment is for early Monday morning. This gave us one free day to look over and explore Wichita. Wichita is the largest city in Kansas. It is the home of Wichita State University. It is a beautiful, clean city, with a lot of active new growth and development.
posted by Katie W. @ Saturday, November 05, 2005
Friday, November 04, 2005
Katie Released From M.D. Anderson
Katie Wernecke with her parents, Edward and Michele, Thursday after she was released from the M. D. Anderson Cancer center in Houston.
posted by Katie W. @ Friday, November 04, 2005
Girl With Cancer Reunites With Family as State Gives Up Custody
By RALPH BLUMENTHAL
Published: November 4, 2005
HOUSTON, Nov. 3 - Promising to seek the best cancer treatment possible for their 13-year-old daughter, Katie, her parents, Edward and Michele Wernecke, reclaimed her from a hospital here on Thursday, reuniting a family separated by a judge's order five months ago.
"We're grateful Katie's going to be home with us," Mr. Wernecke, a rancher from Corpus Christi, said outside the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center.
He deplored their depiction by the Texas authorities as negligent parents simply because they objected to the radiation treatment that doctors said their daughter needed for Hodgkin's disease.
"We will do our best to get the finest treatment in the world to get her cured and back to normal again," Mr. Wernecke said.
In addition to continuing chemotherapy for Katie, he said, they are taking her to a nutritional clinic in Kansas next week for evaluation and possible vitamin C treatments.
Katie had little to say. Life away from her family, she said, has been boring. Asked how her pets were doing, she said, "I haven't been home lately, so I don't know."
On Monday, a second judge overturned the ruling in June that placed Katie with a foster family and enforced a course of chemotherapy. Child protection authorities had accused her parents of thwarting her treatment by hiding her on a relative's property. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services won a court order to place Katie with a foster family and also removed the couple's three sons for a time.
With the girl's prognosis worsening and the Werneckes arguing that their parental rights to decide what was best for her had been grossly violated, the state's supervisory role was ended and Katie was returned to her parents on the completion of her latest round of chemotherapy at M. D. Anderson.
Coming on the heels of the Terri Schiavo right-to-die furor, this case raised questions of parental rights and responsibilities in their children's medical care. Peter Johnston, president of the Texas Center for Family Rights in Rosenberg, said the Bureau of Child Protective Services had "intervened way too often in way too many families."
But Darrell Azar, communications manager for the Department of Family and Protective Services, which includes the child protective bureau, said there were "clearly documented reasons" that the state had been given custody of Katie.
But now that the state had been removed, Mr. Azar said, "we're hopeful the family will continue to do what is best for Katie."
Mr. Wernecke said Katie's recovery chances during her treatment "went from 80 percent to 90 percent down to 20."
He declined to discuss her prognosis further, saying: "We're not talking about that today. Today is a happy day."
Among the options the family is exploring, he said, are intravenous vitamin C treatments at the Center for the Improvement of Human Functioning in Wichita, Kan., where they have an appointment on Monday.
Dr. Ron Hunninghake, chief medical officer of the center, said in a telephone interview that the outpatient center, established 30 years ago, did not offer alternative medical treatments but rather integrated nutritional therapies into traditional medicine. He cited a recent study in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that found that vitamin C administered intravenously rather than orally can kill some cancer cells.
Mrs. Wernecke said that Katie first began feeling ill in the summer of 2004 and that last winter she had trouble breathing and developed a fast-growing lump on her neck that led to the diagnosis of Hodgkin's disease, which originates in lymphatic tissue. She was given chemotherapy, but when doctors urgently prescribed radiation, the Werneckes balked. Mr. Wernecke said then he was concerned about the harmful effects on her growth and development and sought other opinions.
At Driscoll Children's Hospital in Corpus Christi, Dr. Nejemie Alter, a specialist in pediatric oncology-hematology, said that there were no other options for Katie and that the situation was life threatening.
When Mrs. Wernecke hid Katie on a relative's property, Dr. Alter complained to the family services agency, which obtained an order from Judge Carl Lewis removing her from her home. He placed her with a foster family in Houston, where her chemotherapy treatments could be enforced and monitored. She was also assigned a guardian and a lawyer.
Dr. Alter's office said he was no longer involved with the case and had no comment.
After Katie's removal, social workers, saying the family's ranch house was unfit, also obtained an order removing the three sons, 14, 5 and 2, to a children's home. They were returned under Judge Lewis's order less than two weeks later.
Judge Lewis was replaced on the case by Judge Jack Hunter, who was more receptive to complaints by the Werneckes' lawyer, James A. Pikl, that their rights had been violated and that there was no practical way of enforcing any course of treatment that Katie, as well as her parents, vehemently opposed.
Judge Hunter, in his ruling that returned Katie to the family, declined to vacate Judge Lewis's rulings faulting the Werneckes for medical neglect. Mr. Wernecke said the family would apply to the State Supreme Court for that relief.
He was in the lobby of the cancer center when his cellphone trilled with a call from a son at home. "Yeah," he said, "we're going to bring Katie."
Published: November 4, 2005
HOUSTON, Nov. 3 - Promising to seek the best cancer treatment possible for their 13-year-old daughter, Katie, her parents, Edward and Michele Wernecke, reclaimed her from a hospital here on Thursday, reuniting a family separated by a judge's order five months ago.
"We're grateful Katie's going to be home with us," Mr. Wernecke, a rancher from Corpus Christi, said outside the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center.
He deplored their depiction by the Texas authorities as negligent parents simply because they objected to the radiation treatment that doctors said their daughter needed for Hodgkin's disease.
"We will do our best to get the finest treatment in the world to get her cured and back to normal again," Mr. Wernecke said.
In addition to continuing chemotherapy for Katie, he said, they are taking her to a nutritional clinic in Kansas next week for evaluation and possible vitamin C treatments.
Katie had little to say. Life away from her family, she said, has been boring. Asked how her pets were doing, she said, "I haven't been home lately, so I don't know."
On Monday, a second judge overturned the ruling in June that placed Katie with a foster family and enforced a course of chemotherapy. Child protection authorities had accused her parents of thwarting her treatment by hiding her on a relative's property. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services won a court order to place Katie with a foster family and also removed the couple's three sons for a time.
With the girl's prognosis worsening and the Werneckes arguing that their parental rights to decide what was best for her had been grossly violated, the state's supervisory role was ended and Katie was returned to her parents on the completion of her latest round of chemotherapy at M. D. Anderson.
Coming on the heels of the Terri Schiavo right-to-die furor, this case raised questions of parental rights and responsibilities in their children's medical care. Peter Johnston, president of the Texas Center for Family Rights in Rosenberg, said the Bureau of Child Protective Services had "intervened way too often in way too many families."
But Darrell Azar, communications manager for the Department of Family and Protective Services, which includes the child protective bureau, said there were "clearly documented reasons" that the state had been given custody of Katie.
But now that the state had been removed, Mr. Azar said, "we're hopeful the family will continue to do what is best for Katie."
Mr. Wernecke said Katie's recovery chances during her treatment "went from 80 percent to 90 percent down to 20."
He declined to discuss her prognosis further, saying: "We're not talking about that today. Today is a happy day."
Among the options the family is exploring, he said, are intravenous vitamin C treatments at the Center for the Improvement of Human Functioning in Wichita, Kan., where they have an appointment on Monday.
Dr. Ron Hunninghake, chief medical officer of the center, said in a telephone interview that the outpatient center, established 30 years ago, did not offer alternative medical treatments but rather integrated nutritional therapies into traditional medicine. He cited a recent study in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that found that vitamin C administered intravenously rather than orally can kill some cancer cells.
Mrs. Wernecke said that Katie first began feeling ill in the summer of 2004 and that last winter she had trouble breathing and developed a fast-growing lump on her neck that led to the diagnosis of Hodgkin's disease, which originates in lymphatic tissue. She was given chemotherapy, but when doctors urgently prescribed radiation, the Werneckes balked. Mr. Wernecke said then he was concerned about the harmful effects on her growth and development and sought other opinions.
At Driscoll Children's Hospital in Corpus Christi, Dr. Nejemie Alter, a specialist in pediatric oncology-hematology, said that there were no other options for Katie and that the situation was life threatening.
When Mrs. Wernecke hid Katie on a relative's property, Dr. Alter complained to the family services agency, which obtained an order from Judge Carl Lewis removing her from her home. He placed her with a foster family in Houston, where her chemotherapy treatments could be enforced and monitored. She was also assigned a guardian and a lawyer.
Dr. Alter's office said he was no longer involved with the case and had no comment.
After Katie's removal, social workers, saying the family's ranch house was unfit, also obtained an order removing the three sons, 14, 5 and 2, to a children's home. They were returned under Judge Lewis's order less than two weeks later.
Judge Lewis was replaced on the case by Judge Jack Hunter, who was more receptive to complaints by the Werneckes' lawyer, James A. Pikl, that their rights had been violated and that there was no practical way of enforcing any course of treatment that Katie, as well as her parents, vehemently opposed.
Judge Hunter, in his ruling that returned Katie to the family, declined to vacate Judge Lewis's rulings faulting the Werneckes for medical neglect. Mr. Wernecke said the family would apply to the State Supreme Court for that relief.
He was in the lobby of the cancer center when his cellphone trilled with a call from a son at home. "Yeah," he said, "we're going to bring Katie."
posted by Katie W. @ Friday, November 04, 2005
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Cancer Patient Reunited With Parents After Months in Foster Care
POSTED: 10:39 pm CST November 3, 2005
UPDATED: 10:42 pm CST November 3, 2005
HOUSTON -- Locking arms with her mother and father, Katie Wernecke slowly walked out of the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center on Thursday and said she was "excited" to be finally going home.
A judge ruled this week that the 13-year-old cancer patient should be returned to her parents' custody as soon as she completed a round of chemotherapy and was stable, ending a lengthy legal battle with the state.
The state's Child Protective Services removed Katie from her family in June after her father said radiation treatment could put his daughter at a heightened risk for breast cancer. A doctor told a social worker that Katie's parents were endangering her life by refusing treatment.
This week, state District Judge Jack Hunter said the Werneckes should get her back and should be allowed to decide what path of treatment to follow.
Katie said almost nothing to a media crowd awaiting her release from the hospital. Bald, pale and looking weak, Katie clung to her parents for support.
"It means a whole lot," said Katie's mother, Michelle Wernecke. "We can start building her back up with love and hope and ask for another miracle. Just having the family back together again, it wasn't whole without her."
Katie arrived with her parents in Corpus Christi late Thursday en route to the family's home in Agua Dulce.
"I'm feeling better. It was very boring and 'kinda' lonely without my parents," she said in a story in Friday's Corpus Christi Caller-Times. "I'm excited. I was thinking I'd be back more like in February."
Edward Wernecke said in Houston that the legal battle isn't over. Although he said he was satisfied with Hunter's ruling that Katie could go home, Wernecke said Hunter still has not cleared them of an earlier ruling that they had medically neglected their daughter.
Wernecke planned to go back to the Texas Supreme Court and ask that that ruling be reversed.
"Judge Hunter did the right thing in returning Katie to us, but he didn't go far enough," Edward Wernecke said. "We were never guilty of medical neglect. We want to be vindicated. We also want for all families who have had trouble with CPS, for the Supreme Court to come forward and set some rules and guidelines so other families don't have this difficulty."
Neither CPS officials nor Katie's doctor, pediatric oncologist Robert Wells, were available for comment.
Edward Wernecke, Katie's father, pledged to take Katie to the Bright Spot for Health clinic in Kansas this weekend to seek intravenous Vitamin C.
"We're grateful and we're going to find the finest treatment in the world to get her cured," he said.
"When you have a case of cancer, there is no magic bullet," Edward Wernecke said. "It's not black and white, there are no easy answers, no easy cures. The decision have always been left up to the parents and that's what we said all along."
Katie was diagnosed in January with Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymph nodes.
After initial rounds of chemotherapy, the tumor in her chest appeared gone and the Werneckes refused the radiation treatments that M.D. Anderson doctors recommended.
Wells said Monday that Katie's chances of surviving the disease had dwindled from 80 percent to as low as 20 percent.
Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
UPDATED: 10:42 pm CST November 3, 2005
HOUSTON -- Locking arms with her mother and father, Katie Wernecke slowly walked out of the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center on Thursday and said she was "excited" to be finally going home.
A judge ruled this week that the 13-year-old cancer patient should be returned to her parents' custody as soon as she completed a round of chemotherapy and was stable, ending a lengthy legal battle with the state.
The state's Child Protective Services removed Katie from her family in June after her father said radiation treatment could put his daughter at a heightened risk for breast cancer. A doctor told a social worker that Katie's parents were endangering her life by refusing treatment.
This week, state District Judge Jack Hunter said the Werneckes should get her back and should be allowed to decide what path of treatment to follow.
Katie said almost nothing to a media crowd awaiting her release from the hospital. Bald, pale and looking weak, Katie clung to her parents for support.
"It means a whole lot," said Katie's mother, Michelle Wernecke. "We can start building her back up with love and hope and ask for another miracle. Just having the family back together again, it wasn't whole without her."
Katie arrived with her parents in Corpus Christi late Thursday en route to the family's home in Agua Dulce.
"I'm feeling better. It was very boring and 'kinda' lonely without my parents," she said in a story in Friday's Corpus Christi Caller-Times. "I'm excited. I was thinking I'd be back more like in February."
Edward Wernecke said in Houston that the legal battle isn't over. Although he said he was satisfied with Hunter's ruling that Katie could go home, Wernecke said Hunter still has not cleared them of an earlier ruling that they had medically neglected their daughter.
Wernecke planned to go back to the Texas Supreme Court and ask that that ruling be reversed.
"Judge Hunter did the right thing in returning Katie to us, but he didn't go far enough," Edward Wernecke said. "We were never guilty of medical neglect. We want to be vindicated. We also want for all families who have had trouble with CPS, for the Supreme Court to come forward and set some rules and guidelines so other families don't have this difficulty."
Neither CPS officials nor Katie's doctor, pediatric oncologist Robert Wells, were available for comment.
Edward Wernecke, Katie's father, pledged to take Katie to the Bright Spot for Health clinic in Kansas this weekend to seek intravenous Vitamin C.
"We're grateful and we're going to find the finest treatment in the world to get her cured," he said.
"When you have a case of cancer, there is no magic bullet," Edward Wernecke said. "It's not black and white, there are no easy answers, no easy cures. The decision have always been left up to the parents and that's what we said all along."
Katie was diagnosed in January with Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymph nodes.
After initial rounds of chemotherapy, the tumor in her chest appeared gone and the Werneckes refused the radiation treatments that M.D. Anderson doctors recommended.
Wells said Monday that Katie's chances of surviving the disease had dwindled from 80 percent to as low as 20 percent.
Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
posted by Katie W. @ Thursday, November 03, 2005
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Judge Allows Katie Wernecke to Seek Alternative Cancer Treatment
KRIS-TV CORPUS CHRISTI -
The legal battle over whether 13-year-old Katie Wernecke should be forced to undergo cancer treatment was back in court Friday.
Focus on the case, began back in June, when Katie went into hiding with her mother to avoid treatment for Hodgkins Disease. They were found June 4, at a family ranch near Freer. Michelle Wernecke was arrested and Katie was placed in a foster home.
On June 10, court ordered tests and found active cancer cells in Katie. Judge Carl Lewis ruled she had to undergo medical treatment and remain in foster care until the treatment was completed.
During a September 6 hearing, Judge Lewis was told that Katie was refusing her cancer treatment. Two weeks later, on September 20th, Judge Lewis signed an order cutting off all contact between Katie and her parents, because he believed Mr. & Mrs. Wernecke were still trying to block Katie's medical treatment. Then, on October 14, Judge Lewis recused himself from the Wernecke case.
District Judge Jack Hunter, who has taken over the case, held an emergency hearing Friday to decide if Katie should continue her chemotherapy. He ruled that Katie would undergo chemotherapy treatment Friday.
However, he made a very controversial decision. Against the wishes of the state, Katie will be allowed to seek alternative medicine treatment.
"People are pulling her back and forth. I want that as court to stop. I don't care how it is. I want the child taken of," Judge Hunter said. With that passionate plea, Judge Hunter came to a compromise. After Katie recovers from chemotherapy, she and one or both of her parents will go to Wichita, Kansas.
There a doctor will examine her and determine if she's fit for an alternative form of cancer treatment, which includes giving her Vitamin C injections. Katie's parents and their attorney were not in court Friday, but argued via conference call, that previous court decisions didn't allow them the ability to seek other treatments.
"Then we want that order changed your honor, because we don't think it's the proper way to handle a situation like this," said Wernecke family attorney James Pikle. In light of the judges decision, the state still isn't happy. They fear that Katie's parents may not return the child once out of Texas.
"CPS can not agree to let her leave the state. That would have to be a decision of the court," said Asst. Nueces County Attorney Thomas Stuckey. They also say if Katie doesn't continue with her chemotherapy, then she's at risk of dying.
The state also gave insight into Katie's frail health. They said Katie's chances of surviving this cancer have dropped significantly from 80% to near 20%. The reason, they said was the constant delays in her chemotherapy treatment.
Online Reporter:
Andres Araiza
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9778016/
The legal battle over whether 13-year-old Katie Wernecke should be forced to undergo cancer treatment was back in court Friday.
Focus on the case, began back in June, when Katie went into hiding with her mother to avoid treatment for Hodgkins Disease. They were found June 4, at a family ranch near Freer. Michelle Wernecke was arrested and Katie was placed in a foster home.
On June 10, court ordered tests and found active cancer cells in Katie. Judge Carl Lewis ruled she had to undergo medical treatment and remain in foster care until the treatment was completed.
During a September 6 hearing, Judge Lewis was told that Katie was refusing her cancer treatment. Two weeks later, on September 20th, Judge Lewis signed an order cutting off all contact between Katie and her parents, because he believed Mr. & Mrs. Wernecke were still trying to block Katie's medical treatment. Then, on October 14, Judge Lewis recused himself from the Wernecke case.
District Judge Jack Hunter, who has taken over the case, held an emergency hearing Friday to decide if Katie should continue her chemotherapy. He ruled that Katie would undergo chemotherapy treatment Friday.
However, he made a very controversial decision. Against the wishes of the state, Katie will be allowed to seek alternative medicine treatment.
"People are pulling her back and forth. I want that as court to stop. I don't care how it is. I want the child taken of," Judge Hunter said. With that passionate plea, Judge Hunter came to a compromise. After Katie recovers from chemotherapy, she and one or both of her parents will go to Wichita, Kansas.
There a doctor will examine her and determine if she's fit for an alternative form of cancer treatment, which includes giving her Vitamin C injections. Katie's parents and their attorney were not in court Friday, but argued via conference call, that previous court decisions didn't allow them the ability to seek other treatments.
"Then we want that order changed your honor, because we don't think it's the proper way to handle a situation like this," said Wernecke family attorney James Pikle. In light of the judges decision, the state still isn't happy. They fear that Katie's parents may not return the child once out of Texas.
"CPS can not agree to let her leave the state. That would have to be a decision of the court," said Asst. Nueces County Attorney Thomas Stuckey. They also say if Katie doesn't continue with her chemotherapy, then she's at risk of dying.
The state also gave insight into Katie's frail health. They said Katie's chances of surviving this cancer have dropped significantly from 80% to near 20%. The reason, they said was the constant delays in her chemotherapy treatment.
Online Reporter:
Andres Araiza
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9778016/
posted by Katie W. @ Wednesday, November 02, 2005
0 comments
Order Dismissing The TDFPS As Temporary Managing Conservator Nov 2, 2005
ORDERED that Annette Sultemeier, CASA, is hereby dismissed as Guardian ad litem for Katie Wernecke.
ORDERED that Linda Rhodes-Schauer is hereby dismissed as Attorney ad litem for Katie Wernecke.
ORDERED that Katie Wernecke stay in the temporary managaing conservatorship of the Department until the physicians at M.D. Anderson Hospital in Houston, Texas, state Katie Wernecke, following her recent round of chemotherapy, is medically stable and can be released for travel to her parents. It is further ORDERED that any future care until her present release is limited to the care necessary to make Katie ready to leave the care of M.D. Anderson Hospital and abe returned to her parents, including but not limited to any care associated with chemotherapy, hospitalization, stabilization of her blood counts, or other procedures or protocols designed to make Katie ready for release to travel.
ORDERED that upon Katie Wernecke being released for travel, TDFPS shall deliver Katie Wernecke to her parents at M.D. Anderson Hospital, Houston, Texas, and the parents shall confer with the treatment team regarding her current medications, treatment, and care.
ORDERED that Edward and Michele Wernecke shall consult with Katie Wernecke about all future medical care for Katie, and shall take into account Katie's expressed preference, desires, or needs relating to such care, provided however, that the ultimate decision on Katie's future medical care shall remain with Katie's prents until Katie reaches majority.
ORDERED that the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (TDFPS) is dismissed as temporary managing conservator of Katie Wernecke upon her being released to her parents.
ORDERED that this is the final Order of the Court in this case and herby disposes of all parties and all claims in controvery. All other and further relief requested in this case by any pary is hereby DENIED.
Signed this 2 day of Nov. 2005
Hon Jack Hunter, Judge Presiding.
ORDERED that Linda Rhodes-Schauer is hereby dismissed as Attorney ad litem for Katie Wernecke.
ORDERED that Katie Wernecke stay in the temporary managaing conservatorship of the Department until the physicians at M.D. Anderson Hospital in Houston, Texas, state Katie Wernecke, following her recent round of chemotherapy, is medically stable and can be released for travel to her parents. It is further ORDERED that any future care until her present release is limited to the care necessary to make Katie ready to leave the care of M.D. Anderson Hospital and abe returned to her parents, including but not limited to any care associated with chemotherapy, hospitalization, stabilization of her blood counts, or other procedures or protocols designed to make Katie ready for release to travel.
ORDERED that upon Katie Wernecke being released for travel, TDFPS shall deliver Katie Wernecke to her parents at M.D. Anderson Hospital, Houston, Texas, and the parents shall confer with the treatment team regarding her current medications, treatment, and care.
ORDERED that Edward and Michele Wernecke shall consult with Katie Wernecke about all future medical care for Katie, and shall take into account Katie's expressed preference, desires, or needs relating to such care, provided however, that the ultimate decision on Katie's future medical care shall remain with Katie's prents until Katie reaches majority.
ORDERED that the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (TDFPS) is dismissed as temporary managing conservator of Katie Wernecke upon her being released to her parents.
ORDERED that this is the final Order of the Court in this case and herby disposes of all parties and all claims in controvery. All other and further relief requested in this case by any pary is hereby DENIED.
Signed this 2 day of Nov. 2005
Hon Jack Hunter, Judge Presiding.
posted by Katie W. @ Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Katie To Return To Parents
Judge's ruling ends months of state custody
By Kathryn Garcia
Caller-TimesNovember 1, 2005
Fearing for the ill teen's life, a judge decided after a hearing Monday afternoon to return 13-year-old cancer patient Katie Wernecke to her family after she spent more than four months in state custody.
Judge Jack Hunter dismissed Child Protective Services from supervising Katie's medical treatment and awarded her parents custody.
"CPS and the Werneckes are never going to coexist," Hunter said. "If I leave it up to CPS and the Werneckes that child will die. This has gone on far too long, and we've lost valuable time."
Katie's chances of survival have dropped from 80 percent to about 20 percent because of delays in treatment for her Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymph nodes, said Katie's treating pediatric oncologist Dr. Robert Wells.
Katie's treatments have been the focus of a state custody battle since June 4 when she was removed from her parents after they refused to allow radiation treatments. The Werneckes have said they are fearful of the treatment's side effects. Katie has been undergoing treatments at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
"She'll be back where she belongs at home with her family. I'll be able to sleep again," said Katie's mother Michele Wernecke. Michele Wernecke grew grief-stricken during the hearing, begging Hunter to return Katie to her. "I'm going to try everything to bring back Katie's emotional and physical health," Michele Wernecke said. "I hope and pray she'll live a long life."
Hunter ordered that the Werneckes continue treating Katie at M.D. Anderson. Katie is scheduled to undergo a medical scan Nov. 14 to see if the recent chemotherapy was successful, Wells said. Katie also is scheduled to meet with a radiation oncologist Nov. 16, he said.
Family law attorney Luis Corona, who represents Katie's parents, said he doesn't believe Hunter's order regarding treatment at M.D. Anderson is "legally admissible" because a judge can't order medical treatment if CPS isn't involved. "We're going to have to come back and clarify in the order," Corona said. The order will be worked out and signed later in the week, Hunter said.
Michele and Edward Wernecke plan on Nov. 7 to take Katie to pursue alternative intravenous Vitamin C treatments in Wichita, Kan., which Edward Wernecke said will cure her cancer.
Wells said Katie could be well enough to take the trip, but only advised Katie leave for one week and not receive high doses of Vitamin C, which can have a negative effect on the radiation treatments. If she leaves for a longer period, Wells said her chances of survival would be compromised. "If treatment is stopped again, the disease will come back and she'll eventually die from Hodgkin's disease," Wells said. "If she's gone more than a month, I'll only be able to give her palliative care."
Edward Wernecke said he would do everything possible to ensure his daughter's survival, even if that means continuing her treatments in Houston, but did say the prescribed treatment might not be congruous with the alternative treatments.
Katie testified from M.D. Anderson where she was receiving a blood transfusion saying she was tired but wanted to receive the prescribed chemotherapy and radiation treatments in addition to the intravenous Vitamin C. "I want to go home," Katie repeated several times during her phone conversation.
CPS spokesman Aaron Reed said CPS hopes Katie will continue receiving treatments.
"Mr. Wernecke told the judge in court he would continue the treatment. We certainly hope he'll do that," Reed said. "We certainly hope and pray that she'll have a full recovery."
Contact Kathryn Garcia at 886-3792 or HYPERLINK mailto:garciak@caller.com garciak@caller.com. Copyright 2005, Caller.com. All Rights Reserved.
By Kathryn Garcia
Caller-TimesNovember 1, 2005
Fearing for the ill teen's life, a judge decided after a hearing Monday afternoon to return 13-year-old cancer patient Katie Wernecke to her family after she spent more than four months in state custody.
Judge Jack Hunter dismissed Child Protective Services from supervising Katie's medical treatment and awarded her parents custody.
"CPS and the Werneckes are never going to coexist," Hunter said. "If I leave it up to CPS and the Werneckes that child will die. This has gone on far too long, and we've lost valuable time."
Katie's chances of survival have dropped from 80 percent to about 20 percent because of delays in treatment for her Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymph nodes, said Katie's treating pediatric oncologist Dr. Robert Wells.
Katie's treatments have been the focus of a state custody battle since June 4 when she was removed from her parents after they refused to allow radiation treatments. The Werneckes have said they are fearful of the treatment's side effects. Katie has been undergoing treatments at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
"She'll be back where she belongs at home with her family. I'll be able to sleep again," said Katie's mother Michele Wernecke. Michele Wernecke grew grief-stricken during the hearing, begging Hunter to return Katie to her. "I'm going to try everything to bring back Katie's emotional and physical health," Michele Wernecke said. "I hope and pray she'll live a long life."
Hunter ordered that the Werneckes continue treating Katie at M.D. Anderson. Katie is scheduled to undergo a medical scan Nov. 14 to see if the recent chemotherapy was successful, Wells said. Katie also is scheduled to meet with a radiation oncologist Nov. 16, he said.
Family law attorney Luis Corona, who represents Katie's parents, said he doesn't believe Hunter's order regarding treatment at M.D. Anderson is "legally admissible" because a judge can't order medical treatment if CPS isn't involved. "We're going to have to come back and clarify in the order," Corona said. The order will be worked out and signed later in the week, Hunter said.
Michele and Edward Wernecke plan on Nov. 7 to take Katie to pursue alternative intravenous Vitamin C treatments in Wichita, Kan., which Edward Wernecke said will cure her cancer.
Wells said Katie could be well enough to take the trip, but only advised Katie leave for one week and not receive high doses of Vitamin C, which can have a negative effect on the radiation treatments. If she leaves for a longer period, Wells said her chances of survival would be compromised. "If treatment is stopped again, the disease will come back and she'll eventually die from Hodgkin's disease," Wells said. "If she's gone more than a month, I'll only be able to give her palliative care."
Edward Wernecke said he would do everything possible to ensure his daughter's survival, even if that means continuing her treatments in Houston, but did say the prescribed treatment might not be congruous with the alternative treatments.
Katie testified from M.D. Anderson where she was receiving a blood transfusion saying she was tired but wanted to receive the prescribed chemotherapy and radiation treatments in addition to the intravenous Vitamin C. "I want to go home," Katie repeated several times during her phone conversation.
CPS spokesman Aaron Reed said CPS hopes Katie will continue receiving treatments.
"Mr. Wernecke told the judge in court he would continue the treatment. We certainly hope he'll do that," Reed said. "We certainly hope and pray that she'll have a full recovery."
Contact Kathryn Garcia at 886-3792 or HYPERLINK mailto:garciak@caller.com garciak@caller.com. Copyright 2005, Caller.com. All Rights Reserved.
posted by Katie W. @ Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Monday, October 31, 2005
After Court Battles Over a Cure, Saddest Case Nears an End
Oct. 31, 2005, 5:52PM
A judge intends to rule on whether a cancer-stricken girl should return to her parents
By TODD ACKERMANCopyright 2005 Houston Chronicle
CORPUS CHRISTI - A judge is expected to rule today whether to return to her parents a cancer-stricken teenager seized by the state because they would not follow doctors' advice that she undergo radiation therapy.
The ruling should resolve whether Katie Wernecke tries her parents' alternative plan — intravenous Vitamin C therapy — or continues to live with Houston foster parents and receive treatment at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center.
"We're not going to dillydally another nine months, we're not going to dillydally another week," state District Judge Jack Hunter said Friday. "Every hour we spend in this courtroom is one less hour she'll have to live."
Hunter, a former M.D. Anderson patient, on Friday gave state lawyers the weekend to come up with new evidence on why he shouldn't return the child to her parents.
Since erupting into a battle in June, the case has attracted national attention, pitting those who believe parents should be able to choose their child's medical treatment against those who believe parents' unconventional choices can endanger innocent lives and thus require state intervention.
In Wernecke's case, the prolonged fight has caused both sides to accuse the other of endangering the now 13-year-old child. Her chances of being cured, once put at 85-90 percent, are down to 20-25 percent, according to M.D. Anderson doctors.
Wernecke was diagnosed in January with Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymph nodes that oncologists consider very curable.
Treatment involves chemotherapy, radiation or both, depending on how advanced the cancer is. Katie's parents were elated when chemotherapy appeared to destroy the tumor, but balked at follow-up radiation therapy, fearing its long-term toxicity. Her doctors said radiation was necessary because her cancer was advanced.
"Radiation's effects on a child are a lot different than they'd be on me," said Edward Wernecke, 53, Katie's father. "It could shape her whole future — make her sterile, stunt her growth, cause her to get breast cancer in her 20s. The effects would be with her the rest of her life."
In a video shown on television at the time, Katie Wernecke also expressed her opposition to radiation.
But when her doctors told Child Protective Services that the Werneckes were refusing to follow the recommended treatment, authorities intervened. Mother Michele Wernecke fled with Katie, but after an Amber Alert was issued, the girl was found at a relative's ranch west of the family's Corpus Christi-area home. CPS took custody and Katie was placed in a foster home in Houston and taken to M.D. Anderson, where doctors promised to consider all options.
Soon thereafter, doctors said, Katie's cancer reappeared and doctors recommended chemotherapy and radiation.
But despite a judge's order that Katie receive the treatment, little has been done in the months since. For a time, Katie resisted treatment by pulling catheters from her arm and disobeying doctors' orders.
In addition, the matter has been frequently tied up in court. The Werneckes and CPS have fought over whether Katie resisted treatment at her parents' urging, whether the judge should step down because he visited Katie without court officials present and whether an M.D. Anderson regimen represented experimental treatment to which the parents had not given consent.
The delays prompted CPS spokesman Aaron Reed to call the Wernecke case "the most frustrated and saddest case" he's experienced at the agency.
"To go from a 85 to 90 percent chance of a cure to where she is now is heartbreaking," Reed said. "If her parents had just gone ahead with the prescribed treatment all along, Katie most likely would be in good health now, doing the things normal kids do at her age."
Earlier this month, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that Edward Wernecke can have supervised contact with Katie, ending four months during which only Michelle Wernecke was allowed such visits. The ruling prompted the judge at the time, Carl Lewis, to remove himself from the case and led to the appointment of Hunter.
Just two days after taking over, Hunter heard the Werneckes request to take Katie to Kansas for the Vitamin C therapy and M.D. Anderson oncologist Dr. Robert Wells' telephone testimony that the therapy has "a long and sordid history in oncology" and that any delay it could cause in her conventional treatment could lead to her death. He added that "she may die anyway."
Wells' quote was alluded to numerous times at Friday's hearing: by the Wernecke's lawyer, who said it showed "what the state's doing isn't working;" and by a state-appointed lawyer for Katie, who said she's decided "she wants to live" and is now open to radiation.
It also was quoted by Hunter, who suggested it brought a new dimension to the debate and pledged to move things forward if it requires holding a hearing every day.
"I don't care who's at fault," said Hunter, whose hairy-cell leukemia was successfully treated at M.D. Anderson. "If it's true she may die anyway, she may need to spend quality time with her family."
todd.ackerman@chron.com
A judge intends to rule on whether a cancer-stricken girl should return to her parents
By TODD ACKERMANCopyright 2005 Houston Chronicle
CORPUS CHRISTI - A judge is expected to rule today whether to return to her parents a cancer-stricken teenager seized by the state because they would not follow doctors' advice that she undergo radiation therapy.
The ruling should resolve whether Katie Wernecke tries her parents' alternative plan — intravenous Vitamin C therapy — or continues to live with Houston foster parents and receive treatment at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center.
"We're not going to dillydally another nine months, we're not going to dillydally another week," state District Judge Jack Hunter said Friday. "Every hour we spend in this courtroom is one less hour she'll have to live."
Hunter, a former M.D. Anderson patient, on Friday gave state lawyers the weekend to come up with new evidence on why he shouldn't return the child to her parents.
Since erupting into a battle in June, the case has attracted national attention, pitting those who believe parents should be able to choose their child's medical treatment against those who believe parents' unconventional choices can endanger innocent lives and thus require state intervention.
In Wernecke's case, the prolonged fight has caused both sides to accuse the other of endangering the now 13-year-old child. Her chances of being cured, once put at 85-90 percent, are down to 20-25 percent, according to M.D. Anderson doctors.
Wernecke was diagnosed in January with Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymph nodes that oncologists consider very curable.
Treatment involves chemotherapy, radiation or both, depending on how advanced the cancer is. Katie's parents were elated when chemotherapy appeared to destroy the tumor, but balked at follow-up radiation therapy, fearing its long-term toxicity. Her doctors said radiation was necessary because her cancer was advanced.
"Radiation's effects on a child are a lot different than they'd be on me," said Edward Wernecke, 53, Katie's father. "It could shape her whole future — make her sterile, stunt her growth, cause her to get breast cancer in her 20s. The effects would be with her the rest of her life."
In a video shown on television at the time, Katie Wernecke also expressed her opposition to radiation.
But when her doctors told Child Protective Services that the Werneckes were refusing to follow the recommended treatment, authorities intervened. Mother Michele Wernecke fled with Katie, but after an Amber Alert was issued, the girl was found at a relative's ranch west of the family's Corpus Christi-area home. CPS took custody and Katie was placed in a foster home in Houston and taken to M.D. Anderson, where doctors promised to consider all options.
Soon thereafter, doctors said, Katie's cancer reappeared and doctors recommended chemotherapy and radiation.
But despite a judge's order that Katie receive the treatment, little has been done in the months since. For a time, Katie resisted treatment by pulling catheters from her arm and disobeying doctors' orders.
In addition, the matter has been frequently tied up in court. The Werneckes and CPS have fought over whether Katie resisted treatment at her parents' urging, whether the judge should step down because he visited Katie without court officials present and whether an M.D. Anderson regimen represented experimental treatment to which the parents had not given consent.
The delays prompted CPS spokesman Aaron Reed to call the Wernecke case "the most frustrated and saddest case" he's experienced at the agency.
"To go from a 85 to 90 percent chance of a cure to where she is now is heartbreaking," Reed said. "If her parents had just gone ahead with the prescribed treatment all along, Katie most likely would be in good health now, doing the things normal kids do at her age."
Earlier this month, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that Edward Wernecke can have supervised contact with Katie, ending four months during which only Michelle Wernecke was allowed such visits. The ruling prompted the judge at the time, Carl Lewis, to remove himself from the case and led to the appointment of Hunter.
Just two days after taking over, Hunter heard the Werneckes request to take Katie to Kansas for the Vitamin C therapy and M.D. Anderson oncologist Dr. Robert Wells' telephone testimony that the therapy has "a long and sordid history in oncology" and that any delay it could cause in her conventional treatment could lead to her death. He added that "she may die anyway."
Wells' quote was alluded to numerous times at Friday's hearing: by the Wernecke's lawyer, who said it showed "what the state's doing isn't working;" and by a state-appointed lawyer for Katie, who said she's decided "she wants to live" and is now open to radiation.
It also was quoted by Hunter, who suggested it brought a new dimension to the debate and pledged to move things forward if it requires holding a hearing every day.
"I don't care who's at fault," said Hunter, whose hairy-cell leukemia was successfully treated at M.D. Anderson. "If it's true she may die anyway, she may need to spend quality time with her family."
todd.ackerman@chron.com
posted by Katie W. @ Monday, October 31, 2005
Judge Returns Young Patient to Parents
CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas (AP) -- A 13-year-old cancer patient who was put into foster care after her parents refused to allow radiation treatment will be reunited with her family, a judge ruled Monday.
Faced with her deteriorating health, state district Judge Jack Hunter said Katie Wernecke would be better off with her family in Corpus Christi than in the custody of the foster parents she was assigned by Child Protective Services.
"CPS and the Werneckes are never, ever going to agree," Hunter said. "If I leave it up to CPS and the Werneckes ... this child is going to die for lack of anything being done."
Child Protective Services removed Katie from her family after her parents stopped her cancer treatment. Her father, Edward Wernecke, worried that a move to radiation treatment could put his daughter at heightened risk for breast cancer, stunt her growth and cause learning problems.
Before the ruling, Hunter told Wernecke to "look at me man to man, eyeball to eyeball" and promise he would do the best for Katie. Wernecke said he would.
Katie's parents have made several attempts to stop treatment for the girl's Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymph nodes. She was diagnosed in January and began receiving chemotherapy, which doctors recommended be followed with radiation.
Katie's oncologist has said her chances of surviving have fallen from 80 percent to about 20 percent because of incomplete treatment.
State lawyers argued that her life would be endangered if she did not continue treatments at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
"We certainly understand why the judge would want Katie at home with her family at this point of her illness," CPS spokesman Aaron Reed said. "This isn't the outcome we advocated for, but our goal all along has been for Katie to get the treatment she needs and get better and go home."
Wernecke's parents were overjoyed with the judge's decision.
"The good news is we're getting Katie back," Edward Wernecke said. Her mother, Michelle Wernecke, added, "She's going to be home soon, it feels great."
In a statement, family attorney James Pikl said the decision had larger implications for parental rights in Texas.
"When your child becomes sick, you do not have to merely stand by while state CPS workers tell you what care your child will receive," he said. "You also need not fear that CPS will take your child away from you simply because you have a disagreement with CPS about what treatment is right for your child."
Edward Wernecke said he wanted to try alternatives such as intravenous vitamin C before considering radiation as a possible last resort.
"If that were her last hope, and it was the only other thing that would save her life, then I would do it," Wernecke testified.
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Find this article at: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/10/31/medical.custody.battle.ap
Faced with her deteriorating health, state district Judge Jack Hunter said Katie Wernecke would be better off with her family in Corpus Christi than in the custody of the foster parents she was assigned by Child Protective Services.
"CPS and the Werneckes are never, ever going to agree," Hunter said. "If I leave it up to CPS and the Werneckes ... this child is going to die for lack of anything being done."
Child Protective Services removed Katie from her family after her parents stopped her cancer treatment. Her father, Edward Wernecke, worried that a move to radiation treatment could put his daughter at heightened risk for breast cancer, stunt her growth and cause learning problems.
Before the ruling, Hunter told Wernecke to "look at me man to man, eyeball to eyeball" and promise he would do the best for Katie. Wernecke said he would.
Katie's parents have made several attempts to stop treatment for the girl's Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymph nodes. She was diagnosed in January and began receiving chemotherapy, which doctors recommended be followed with radiation.
Katie's oncologist has said her chances of surviving have fallen from 80 percent to about 20 percent because of incomplete treatment.
State lawyers argued that her life would be endangered if she did not continue treatments at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
"We certainly understand why the judge would want Katie at home with her family at this point of her illness," CPS spokesman Aaron Reed said. "This isn't the outcome we advocated for, but our goal all along has been for Katie to get the treatment she needs and get better and go home."
Wernecke's parents were overjoyed with the judge's decision.
"The good news is we're getting Katie back," Edward Wernecke said. Her mother, Michelle Wernecke, added, "She's going to be home soon, it feels great."
In a statement, family attorney James Pikl said the decision had larger implications for parental rights in Texas.
"When your child becomes sick, you do not have to merely stand by while state CPS workers tell you what care your child will receive," he said. "You also need not fear that CPS will take your child away from you simply because you have a disagreement with CPS about what treatment is right for your child."
Edward Wernecke said he wanted to try alternatives such as intravenous vitamin C before considering radiation as a possible last resort.
"If that were her last hope, and it was the only other thing that would save her life, then I would do it," Wernecke testified.
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Find this article at: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/10/31/medical.custody.battle.ap
posted by Katie W. @ Monday, October 31, 2005
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Letter to the Editor Caller Times - LET KATIE LIVE
Let Katie live
Time as we know it can change in a heartbeat. When a life-threatening illness unfortunately happens, time becomes not an infinite given, but a real hourglass that measures life's moments. Value is given to the few years, months, days, and hours that allow us to live, love and laugh in this realm of existence. For this can change in a split second of time; reflect on the "quality" of time and not the "quantity."
This is a thought of hope for those who are battling disease in life-limiting form. Give every opportunity for families, friends to share love and laughter while they can. I pray for this especially for Katie Wernecke, and others involved in her plight. Allow her to live and love with those who love her; she needs her family. In the continuum of time, it is of what matters most.
Cheryl C. Hartzendorf
Time as we know it can change in a heartbeat. When a life-threatening illness unfortunately happens, time becomes not an infinite given, but a real hourglass that measures life's moments. Value is given to the few years, months, days, and hours that allow us to live, love and laugh in this realm of existence. For this can change in a split second of time; reflect on the "quality" of time and not the "quantity."
This is a thought of hope for those who are battling disease in life-limiting form. Give every opportunity for families, friends to share love and laughter while they can. I pray for this especially for Katie Wernecke, and others involved in her plight. Allow her to live and love with those who love her; she needs her family. In the continuum of time, it is of what matters most.
Cheryl C. Hartzendorf
posted by Katie W. @ Sunday, October 30, 2005
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
High Court Postpones Decision on Wernecke
Ruling on reuniting girl with her parents delayed for new judge
By Kathryn Garcia Caller-TimesOctober 26, 2005
The Texas Supreme Court postponed a decision on whether to return 13-year-old cancer patient Katie Wernecke to her parents, stating the newly appointed judge first must have an opportunity to examine the case.
The ruling, issued Monday, gave McKinney attorney James Pikl, who is representing Edward and Michele Wernecke, until Nov. 23 to pursue or dismiss an appeal filed Oct. 6. The appeal requests all of Juvenile Judge Carl Lewis' rulings, including her removal from her parents, be reversed because the Werneckes never were found to be medically negligent.
Pikl appealed to the state Supreme Court after the 13th Court of Appeals denied his petition and stated that the Werneckes were found to be medically neglectful when they refused to treat Katie's cancer with the prescribed radiation treatment. Katie's parents have said they are fearful of the treatment's side effects.
Judge Jack Hunter was assigned last week to Katie's case after Lewis stepped aside Oct. 13. Pikl said he might not move forward with the appeal depending on Hunter's decisions. "Depending on what he does, I might have nothing to appeal," Pikl said.
Katie is undergoing chemotherapy at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston for her Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymph nodes. Following the treatment, Katie will accompany her parents to Kansas to receive alternative intravenous vitamin C treatments.
Assistant County Attorney Tom Stuckey requested at a hearing last week that Edward Wernecke be prohibited from accompanying his daughter and that a state caseworker supervise the trip. He also asked Hunter to order a bond to give the Werneckes an incentive to return.
Hunter will make a decision on Stuckey's requests at a hearing scheduled for 9:30 a.m. Friday.
An Oct. 7 order issued by the Texas Supreme Court ruled in the Werneckes' favor, reversing a Sept 20 order issued by Lewis barring all communication between Katie and Edward Wernecke.
Contact Kathryn Garcia at 886-3792
or HYPERLINK mailto:garciak@caller.com garciak@caller.com.
Copyright 2005, Caller.com. All Rights
By Kathryn Garcia Caller-TimesOctober 26, 2005
The Texas Supreme Court postponed a decision on whether to return 13-year-old cancer patient Katie Wernecke to her parents, stating the newly appointed judge first must have an opportunity to examine the case.
The ruling, issued Monday, gave McKinney attorney James Pikl, who is representing Edward and Michele Wernecke, until Nov. 23 to pursue or dismiss an appeal filed Oct. 6. The appeal requests all of Juvenile Judge Carl Lewis' rulings, including her removal from her parents, be reversed because the Werneckes never were found to be medically negligent.
Pikl appealed to the state Supreme Court after the 13th Court of Appeals denied his petition and stated that the Werneckes were found to be medically neglectful when they refused to treat Katie's cancer with the prescribed radiation treatment. Katie's parents have said they are fearful of the treatment's side effects.
Judge Jack Hunter was assigned last week to Katie's case after Lewis stepped aside Oct. 13. Pikl said he might not move forward with the appeal depending on Hunter's decisions. "Depending on what he does, I might have nothing to appeal," Pikl said.
Katie is undergoing chemotherapy at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston for her Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymph nodes. Following the treatment, Katie will accompany her parents to Kansas to receive alternative intravenous vitamin C treatments.
Assistant County Attorney Tom Stuckey requested at a hearing last week that Edward Wernecke be prohibited from accompanying his daughter and that a state caseworker supervise the trip. He also asked Hunter to order a bond to give the Werneckes an incentive to return.
Hunter will make a decision on Stuckey's requests at a hearing scheduled for 9:30 a.m. Friday.
An Oct. 7 order issued by the Texas Supreme Court ruled in the Werneckes' favor, reversing a Sept 20 order issued by Lewis barring all communication between Katie and Edward Wernecke.
Contact Kathryn Garcia at 886-3792
or HYPERLINK mailto:garciak@caller.com garciak@caller.com.
Copyright 2005, Caller.com. All Rights
posted by Katie W. @ Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
HARD ON KATIE
I have read so much, for so long, about the dilemma that a brave, seriously ill young girl has had to face. Her name is Katie Wernecke.
I do not understand how Child Protective Services thinks that they are "protecting" this child. They have just jerked her out of the most stable and loving environment she has ever had--her home and her family.
The courts and her doctors are separating Katie from the care, support and security of her parents, and continue to force her to take treatments for Hodgkin's disease. I do not think that's their business, but if that is what they dictate, they darn sure better be right and get her cured.
The ordeal they have put Katie through is enough to make a healthy person sick.
I am not as worried about Katie dying of cancer as I am about her dying of a broken heart, and possibly taking her parents with her. My utmost love and compassion go out to her and her family.
Carolyn Wallen
Letters Caller Times October 25, 2005
I do not understand how Child Protective Services thinks that they are "protecting" this child. They have just jerked her out of the most stable and loving environment she has ever had--her home and her family.
The courts and her doctors are separating Katie from the care, support and security of her parents, and continue to force her to take treatments for Hodgkin's disease. I do not think that's their business, but if that is what they dictate, they darn sure better be right and get her cured.
The ordeal they have put Katie through is enough to make a healthy person sick.
I am not as worried about Katie dying of cancer as I am about her dying of a broken heart, and possibly taking her parents with her. My utmost love and compassion go out to her and her family.
Carolyn Wallen
Letters Caller Times October 25, 2005
posted by Katie W. @ Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Monday, October 24, 2005
Hard on Werneckes
Caller Times Letters October 21, 2005
Thank you for the coverage of Katie Wernecke. I know that doctors and the Family Protection Services help many people ae to be commended, but they at times step over the line. This family should be supported during a time like this, not treated like criminals.
James Milton
(Warren, Ore.)
Thank you for the coverage of Katie Wernecke. I know that doctors and the Family Protection Services help many people ae to be commended, but they at times step over the line. This family should be supported during a time like this, not treated like criminals.
James Milton
(Warren, Ore.)
posted by Katie W. @ Monday, October 24, 2005
27 comments
Sunday, October 23, 2005
Katie Left All Alone in Hospital Undergoing Chemotherapy
Katie has been left all alone in M.D. Anderson undergoing this fourth round of chemotherapy. CPS has not allowed the parents to be present in the hospital during this treatment. I don't have the right words and enough words to express how awful I feel about that. It is unbelievably cruel and just sickening that Katie would have to suffer through that ordeal all alone with no parent beside her. That is emotional abuse and child abuse on the part of CPS. How is Katie supposed to keep up the hope and will to survive without the love and support of her parents. Stella Klein CPS worker who signs all Katie's consent forms is supposed to attend each doctor and hospital admission. She wasn't there Friday because I saw her on TV in court in Corpus Chrisit. I bet she is not there with my Katie this Sunday morning either. Our contact information in the hospital records has been removed by Stella so if something goes wrong they do not even know who the parents are to contact. We can't even talk to her by phone during this time.
Judge Jack Hunter said in the hearing on Friday that he put God first, then family, and then his support group in fighting cancer at M.D. Anderson. The Judge agreed she needs her family there, but it didn't happen Friday. If he believes in God he would know that children belong with their parents and will restore Katie to us. We have done nothing wrong and are just God fearing loving parents that want our daughter back before she dies in their care alone and in isolation. Thank you Judge Hunter for letting us go to Kansas for evaluation.
A judge is supposed to judge between right and wrong and truth vs lies. CPS has fed you with a bunch of lies. We stand for truth and right. Let justice prevail.
Edward
Judge Jack Hunter said in the hearing on Friday that he put God first, then family, and then his support group in fighting cancer at M.D. Anderson. The Judge agreed she needs her family there, but it didn't happen Friday. If he believes in God he would know that children belong with their parents and will restore Katie to us. We have done nothing wrong and are just God fearing loving parents that want our daughter back before she dies in their care alone and in isolation. Thank you Judge Hunter for letting us go to Kansas for evaluation.
A judge is supposed to judge between right and wrong and truth vs lies. CPS has fed you with a bunch of lies. We stand for truth and right. Let justice prevail.
Edward
posted by Katie W. @ Sunday, October 23, 2005
Saturday, October 22, 2005
KATIE MAY TRY OTHER THERAPY
Judge OKs trip to Kansas to look into Vitamin C regimen
By Jaime Powell Caller-TimesOctober 22, 2005
Katie Wernecke's parents will be allowed to take their daughter to Kansas to meet with a doctor who believes he can treat her cancer with intravenous Vitamin C.
But first, Katie must undergo five days of traditional chemotherapy at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
District Judge Jack Hunter, who was appointed to the case just two days ago, ruled Friday that Katie's parents could take her to the Kansas doctor, even though that trip could put her life at risk.
Meanwhile, Dr. Robert Wells, the pediatric oncologist treating 13-year-old Katie in Houston, said the chances of Katie beating her disease are now between 20 percent and 25 percent because of repeated delays in getting her the proper care.
Wells told Hunter on Friday that if Katie had undergone the proper treatment after she was diagnosed in January, she would have had an 85 percent chance of beating the disease.
The attorneys involved in Katie's case were in Hunter's court Friday after Katie's parents tried to stop a round of chemotherapy treatment that was to begin this weekend. They argued that the treatment was experimental and that they had not been properly informed of it.
The move was the most recent of several attempts by Katie's parents to stop treatment for her Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymph nodes. They have resisted treatment because they believe the side effects of chemotherapy and radiation could hurt her more than the disease.
"My job is to save this baby, and I'm going to do it," Hunter said.
This summer, Juvenile Court Judge Carl Lewis ordered Katie into the care of state officials after her parents, Edward and Michele Wernecke, were accused of medical neglect.
James Pikl, an attorney for the parents, told Hunter Friday that they want more control over the girl's care and they would like to use a combination of nutrition therapy and a regimen that involves intravenous doses of Vitamin C to treat her.
Pikl asked Hunter to stall chemotherapy for seven days so her parents could take her to Kansas for a consultation.
Wells told Hunter that the consequences could be disastrous. "I think it would harm her, and she may die," he said. "She may die anyway."
Edward Wernecke declined to comment Friday.
Hunter ordered Katie to undergo the next round of chemotherapy, but he also ordered that her parents could take her to Kansas for a consultation on the alternative treatment, despite Wells' testimony that it is not a viable option.
Assistant County Attorney Tom Stuckey, who represents state officials, said if the Werneckes are allowed to leave Texas with their daughter, there must be measures to protect the girl.
Previously, Michele Wernecke fled state officials as they attempted to care for the girl. She was subsequently arrested, but all charges were dropped. Edward Wernecke also has been accused of interfering with the girl's treatment, and Lewis had signed a previous order preventing him from visiting his daughter. The Texas Supreme Court later overruled that decision, and Lewis stepped aside to let another judge hear the case.
Stuckey said he wants to prevent Edward Wernecke from accompanying his daughter and wants a state caseworker to supervise the trip. He also asked Hunter to order a bond to give the Werneckes an incentive to return.
Hunter has not made a decision on those two requests, and the attorneys are working on a compromise.
Contact Jaime Powell at
886-3716 or powellj@caller.com powellj@caller.com
Copyright 2005, Caller.com
By Jaime Powell Caller-TimesOctober 22, 2005
Katie Wernecke's parents will be allowed to take their daughter to Kansas to meet with a doctor who believes he can treat her cancer with intravenous Vitamin C.
But first, Katie must undergo five days of traditional chemotherapy at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
District Judge Jack Hunter, who was appointed to the case just two days ago, ruled Friday that Katie's parents could take her to the Kansas doctor, even though that trip could put her life at risk.
Meanwhile, Dr. Robert Wells, the pediatric oncologist treating 13-year-old Katie in Houston, said the chances of Katie beating her disease are now between 20 percent and 25 percent because of repeated delays in getting her the proper care.
Wells told Hunter on Friday that if Katie had undergone the proper treatment after she was diagnosed in January, she would have had an 85 percent chance of beating the disease.
The attorneys involved in Katie's case were in Hunter's court Friday after Katie's parents tried to stop a round of chemotherapy treatment that was to begin this weekend. They argued that the treatment was experimental and that they had not been properly informed of it.
The move was the most recent of several attempts by Katie's parents to stop treatment for her Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymph nodes. They have resisted treatment because they believe the side effects of chemotherapy and radiation could hurt her more than the disease.
"My job is to save this baby, and I'm going to do it," Hunter said.
This summer, Juvenile Court Judge Carl Lewis ordered Katie into the care of state officials after her parents, Edward and Michele Wernecke, were accused of medical neglect.
James Pikl, an attorney for the parents, told Hunter Friday that they want more control over the girl's care and they would like to use a combination of nutrition therapy and a regimen that involves intravenous doses of Vitamin C to treat her.
Pikl asked Hunter to stall chemotherapy for seven days so her parents could take her to Kansas for a consultation.
Wells told Hunter that the consequences could be disastrous. "I think it would harm her, and she may die," he said. "She may die anyway."
Edward Wernecke declined to comment Friday.
Hunter ordered Katie to undergo the next round of chemotherapy, but he also ordered that her parents could take her to Kansas for a consultation on the alternative treatment, despite Wells' testimony that it is not a viable option.
Assistant County Attorney Tom Stuckey, who represents state officials, said if the Werneckes are allowed to leave Texas with their daughter, there must be measures to protect the girl.
Previously, Michele Wernecke fled state officials as they attempted to care for the girl. She was subsequently arrested, but all charges were dropped. Edward Wernecke also has been accused of interfering with the girl's treatment, and Lewis had signed a previous order preventing him from visiting his daughter. The Texas Supreme Court later overruled that decision, and Lewis stepped aside to let another judge hear the case.
Stuckey said he wants to prevent Edward Wernecke from accompanying his daughter and wants a state caseworker to supervise the trip. He also asked Hunter to order a bond to give the Werneckes an incentive to return.
Hunter has not made a decision on those two requests, and the attorneys are working on a compromise.
Contact Jaime Powell at
886-3716 or powellj@caller.com powellj@caller.com
Copyright 2005, Caller.com
posted by Katie W. @ Saturday, October 22, 2005
Friday, October 21, 2005
Proof M. D. Anderson Experiments With Our Kids
Combination Chemotherapy in Treating Children With Refractory or Relapsed Hodgkin's Lymphoma
This study is currently recruiting patients.Verified by National Cancer Institute (NCI) May 2004
Sponsors and Collaborators:
Children's Oncology Group
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
Information provided by:
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
NCT00006760
Purpose
RATIONALE: Drugs used in chemotherapy, such as ifosfamide and vinorelbine, work in different ways to stop cancer cells from dividing so they stop growing or die. Combining more than one drug may kill more cancer cells.
PURPOSE: Phase II trial to study the effectiveness of combination chemotherapy in treating children who have refractory or relapsed Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Condition
Intervention
Phase
recurrent/refractory childhood Hodgkin's lymphomachildhood lymphocyte predominant Hodgkin's lymphomachildhood lymphocyte depletion Hodgkin's lymphomachildhood nodular sclerosis Hodgkin's lymphomachildhood mixed cellularity Hodgkin's lymphoma
Drug: filgrastim Drug: ifosfamide Drug: vinorelbine Procedure: biological response modifier therapy Procedure: chemotherapy Procedure: colony-stimulating factor therapy Procedure: cytokine therapy
Phase II
MedlinePlus related topics: Hodgkin's Disease
Study Type: InterventionalStudy Design: Treatment
Official Title: Phase II Pilot Study of Reinduction Chemotherapy With Ifosfamide and Vinorelbine in Children With Refractory or Relapsed Hodgkin's Lymphoma
Further Study Details:
OBJECTIVES:
Determine the response rate (overall and within strata) in both minimally pretreated, low-risk and heavily pretreated, high-risk children with refractory or relapsed Hodgkin's lymphoma treated with ifosfamide and vinorelbine with filgrastim (G-CSF).
Determine the cardiac, hepatic, renal, and hematologic toxicity of this regimen in minimally-pretreated, low-risk patients.
Determine the toxic death rate in minimally pretreated, low-risk patients treated with this regimen.
Determine whether this treatment regimen can mobilize sufficient hematopoietic stem cells (CD34) for subsequent stem cell transplantation in minimally pretreated, low-risk patients.
Determine the incidence of hypermutability by longitudinal genotoxic biomonitoring of patients treated with this regimen.
Determine the prognostic significance of biological markers, including serum interleukin (IL)-10 receptor, serum IL-2 receptor, p53, and mdm-2 in patients treated with this regimen.
OUTLINE: This is a multicenter study. Patients are stratified by prior therapy (minimally pretreated, low-risk vs heavily pretreated, high-risk).
Patients receive ifosfamide IV over 24 hours on days 1-4 and vinorelbine IV over 6-10 minutes on days 1 and 5. Patients also receive filgrastim (G-CSF) subcutaneously or IV over 15-30 minutes beginning 24-36 hours after completion of vinorelbine and continuing daily until blood counts recover.
Treatment repeats at least every 21 days for 2 courses in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients may receive a third course of therapy at the discretion of the investigator. [Katie is receiving a fouth course of therapy! EDWARD]
Heavily pretreated, high-risk patients who achieve a complete response are eligible for stem cell transplantation. Patients undergo peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) collection during hematopoietic recovery after the second course of chemotherapy. Patients with sufficient PBSCs collected may undergo PBSC transplantation on protocol COG-AHOD0121.
COMMENTS:
This may be the trial Katie has been placed in. Even if she is not officially in this trial, these are the exact chemicals they are using on her now. This is a phase II trial --not proven therapy. Like I've said before they are using our kids to experiment on for cancer research and they force them into these trials and than don't modify treatment even at the risk of patient dying because that would mess up the results and they would not get their government money for doing the trial. They don't even notify the parents that these are experimental drugs being used. These are people, not animals, and I don't want my daughter experimented on.
http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/COG-AHOD00P1
This study is currently recruiting patients.Verified by National Cancer Institute (NCI) May 2004
Sponsors and Collaborators:
Children's Oncology Group
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
Information provided by:
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
NCT00006760
Purpose
RATIONALE: Drugs used in chemotherapy, such as ifosfamide and vinorelbine, work in different ways to stop cancer cells from dividing so they stop growing or die. Combining more than one drug may kill more cancer cells.
PURPOSE: Phase II trial to study the effectiveness of combination chemotherapy in treating children who have refractory or relapsed Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Condition
Intervention
Phase
recurrent/refractory childhood Hodgkin's lymphomachildhood lymphocyte predominant Hodgkin's lymphomachildhood lymphocyte depletion Hodgkin's lymphomachildhood nodular sclerosis Hodgkin's lymphomachildhood mixed cellularity Hodgkin's lymphoma
Drug: filgrastim Drug: ifosfamide Drug: vinorelbine Procedure: biological response modifier therapy Procedure: chemotherapy Procedure: colony-stimulating factor therapy Procedure: cytokine therapy
Phase II
MedlinePlus related topics: Hodgkin's Disease
Study Type: InterventionalStudy Design: Treatment
Official Title: Phase II Pilot Study of Reinduction Chemotherapy With Ifosfamide and Vinorelbine in Children With Refractory or Relapsed Hodgkin's Lymphoma
Further Study Details:
OBJECTIVES:
Determine the response rate (overall and within strata) in both minimally pretreated, low-risk and heavily pretreated, high-risk children with refractory or relapsed Hodgkin's lymphoma treated with ifosfamide and vinorelbine with filgrastim (G-CSF).
Determine the cardiac, hepatic, renal, and hematologic toxicity of this regimen in minimally-pretreated, low-risk patients.
Determine the toxic death rate in minimally pretreated, low-risk patients treated with this regimen.
Determine whether this treatment regimen can mobilize sufficient hematopoietic stem cells (CD34) for subsequent stem cell transplantation in minimally pretreated, low-risk patients.
Determine the incidence of hypermutability by longitudinal genotoxic biomonitoring of patients treated with this regimen.
Determine the prognostic significance of biological markers, including serum interleukin (IL)-10 receptor, serum IL-2 receptor, p53, and mdm-2 in patients treated with this regimen.
OUTLINE: This is a multicenter study. Patients are stratified by prior therapy (minimally pretreated, low-risk vs heavily pretreated, high-risk).
Patients receive ifosfamide IV over 24 hours on days 1-4 and vinorelbine IV over 6-10 minutes on days 1 and 5. Patients also receive filgrastim (G-CSF) subcutaneously or IV over 15-30 minutes beginning 24-36 hours after completion of vinorelbine and continuing daily until blood counts recover.
Treatment repeats at least every 21 days for 2 courses in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients may receive a third course of therapy at the discretion of the investigator. [Katie is receiving a fouth course of therapy! EDWARD]
Heavily pretreated, high-risk patients who achieve a complete response are eligible for stem cell transplantation. Patients undergo peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) collection during hematopoietic recovery after the second course of chemotherapy. Patients with sufficient PBSCs collected may undergo PBSC transplantation on protocol COG-AHOD0121.
COMMENTS:
This may be the trial Katie has been placed in. Even if she is not officially in this trial, these are the exact chemicals they are using on her now. This is a phase II trial --not proven therapy. Like I've said before they are using our kids to experiment on for cancer research and they force them into these trials and than don't modify treatment even at the risk of patient dying because that would mess up the results and they would not get their government money for doing the trial. They don't even notify the parents that these are experimental drugs being used. These are people, not animals, and I don't want my daughter experimented on.
http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/COG-AHOD00P1
posted by Katie W. @ Friday, October 21, 2005
Wernecke Case Assigned to Still Another Judge
By neal falgoust and kathryn garcia Caller-TimesOctober 21, 2005
For the second time in a week, there's a new judge overseeing the case of 13-year-old cancer patient Katie Wernecke.
Assistant County Attorney Tom Stuckey removed retired Judge Joaquin Villarreal from the case Thursday, just three days after Villar real was appointed. Fifth Administrative Region Judge Darrell Hester of Cameron County moved the case to 94th District Judge Jack Hunter's court.
Villarreal, the second judge to handle the case, had not heard testimony in a formal court set ting. The first judge, Carl Lewis of County Court-at-Law No. 5, stepped aside Oct. 13.
It was unclear Thursday why Stuckey had Villarreal removed from the case. He did not respond to a call to his office. Either side in a civil case can have a retired judge struck from the bench with out having to provide a reason. They cannot strike Hunter because he is a sitting judge.
Lewis stepped aside after the Texas Supreme Court over ruled his decision to prohibit Katie's father from visiting her. Lewis said the Supreme Court's involvement created a distraction that would make his invol-vement detrimental to Katie's health.
Katie's case began June 4 when Lewis put her in the custody of state officials. Katie's parents had refused treatment for her Hodgkin's disease and had been accused by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services of medical neglect. Hodgkin's disease is a cancer of the lymph nodes, and Katie is undergoing chemother apy at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
Attorney James Pikl, who is representing Katie's parents, Edward and Michele Wernecke, filed a brief with the Supreme Court on Thursday arguing that all of Lewis' rulings should be reversed because the family never received a fair trial and never were found to be medically neglectful.
"We need her home," Edward Wernecke said Thursday. "She needs to be home. She's going through a tremendous amount of stress and pressure from being separated from her parents and brothers. No child should ever have to -go through that, especially having cancer." Edward and Michele Wernecke have scheduled a visit with Katie for next weekend. "I look forward to seeing her," Edward Wernecke said. "I wish it were sooner."
Child Protective Services spokesman Aaron Reed said offi cials still believe Katie is better off in state custody rather than at home.
"We believe and Judge Lewis also believed that it was in Katie's best interest to remain in the department's care and receive the treatments that the medical experts at M.D. Anderson deemed was necessary to save her life," he said. "From our perspective, nothing has changed about what we want for Katie. We want her to get the treatments she needs to get better and go home to her family."
Contact Neal Falgoust at 886- 4334 or HYPERLINK mailto:falgoustn@caller.com falgoustn@caller.com.
Copyright 2005, Caller.com. All Rights Reserved.
comment: Why did Stuckey have Judge Joaquin Villarreal removed from the case and have it reassigned in Judge Jack Hunters court ? Was it because Stuckey or CPS could not influence his decisions? I appauld and thank Judge Joaquin Villarreal for being above CPS or Assistant County Attorney Tom Stuckey's influence and his prompt attention to this case. Judges should be impartial and unbiased. Edward
For the second time in a week, there's a new judge overseeing the case of 13-year-old cancer patient Katie Wernecke.
Assistant County Attorney Tom Stuckey removed retired Judge Joaquin Villarreal from the case Thursday, just three days after Villar real was appointed. Fifth Administrative Region Judge Darrell Hester of Cameron County moved the case to 94th District Judge Jack Hunter's court.
Villarreal, the second judge to handle the case, had not heard testimony in a formal court set ting. The first judge, Carl Lewis of County Court-at-Law No. 5, stepped aside Oct. 13.
It was unclear Thursday why Stuckey had Villarreal removed from the case. He did not respond to a call to his office. Either side in a civil case can have a retired judge struck from the bench with out having to provide a reason. They cannot strike Hunter because he is a sitting judge.
Lewis stepped aside after the Texas Supreme Court over ruled his decision to prohibit Katie's father from visiting her. Lewis said the Supreme Court's involvement created a distraction that would make his invol-vement detrimental to Katie's health.
Katie's case began June 4 when Lewis put her in the custody of state officials. Katie's parents had refused treatment for her Hodgkin's disease and had been accused by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services of medical neglect. Hodgkin's disease is a cancer of the lymph nodes, and Katie is undergoing chemother apy at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
Attorney James Pikl, who is representing Katie's parents, Edward and Michele Wernecke, filed a brief with the Supreme Court on Thursday arguing that all of Lewis' rulings should be reversed because the family never received a fair trial and never were found to be medically neglectful.
"We need her home," Edward Wernecke said Thursday. "She needs to be home. She's going through a tremendous amount of stress and pressure from being separated from her parents and brothers. No child should ever have to -go through that, especially having cancer." Edward and Michele Wernecke have scheduled a visit with Katie for next weekend. "I look forward to seeing her," Edward Wernecke said. "I wish it were sooner."
Child Protective Services spokesman Aaron Reed said offi cials still believe Katie is better off in state custody rather than at home.
"We believe and Judge Lewis also believed that it was in Katie's best interest to remain in the department's care and receive the treatments that the medical experts at M.D. Anderson deemed was necessary to save her life," he said. "From our perspective, nothing has changed about what we want for Katie. We want her to get the treatments she needs to get better and go home to her family."
Contact Neal Falgoust at 886- 4334 or HYPERLINK mailto:falgoustn@caller.com falgoustn@caller.com.
Copyright 2005, Caller.com. All Rights Reserved.
comment: Why did Stuckey have Judge Joaquin Villarreal removed from the case and have it reassigned in Judge Jack Hunters court ? Was it because Stuckey or CPS could not influence his decisions? I appauld and thank Judge Joaquin Villarreal for being above CPS or Assistant County Attorney Tom Stuckey's influence and his prompt attention to this case. Judges should be impartial and unbiased. Edward
posted by Katie W. @ Friday, October 21, 2005
Parents Muzzled - Letter to Editor
Caller Times: Letter to the Editor by Jimmy L. Laurence October 19. 2005
I read with disbelief the decision by the Texas Supreme Court to allow supervised contact between Katie Wernecke and her father with the provision he not attempt to discourage her from taking the prescribed treatments for Hodgkin's disease.
In other words, "Don't express any opinions that are contrary to the revolution, or you will be sent to the gulag and not be allowed to see your daughter."
I would encourage the justices to go down to the nearest library, and check out a book on the U.S. government containing a copy of the Constitution of the United States of America.
In the section titles "Amendments," find Number One, and read it. Number One is commonly referred to as freedom of speech.
It is time to turn out the lights and close the door on America if the goverment can tell you what you can and cannot say to your children.
I would like to offer my sincerest apologies to Katie and her family for the injustice, cruelty, and complete lack of compassion the court system and Child Protective Services has shown in this matter.
There is no greater crime against humanity than that of cruelty to a child.
Jimmy L. Laurence
I read with disbelief the decision by the Texas Supreme Court to allow supervised contact between Katie Wernecke and her father with the provision he not attempt to discourage her from taking the prescribed treatments for Hodgkin's disease.
In other words, "Don't express any opinions that are contrary to the revolution, or you will be sent to the gulag and not be allowed to see your daughter."
I would encourage the justices to go down to the nearest library, and check out a book on the U.S. government containing a copy of the Constitution of the United States of America.
In the section titles "Amendments," find Number One, and read it. Number One is commonly referred to as freedom of speech.
It is time to turn out the lights and close the door on America if the goverment can tell you what you can and cannot say to your children.
I would like to offer my sincerest apologies to Katie and her family for the injustice, cruelty, and complete lack of compassion the court system and Child Protective Services has shown in this matter.
There is no greater crime against humanity than that of cruelty to a child.
Jimmy L. Laurence
posted by Katie W. @ Friday, October 21, 2005
Thursday, October 20, 2005
A Doctor and CPS Destroys Another Family - CPS Works Under Cover of Darkness and Outside the Law
Linda S. said...
In 2000 my family went through an ordeal which was very similar to the nightmare you are experiencing now. For 6 years my husband and I searched for a cure for our daughter's as yet undiagnosed illness which caused her much pain and suffering. At this time my husband and I thought nothing could be worse than having to watch helplessly as our little girl suffered so. But we were wrong. Having our sick little girl taken from us and at a time when she needed us most was much, much harder.
In 1999, while visiting one of our daughter's medical caregivers, we told this doctor our wonderful news that we had at long last found the cause of our child's long suffering. We shared with this doctor how relieved we were to know that there was a very good and simple treatment which would put an end to most of her symptoms. Upon hearing this, the doctor became visibly angry. An odd reaction we thought. But our happiness at the good news did not allow us to ponder this right away and we shrugged it off to her possibly having a bad day. We would later know that this doctor was angry with us for getting another opinoin without consulting her. She may have been afraid that we would file a malpractice law suit as well, even though this thought had never entered our minds. You see, she had evidently been documenting (and without informing my husband or I) that our daughter's medical syptoms were all in her head and she was opposed to us seeking further medical opinions.
Immediately following the doctor appointment which would change our lives forever, this mean doctor picked up the phone and called Child Protective Services. This was the beginning of an 18 month ordeal of our battling the state of Illinois and put our daughter through more torture than any of us could have ever imagined. It was like waking from a dream to begin living a nightmare. And we know first hand the pain that you all are going through. There are no words that begin to go far enough to describe our anguish, to anyone but parents such as yourselves I think it would be impossible. Our daughter was returned to us finally, but not before CPS had put us through the emotional and financial ringer. Just this year we have filed for bankruptsy due to my husband not being able to keep the numberous CPS ordered meetings during his work time and the many thousands of dollars we spent on an attorney who did nothing for us but rather threw our case to the state (very typical of family court attorneys.)
It is true that CPS cares nothing about familes these days, but rather is an agency driven by a lust for money in the form of huge federal grants which reward the states for remmoving children (there are NO incentives, monitary or otherwise for leaving children with their parents).
And when one couples this with the fact that this agency answers to no one but itself we have the recipe for disaster. We found that in the CPS hearing process the Constitution, and any other law of the land which might ensure fair treatment, were not available to us.
CPS had the power punish my husband and I in the most cruel and unusual way imaginable, and we had no rights as US citizens at all. In this court due process is replaced with 'best interest of the child; a legal phrase meaning however the judge feels like ruling and disregarding any truths. It took some months for us to realize that the attack on us was something other than a horrible mistake which could easily be straightened out by one phone call to our daughter's new treating physician. No one was interested in getting at the truth. Having never committed a crime, we were not familiar with this or any other court and wrongfully thought that obviously innocent US citizens prevail in our judicial system. By the time we realized that we were dealing with an agency of the government which worked outside of the law, we had already gone through much needless torment. We came to know that our plight was not at all unusual either.
Countless thousands of parents are experiencing this very sort of pain and injustice every single day, at the hands of those sworn to protect children. If it were not for the fact that we had support from one honest, brave newspaper reporter (and at great personal cost to her)who wrote about our story in the paper, an honest and ethical and psychologist and a doctor who was strong and kind enough to stand up for us...I have not one doubt that our daughter would still be gone today.
The way your family is being tortured every single day is nothing short of a crime and our hearts go out to the Werneke family. We are praying that you find good people such as the ones who stood by us and who will help you in your effort to free little Katie.
One thing I learned about Child Protective Services is that they like to work under cover of darkness, and out of the public sight. And so it is encouraging to see that the media has exposed the CPS abduction of Katie. It is my earnest prayer that this will scare them into releasing her immediately. I am so very sorry to know that your family is going through a nightmare such as we did. Be strong and keep fighting.
God is watching and he is on your side. I would hate to be a CPS worker on judgement day for I'm sure that God has a special punishment for people who torture little children.
Blessings,Linda S.
In 2000 my family went through an ordeal which was very similar to the nightmare you are experiencing now. For 6 years my husband and I searched for a cure for our daughter's as yet undiagnosed illness which caused her much pain and suffering. At this time my husband and I thought nothing could be worse than having to watch helplessly as our little girl suffered so. But we were wrong. Having our sick little girl taken from us and at a time when she needed us most was much, much harder.
In 1999, while visiting one of our daughter's medical caregivers, we told this doctor our wonderful news that we had at long last found the cause of our child's long suffering. We shared with this doctor how relieved we were to know that there was a very good and simple treatment which would put an end to most of her symptoms. Upon hearing this, the doctor became visibly angry. An odd reaction we thought. But our happiness at the good news did not allow us to ponder this right away and we shrugged it off to her possibly having a bad day. We would later know that this doctor was angry with us for getting another opinoin without consulting her. She may have been afraid that we would file a malpractice law suit as well, even though this thought had never entered our minds. You see, she had evidently been documenting (and without informing my husband or I) that our daughter's medical syptoms were all in her head and she was opposed to us seeking further medical opinions.
Immediately following the doctor appointment which would change our lives forever, this mean doctor picked up the phone and called Child Protective Services. This was the beginning of an 18 month ordeal of our battling the state of Illinois and put our daughter through more torture than any of us could have ever imagined. It was like waking from a dream to begin living a nightmare. And we know first hand the pain that you all are going through. There are no words that begin to go far enough to describe our anguish, to anyone but parents such as yourselves I think it would be impossible. Our daughter was returned to us finally, but not before CPS had put us through the emotional and financial ringer. Just this year we have filed for bankruptsy due to my husband not being able to keep the numberous CPS ordered meetings during his work time and the many thousands of dollars we spent on an attorney who did nothing for us but rather threw our case to the state (very typical of family court attorneys.)
It is true that CPS cares nothing about familes these days, but rather is an agency driven by a lust for money in the form of huge federal grants which reward the states for remmoving children (there are NO incentives, monitary or otherwise for leaving children with their parents).
And when one couples this with the fact that this agency answers to no one but itself we have the recipe for disaster. We found that in the CPS hearing process the Constitution, and any other law of the land which might ensure fair treatment, were not available to us.
CPS had the power punish my husband and I in the most cruel and unusual way imaginable, and we had no rights as US citizens at all. In this court due process is replaced with 'best interest of the child; a legal phrase meaning however the judge feels like ruling and disregarding any truths. It took some months for us to realize that the attack on us was something other than a horrible mistake which could easily be straightened out by one phone call to our daughter's new treating physician. No one was interested in getting at the truth. Having never committed a crime, we were not familiar with this or any other court and wrongfully thought that obviously innocent US citizens prevail in our judicial system. By the time we realized that we were dealing with an agency of the government which worked outside of the law, we had already gone through much needless torment. We came to know that our plight was not at all unusual either.
Countless thousands of parents are experiencing this very sort of pain and injustice every single day, at the hands of those sworn to protect children. If it were not for the fact that we had support from one honest, brave newspaper reporter (and at great personal cost to her)who wrote about our story in the paper, an honest and ethical and psychologist and a doctor who was strong and kind enough to stand up for us...I have not one doubt that our daughter would still be gone today.
The way your family is being tortured every single day is nothing short of a crime and our hearts go out to the Werneke family. We are praying that you find good people such as the ones who stood by us and who will help you in your effort to free little Katie.
One thing I learned about Child Protective Services is that they like to work under cover of darkness, and out of the public sight. And so it is encouraging to see that the media has exposed the CPS abduction of Katie. It is my earnest prayer that this will scare them into releasing her immediately. I am so very sorry to know that your family is going through a nightmare such as we did. Be strong and keep fighting.
God is watching and he is on your side. I would hate to be a CPS worker on judgement day for I'm sure that God has a special punishment for people who torture little children.
Blessings,Linda S.
posted by Katie W. @ Thursday, October 20, 2005
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
SUPPLEMENTAL AND REPLY BRIEF-WRIT OF MANDAMUS TEXAS SUPREME COURT
IN THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT
In re §
§
Edward Wernecke §
and § CAUSE NO. 05-0838
Michele Wernecke, §
§
Relators. §
_________________________________________________________
RELATORS’ SUPPLEMENTAL
AND REPLY BRIEF
IN SUPPORT OF
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
_________________________________________________________
Submitted by:
James A. Pikl
JAMES A. PIKL, P.C.
P.O. Box 2939
McKinney, Texas 75070
Attorney for Relators
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Index of Authorities iii
Supplemental Argument
1. Texas has not yet adopted a test to be used in situations where parental
rights collide with the state’s parens patriae role in cases concerning
medical treatment of minors. However, many other courts have done so, and Texas should follow the majority trend. 1
2. Texas should adopt the reasoning and balancing test from the Newmark case. 8
1. In the alternative, this Court should vacate the July 8, 2005 order and
remand for another hearing since new evidence is available that may be dispositive of the case under the Hofbauer precedent. 13
Reply Argument
4. The State’s Response, while full of misinformation and
inapposite arguments, does not indicate that this Court lacks either the jurisdiction or all necessary information to hear the Petition. 16
Conclusion and Prayer 23
Reply Appendix separate volume
Tab 1 – Letter/opinion of Dr. Ronald E. Hunninghake, M.D. (with resume)
Tab 2 – Letter/opinion of Dr. William M. Wassell, M.D. (with resume)
Tab 3 – Transcript of hearing June 15 and 16, 2005
Tab 4 – Transcript of hearing September 19, 2005
Tab 5 – Motion filed 9/19/05 in trial court (still pending)
Tab 6 – Information from the National Cancer Institute’s website on clinical trials
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Bowen v. American Hosp. Ass’n, 476 U.S. 610, 106 S.Ct. 2101,
90 L.Ed. 2d 584 (1986) 4
In re Doe, 19 S.W.3d 346 (Tex. 2000) 6
Cruzan v. Director, Mo. Dept. Of Health,
497 U.S. 261, 110 S.Ct. 2841, 111 L.Ed.2d 224 (1990) 7, 11
Custody of a Minor, 379 N.E.2d 1053 (Mass. 1978) 2
In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So.2d 4 (Fla. 1990) 11, 12
In re Eric B., 189 Cal. App. 3d 996 (1987) 2
In re Hamilton, 657 S.W.2d 425 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983) 2
Matter of Joseph Hofbauer, 47 N.Y.2d 648, 393 N.E.2d 1009 (1979) 2, 13-16
Holly v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) 4
In re McCoy, 52 S.W.3d 297 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 2001, orig. proc.) 23
Michael G.B. v. Angela L.B., 642 N.Y.S.2d 452, 219 A.D. 289 (1996) 3
Miller ex rel. Miller v. HCA, Inc., 118 S.W.3d 758 (Tex. 2003) 7
Newmark v. Williams/DCPS, 588 A.2d 1108 (Del. 1991) 2, 3, 5. 8, 9, 10, 12, 13
Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 99 S.Ct. 2493, 61 L.Ed.2d 101 (1979) 3
Prince v Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 64 S.Ct. 438, 88 L.Ed.2d 645 (1944) 7, 8
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982) 3
Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed.2d 1655 (1942) 6
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000) 4
In re Willman, 24 Ohio App. 3d 191 (1986) 2
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972) 7
Statutes
Texas Family Code, §161.001(1)(D) 5
Other Authority
Goldstein, Medical Care for the Child at Risk: On State Supervision of Parental Autonomy, 86 Yale L.J. 645 (1977) 5
SUPPLEMENTAL ARGUMENT
If merely objecting to state-recommended medical care for a child is enough to render a parent “unfit” (which is exactly what has happened to the Werneckes), then Texas law is in a crisis of foundational, constitutional proportions. This may well be the most important case in the last 20 years of Texas civil jurisprudence.
There are two scenarios that occur in these cases, both of which are addressed: where the patient has no alternative treatments available (part 2), and where she does (part 3). To make that discussion cohesive, this brief first addresses the foundation for both scenarios (part 1).
1. Texas has not yet adopted a test to be used in situations where parental rights collide with the state’s parens patriae role in cases concerning medical treatment of minors. However, many other courts have done so, and Texas should follow the majority trend.
Texas does not presently have a comprehensive test approved by this Court covering situations such as we have in this case. However, courts in other jurisdictions have confronted the exact same situation, and have adopted two different tests for deciding how the important rights of parents to choose their children’s medical care, and the state’s parens patriae interest, may and should co-exist: the ad hoc test and the tripartite balancing test.
The ad hoc test deems a child “neglected” if parents refuse medical treatment recommended by state-approved doctors—and that is pretty much the end of the analysis. Admittedly, this test is easy to administer. However, it also relegates complex and emotional decisions to a Procrustean formula devoid of any sensitivity to the important, substantive rights and interests at stake. Notably, only the Ohio[1] and Tennessee[2] intermediate appellate courts have adopted this approach. This appears to be the approach taken by the County Court at Law in our case as well.
The tripartite balancing test, on the other hand, has been adopted by the highest state courts in Delaware,[3] Massachusetts,[4] and New York,[5] and by the appellate court in California.[6] This test involves examining the underlying, unique facts of every case and balancing (1) the rights of the parents, (2) the parens patriae rights of the state, and (3) the best interests of the child, to arrive at a fact-specific, logical, and fair decision. The following analysis discusses how courts have employed the tripartite balancing test, and shows why it should be adopted as the Texas standard.
(1) The rights of parents.
“Any balancing test must begin with the parental interest.”[7] It is beyond argument that parents of minor children have fundamental, protected, constitutional rights to parent their children, which includes the right to decide what, if any, medical care their children will be provided.[8]
Admittedly, these parental rights are not without limits, but neither are they vaporous. Because we have a constitution to protect citizens from the government, when the fundamental rights of parents clash with the state’s authority to “step in” when harm is predicted, the burdens of proof and standards of application for these doctrines put all of the burdens on the state, and give all of the presumptions and benefits of the doubt to the parents.[9]
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, parents are presumed “fit” unless they are incapable of participating in decision making or have made decisions that evidence a substantial lack of concern for the child’s interests.[10] Here, Katie’s parents have consistently and repeatedly expressed and attempted to address their legitimate concerns about the undisputed, deleterious side effects of the proposed treatment. If nothing else, this is compelling, unrefuted evidence of their deep concern for Katie’s present and future well-being. The Werneckes are not “unfit” parents under any definition of that term.
(2) The rights of minors.
The interests of children—including their rights to enjoy a measure of physical autonomy and to enjoy the physical and emotional nurture and guidance of their parents—cannot be overlooked nor their importance minimized. This Court has previously held that a “best interests” analysis includes consideration of the desires of the child, the emotional and physical needs of the child now and in the future, and the emotional and physical danger to the child now and in the future.[11] What could be more emotionally and physically dangerous than to forcibly take a 13-year-old child from her parents, place her in foster care 250 miles from home, friends, and school, force her against her will to have experimental, life-threatening medical treatment, and then not even allow the child to speak freely to her parents about her circumstances? This entire case shocks the conscience. The state’s averments that they just want “what is best for Katie” are absurd. “Parental autonomy to care for children free from governmental interference satisfies a child’s need for continuity and thus ensures his or her psychological and physical well-being . . . In many circumstances the State is simply not an adequate surrogate for the judgment of a loving, nurturing parent.”[12]
Texas statutes mandate an equal concern for both the emotional and the physical well-being of Texas children.[13] To a greater extent than we are capable of knowing, to arbitrarily favor Katie’s physical health over her emotional health puts both at risk. Katie’s physical and emotional well-being—and where applicable, her expressed preferences—must therefore be taken into account in any thorough, humane analysis of these issues.
Any child, especially one like Katie who is mature enough to understand the consequences of the proposed options regarding treatment and to intelligent weigh those options and articulate a rational reason for her choice, should have her personal preferences given very great—even conclusive—weight.[14] Katie Wernecke, after being advised of the proposed treatments and their consequences, has repeatedly expressed her desire NOT to undergo the treatments being proposed by M.D. Anderson doctors and has articulated rational reasons for her choice.[15] One of Katie’s main concerns is that she will be rendered sterile by the treatments. For the state to force Katie to undergo such harmful treatment against her will violates Katie’s fundamental rights of personal autonomy, freedom from harm inflicted by the state, and her right to bear children.[16]
(3) The rights of the state.
The state has a limited right to protect children from abuse and neglect by unfit parents. “Parens patriae” is a common law doctrine in which power resides in the state for the purpose of allowing it to step in and protect society’s weakest members from those who would do them harm. The parens patriae power is only properly invoked, however, when there is an immediate threat of serious danger to the health or safety of a child.[17] The doctrine of parens patriae is closely akin to the state’s police power, a power that comes into play when the state is protecting anyone from dangers imposed by others.[18] However, neither the police power nor the parens patriae doctrine are unlimited in their scope or effect, and both must be carefully weighed against the constitutionally-protected—and presumed-superior—interests of the individuals involved.[19] The state carries a heavy burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that its actions are absolutely necessary, not merely convenient or arguably and subjectively “better.”[20]
2. Texas should adopt the reasoning and balancing test from the Newmark case.
When the rights of parents and children to be free from governmental interference in their lives collide head-on with the perceived need of the state to “protect” the children from harm, some procedure or test must be established to resolve the conflict. In our case, the rights of the Werneckes to decide what medical treatment Katie will receive has collided with the state’s perceived need to protect Katie from predicted, future “harm” which may be caused by her allegedly “neglectful” parents refusing one particular form of medical treatment. Fortunately, this Court need not write from scratch the recipe for resolving this conflict, as it has come up before in several other cases.
One of the best analyses on this subject is found in the Newmark case.[21] This 1991 opinion out of the Delaware Supreme Court canvasses most of the other jurisdictions that have addressed this issue, and makes a compelling argument for why a 3-part balancing test should be used to resolve it. The opinion also sets out in detail the roadmap used to navigate the competing rights and interests involved, while maintaining a common-sense, constitutionally-sound concern for the human consequences of a proper decision.
In Newmark, three-year-old Colin Newmark was diagnosed with Burkitt’s Lymphoma, a deadly and aggressive form of non-Hodgkin’s pediatric cancer. Colin’s parents were Christian Scientists, and they objected on religious grounds to Colin receiving certain medical treatment—treatment advocated by one of the top cancer treatment centers in the country. According to the trial court, Colin’s parents did not propose any other “factually supported alternative” to the chemotherapy,[22] so the trial court took Colin away and placed him in state custody to get the treatment recommended by the state’s doctors.
When the case reached the Delaware Supreme Court, the parents’ concerns were finally afforded their due regard, and the trial court was reversed. Specifically relevant to our case was the objection by his parents to exposing Colin to the high-risk, low-probability-of-success chemotherapy and radiation treatments being prescribed because the treatment would harm Colin in many significant ways and there was only a 40% chance of Colin surviving if the treatments were done. Interestingly, the “harms” that would befall Colin are the exact same “harms” doctors have told Katie she will experience from essentially the same treatment: sterility, loss of immune functioning, kidney and heart failure, increased chance of developing other cancers, and a statistically-significant chance that the treatment itself will prove fatal. Katie has also only been given between a 25% and a 50% chance of “success” even if the treatments are done.[23]
The Newmark court said “The linchpin in all cases discussing the ‘best interests of a child’, when a parent refuses to authorize medical care, is an evaluation of the risk of the procedure compared to its potential success. This analysis is consistent with the principle that State intervention in the parent-child relationship is only justifiable under compelling conditions.”[24] The Newmark court began its analysis by stating that courts “must first consider the effectiveness of the treatment and determine the child’s chance of survival with and without medical care. [Citations omitted] The court must then consider the nature of the treatments and their effect on the child.”[25]
The Delaware Supreme Court faulted the trial court for “not explicitly considering the competing interests at stake.”[26] Those same interests have not yet been explicitly considered by the trial court in our case, either. Apparently, our trial court neither considered Katie’s expressed preference to not risk the treatment, nor the admittedly-extreme side effects and the low chance of recovery accompanying the treatment. These other factors can supercede any medical testimony about “harm from lack of treatment” or “success rates,” especially as success is defined in the medical profession. The Delaware court cited numerous opinions from other states that have respected a parent’s wishes to decline treatment when the harm from treatment was high and the chances of success were relatively low. “The State’s interest in forcing a minor to undergo medical care diminishes as the risks of treatment increase and its benefits decrease.”[27]
Applying these balancing rules, the Delaware Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in removing Colin from his parents and forcing him to undergo treatment.
The egregious facts of this case indicate that Colin’s proposed medical treatment was highly invasive, painful, involved terrible temporary and potentially permanent side effects, posed an unacceptably low chance of success, and a high risk that the treatment itself would cause his death. The State’s authority in this case, therefore, cannot outweigh the Newmark’s parental prerogative and Colin’s inherent right to enjoy a modicum of human dignity in the short time that was left to him.[28]
In our case, the facts are stunningly similar with the exception that here, Katie is not three years old but 13 years old, and she has expressed her preference NOT to undergo the treatments being recommended due to their high risk, terrible side effects, and low probability of success. Another difference: in the Newmark case the treatment being proposed for Colin “stopped short” of a bone marrow transplant (also sometimes called “peripheral blood stem cell” transplant),[29] whereas in Katie’s case, stem cell transplantation is being proposed, making Katie’s proposed treatment even more intrusive and life-threatening than that which was recommended for Colin Newmark.
No American court, even in the most egregious case, has ever authorized the State to remove a child from the loving, nurturing care of his parents and subject him, over parental objection, to an invasive regimen of treatment which offered, as Dr. Meek defined the term, only a forty percent chance of “survival.”[30]
The Werneckes pray that their daughter is not the first child subjected to such harsh, unfair, and outrageous treatment at the hands of an American court.
3. In the alternative, this Court should vacate the July 8, 2005 order and remand for another hearing since new evidence is available that may be dispositive of the case under the Hofbauer precedent.
If this Court determines that the trial court did not adequately consider all of the interests involved in this case, the Werneckes ask the Court to vacate the offending orders and remand the case to the trial court for another hearing at which all such interests can have their proper airing.[31]
Since June 15, the Werneckes have been able to obtain two separate medical doctors’ opinions that Katie’s condition may be effectively treated by using high-dosage intravenous ascorbic acid and nutritional therapy. This alternative treatment is completely safe, has no debilitating side effects, and has been successfully used on many other cancer patients. It is truly “cutting edge” medicine.[32]
Because of the existence of this alternative treatment, our case is identical to the New York State Hofbauer case.[33] In that case, the New York Court of Appeals affirmed both the trial and appellate courts’ rulings finding the Hofbauers had not neglected eight-year-old Joseph Hofbauer by refusing to subject him to the same dangerous, high-dosage chemotherapy and radiation treatments being proposed for Katie. Joseph’s parents wanted to have his cancer treated with metabolic and nutritional therapy rather than subjecting him to the harm of more “traditional” treatments being prescribed by Joseph’s oncologists. The court perceptively framed the issue as follows:
Whether a child suffering from Hodgkin’s disease whose parents failed to follow the recommendations of an attending physician to have their child treated by radiation and chemotherapy, but, rather, placed their child under the care of physicians advocating nutritional or metabolic therapy, including injections of laetrile, is a “neglected child” within the meaning of New York’s Family Code.[34]
All three levels of New York’s courts answered this question “No.”
The Hobauers (like the Werneckes) agreed that if the alternative treatments proved ineffective, they would allow Joseph to undergo “conventional” cancer treatments if necessary to save their child’s life. However, the Hofbauers (again like the Werneckes), did not want to take their child through a last-resort-style treatment until their child was in a last-resort-style condition. The Hofbauer case is directly on point to our case, and the sound legal reasoning of that case should be adopted by this Court.
Since the Werneckes did not have the medical opinions of Dr. Hunninghake and Dr. Wassell on June 15 and 16, 2005, the transcript of that hearing does not contain their opinions.[35] However, we have included those letter/opinions in the Reply Appendix to show the Court that this case now exactly tracks the fact pattern of the Hofbauer case. The Werneckes anticipate that one or both of these doctors will testify at any future hearing scheduled for that purpose. The reasoning and analysis adopted by the Hofbauer court thus can be—and should be—adopted by Texas courts.
In the alternative to overruling and vacating in its entirety the July 8 and September 20 orders and placing Katie back into the Werneckes’ permanent care and custody, we ask the Court to adopt the Hofbauer analysis as the law of Texas, and vacate or abate those orders pending a new hearing on the alternative treatments now available to Katie and a determination whether Katie should be allowed to pursue them.
REPLY ARGUMENT
4. The State’s Response, while full of misinformation and inapposite arguments, does not indicate that this Court lacks either the jurisdiction or all necessary information to hear the Petition.
The State’s Response is replete with misinformation and false statements relating to the factual background of this case.
For example, the State disingenuously refers to “Katie’s doctors” (plural) as having testified at the June 15 and 16, 2005 hearing. See, e.g., State’s Response, p. 6. In fact, only a single doctor testified at that hearing: Dr. Jehemie Alter. See Reply Appendix, Tab 3.
The Response also attempts to caste vague aspersions on the Werneckes, particularly Edward, by making out-of-context references to Mr. Wernecke’s time spent with Katie (Response, p. 4), Katie’s alleged response to those visits as “upsetting her” (Response, p. 4), and the hearsay, unexplained, and unreliable statements made by DFPS personnel about their “feelings” (Response Appendix, Tabs A and B). Apparently, the State is hoping to get this Court to dislike Mr. Wernecke so that it might be distracted from dealing squarely with the merits.
Even then, the state walks right into the admission that Katie’s parents were deemed “unfit” by the trial court solely because they objected to the medical treatment being suggested by the state’s doctors. Response, p. 15. Otherwise, if the Werneckes are “unfit” for any other reason, why are Katie’s three brothers back with their parents at this very moment, released to their parents’ care by DFPS with the court’s blessing?
Finally, the Response describes the hearing held on September 19, 2005 as if it “gave the [Werneckes] yet one more opportunity to adopt a more cooperative approach.” Response, pp. 5, 13. This is not true. Many things may be said of what occurred during that hearing, but it may not be said that the judge was giving anyone any chance to do or say anything to change his mind; he had made up his mind, and he was merely holding the hearing to announce it. See Reply Appendix, Tab 4. Indeed, that hearing was temporarily recessed but then never resumed, apparently without effect on Judge Lewis’s ruling issued the very next day while the judge was recovering from open-heart surgery.
But pushing aside all of these groundless diversions and hyper-technical arguments, the State presents no cogent response to the Petition or the legal arguments made therein. The State does not criticize or distinguish any of the authorities cited in the Petition, and makes no attempt to argue why the relief sought is not compelled under both the law and the facts of this case. And the state assiduously ignores the emergency nature of the case caused by the ongoing medical treatments Katie is presently being subjected to and which will or may moot the relief the Werneckes seek if it is allowed to continue until the trial court (now with a new judge) gets around to—someday—having a final trial on the merits.
A. There in no reason to abate this proceeding, and a very good reason not to.
The State argues that this proceeding should be abated because Judge Lewis recused himself from the case. However, Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 7.2(b) only relates to situations where the sitting judge dies, retires, or loses an election (i.e., “leaves office”). It does not relate to a situation where the sitting judge recuses himself in order to avoid potential disqualification for violating the Judicial Code, but still remains on the bench hearing other matters. Judge Lewis has not “left office.” Here, Judge Hester, the Administrative Judge for the Fifth Judicial Region, has already appointed a replacement judge (Hon. Joaquin Villarreal, Senior District Judge) to step into Judge Lewis’s shoes for purposes of handling this case only. Judge Villareal has already scheduled a status conference for November 4, 2005, and a permanency hearing is presently scheduled for November 16, 2005. The case below is moving along.
There is no reason to return the case to the trial court to allow Judge Villarreal to merely “reconsider” Judge Lewis’s order. This would only cause more delay—delay that may render the relief sought in this Petition moot.
On the other hand, if the State would agree to abate the force and effect of the July 8 and September 20 orders while such a remand occurs, then the Werneckes would not be prejudiced by such a remand. However, the State will almost certainly want those orders to remain in place (have their cake) while the remand occurs (and eat it, too). This is a bit like giving a criminal a new trial, but continuing to hold him prisoner in the penitentiary, serving his full sentence, while a new trial is scheduled and takes place. If the Court is inclined to allow Judge Villarreal to “reconsider” the offending orders of July 8 and September 20, the force and effect of those orders must be abated during the period of abatement; after all, Judge Villarreal just might decide differently.
B. The procedural requirements of mandamus have been fulfilled.
The State next criticizes the Werneckes for allegedly not dotting every “i” and crossing every “t” in bringing this Petition before the Court (which, by the way, the Werneckes dispute). Regardless of the technical precision with which the Petition was brought, however, what the State conveniently ignores is the emergency nature of the relief sought, and the dismal state of the record below when the Petition was filed.[36]
For every hour that goes by, the Werneckes are being deprived, irretrievably, of precious Constitutional rights: to equal protection; to freedom of speech and association; to liberty; to parent their daughter as they see fit; to avoid state-imposed harm to their child; and to assist Katie in avoiding—or even discussing with her—what everyone agrees is potentially-life-threatening treatment.[37] Katie is presently—this moment—undergoing dangerous, experimental medical treatment at the hands of the DFPS. If this treatment kills Katie or renders her sterile, disease-ridden, or otherwise irreparably harmed, then the alternative treatments the Werneckes would like to attempt will become impossible, or at least rendered largely irrelevant. Surely, “the rules” were never meant to be the deciding factor on the merits of a Petition of this magnitude and importance. Instead, procedural rules are meant to be instruments for getting the necessary information before this Court, in standardized form, for purposes of facilitating an expeditious and just ruling.[38] It is almost a proverb that any time a party has no real arguments on the merits, it stoops to irrelevant, rules-based nitpicking.
C. The Petition was properly verified.
The State next criticizes the alleged lack of verification of the Petition, referring to Edward and Michele’s Affidavits as “hearsay” and contradictory of other information in the record, namely the affidavit-based recollections of the state’s witnesses. But all affidavits are hearsay, by definition—including those submitted by the State itself in its Response! How exactly is a party to “verify” a Petition if not by affidavit? And how exactly is a party to obtain affidavits from its uncooperative adversaries (such as the doctors presently treating Katie) for purposes of putting in what the State mistakenly implies would be the “best evidence” of the facts otherwise set forth in the verifying affidavit of the Relators? The State never says.
As for the Hunninghake[39] (and now, the Wassell) information, that information is presented in the current form because (a) these doctors have not been allowed to examine Katie due to the State’s refusal to release Katie to the Werneckes’ custody for purposes of having those examinations, and (b) they are not making prognoses, diagnoses, or other factual findings for which verification would be required. The information they offer at this time is general information about the alternative treatment being suggested, and a brief statement that Katie “may be” a candidate for this treatment. If the case is remanded for a new hearing, the Court can expect one or both of these doctors to testify, and hopefully they will be able to do so after being allowed to examine Katie.
D. The consequences of an affirmative ruling on the Petition should not deter the Court’s attention from the issues.
Lastly, the State attempts to “scare” this Court into shirking its duties by painting a dismal picture of what might happen if the Petition is granted and the relief ordered. See Response, pp. 14-15 (“This would strip trial courts across the nation (?) of the ability to protect an entire class of vulnerable children prior to a trial such as that provided by Chapter 161"). Not only is the State’s parade of horribles unlikely to occur, but even if it were, that is no reason for this Honorable Court to dodge its responsibility for adjudicating the issues presented, as the State invites the Court to do. “Fiat justitia, ruat coelum”[40] is (or at least should be) the call of this, the highest Court in the State of Texas.
Finally, mandamus is entirely appropriate in emergency situations such as we have here. As this Court is well aware, a good percentage of petitions for mandamus relief are filed with accompanying motions for emergency relief (as was this one). This Court has already found that one order of the trial court below should be modified, on an emergency basis, pending the outcome of this Petition. The precise reason temporary orders in family-law cases are subject to immediate mandamus review is because family courts issue orders every day that may (and often do) involve compunction to do or not do something, for an indeterminate length of time, and which, if obeyed, would severely and irreparably damage a party in a manner for which there is no adequate remedy on appeal.[41]
What the state argues is that trial courts should have a free hand in issuing any type of “temporary orders” they like, and the parties affected have no chance to challenge them save in an appeal from a final judgment that may takes years to obtain. It is embarrassing that the Attorney General of Texas would advance such an argument. The State’s pleas about this Petition being inappropriate, defective, or premature are fatally flawed and hopelessly obtuse.
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
There are principled ways to distinguish between cases of true neglect (i. e., lack of concern for a child’s health or when a parent lacks capacity to make reasoned decisions), and cases such as this one—where fit, concerned parents are simply trying to find the optimal medical treatment for their child. Sadly, in our case the state and the trial court were unwilling or unable to draw this distinction.
When a child’s illness may cause death with or without treatment, and modern medicine has not developed a “silver bullet” (such as antibiotics to treat infections), the state cannot be allowed to usurp parental authority and subject a child to an experimental, uncertain, highly-invasive, and potentially-deadly treatment regimen which happens to be currently in vogue with the state’s approved doctors. The Werneckes have not “neglected” Katie’s treatment. On the contrary, they had Katie undergo 5 months of chemotherapy, and were in the process of pursuing alternatives to the dangerous, highly-invasive “follow up” treatments of high-dosage chemo and questionable radiation treatments when they found their parental rights suddenly taken away from them by the state. The Werneckes are model parents who have lovingly and actively involved themselves in the process of caring for their daughter’s well-being—past, present, and future. They are not neglectful parents under any definition of that term.[42]
Since the state-recommended treatment entails significant health risks while offering neither a certainty nor even a substantial likelihood of a genuine cure, it is grossly improper for the state to force Katie and her parents to assume those risks. The weighing of risks and benefits of such a proposed treatment should be—indeed, must be—left to the parents, especially where there is a good chance that Katie will be a candidate for effective, alternative treatment.
Mandamus should issue ordering the trial court to vacate the orders of July 8 and September 20, 2005 in their entirety, and the case should be remanded to the trial court with an order requiring DFPS to immediately return Katie to the care and possession of her parents.
Respectfully submitted,
JAMES A. PIKL, P.C.
_________________________________
James A. Pikl
State Bar No. 16008850
P. O. Box 2939
McKinney, Texas 75070
(214) 544-7000
Fax (214) 544-7001
Email jimpikl@flash.net
ATTORNEY FOR RELATORS EDWARD AND MICHELE WERNECKE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 19th day of October 2005, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing RELATORS’ REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS was served on the following by hand delivery, telefax, overnight courier, and/or certified mail, return receipt requested:
Linda J. Rhodes-Schauer
615 N. Upper Broadway, Suite 2200
Corpus Christi, Texas 78477-0017
Richard E. Salisbury
Assistant Attorney General
P.O. Box 12548
Austin, Texas 78711-2120
____________________________________
James A. Pikl
IN THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT
In re §
§
Edward Wernecke §
and § CAUSE NO. 05-0838
Michele Wernecke, §
§
Relators. §
************************************************************************
REPLY APPENDIX
TO RELATORS’
SUPPLEMENTAL AND
REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
************************************************************************
Submitted by Relators
IN THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT
In re §
§
Edward Wernecke §
and § CAUSE NO. 05-0838
Michele Wernecke, §
§
Relators. §
************************************************************************
REPLY APPENDIX
TO RELATORS’
SUPPLEMENTAL AND
REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
************************************************************************
VERIFICATION
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared James A. Pikl, known to me to be the person whose signature appears below, and upon his oath deposed and stated as follows: “My name is James A. Pikl. I am attorney of record for Relators Edward and Michele Wernecke. The facts stated in this Verification are within my personal knowledge and are true and correct. Attached to this Verification are true and correct copies of the following documents:
Tab 1 Letter report and resume, Dr. Ronald E. Hunninghake, M.D.
Tab 2 Letter report and resume, Dr. W. M. Wassell, M.D.
Tab 3 Transcript of hearing in trial court, June 15 and 16, 2005
Tab 4 Transcript of hearing in trial court, September 19, 2005
Tab 5 Motion filed 9/19/05 in trial court (still pending)
Tab 6 Information from the National Cancer Institute’s website on clinical trials”
I also hereby affirm that the documents attached to Relators’ original Appendix are true and correct copies of what they are stated to be.
_______________________________
James A. Pikl
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO this 19th day of October 2005, to which witness my hand and seal of office.
_______________________________
Notary Public, State of Texas
[1] In re Willman, 24 Ohio App. 3d 191 (1986).
[2] In re Hamilton, 657 S.W.2d 425 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).
[3] Newmark v. Williams/DCPS, 588 A.2d 1108 (Del. 1991).
[4] Custody of a Minor, 379 N.E.2d 1053 (Mass. 1978).
[5] Matter of Joseph Hofbauer, 47 N.Y.2d 648, 393 N.E.2d 1009 (1979).
[6] In re Eric B., 189 Cal. App. 3d 996 (1987).
[7] Newmark, 588 A.2d at 1115.
[8] Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982); Michael G.B. v. Angela L.B., 642 N.Y.S.2d 452, 454, 219 A.D. 289 (1996)(finding a mere “best interest” analysis inappropriate and requiring a finding of extraordinary circumstances and consideration of parental rights before the state can deprive a parent of their superior custody rights).
[9] The presumption that parents are the appropriate decision-makers for their children is deemed fundamental to our constitutional system of governance. Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 602, 99 S.Ct. 2493, 61 L.Ed.2d 101 (1979). This means that before the state can interfere in the exercise of that right, the state carries a heavy burden to prove the necessity of both the goal and the means of its interference. While a good argument could be made that the state must pass constitutional “strict scrutiny” analysis for every attempted interference with parental authority and rights, in cases involving medical care another, less-burdensome approach could be considered that takes into account the parents’ rights to make medical decisions while still respecting the authority of the state to intervene in truly-necessary circumstances. The “balancing test” proposed in this Brief—as opposed to the “ad hoc” test, or worse, a vague, constitutionally-suspect “best interests” standard alone—provides a principled, more-nuanced way to strike this balance.
[10] Bowen v. American Hosp. Ass’n, 476 U.S. 610, 106 S.Ct. 2101, 2113, n.13, 90 L.Ed. 2d 584 (1986). If the state takes over the responsibility for medical decision-making under the facts of this case, then all children will basically become wards of the state, contrary to settled jurisprudence that a child is not “a mere creature of the state.” Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000).
[11] Holly v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371-72 (Tex. 1976). Admittedly, the Holly case did not concern medical decisions, but if anything, the needs and desires of the child should be more important, not less important, in a case like ours than in a case where two fit parents are merely fighting over which of them gets to be managing conservator (as in Holly). In both cases, the child’s future is being decided, but in a case like ours, the child’s very life is in the balance. Given the importance of the issue, the choices and decisions made by parents must also be given greater consideration—not lesser consideration—in cases like ours than in ordinary custody disputes.
[12] Newmark, 588 A.2d at 1115-1116, citing Goldstein, Medical Care for the Child at Risk: On State Supervision of Parental Autonomy, 86 Yale L.J. 645, 649 and nn. 13 & 14 (1977).
[13] See Texas Family Code, §161.001(1)(D)(“the parent-child relationship may be judicially terminated if the parent has knowingly place or knowingly allowed the child to remain in conditions or surroundings that endanger the physical or emotional well-being of the child”)(emphasis added). It cannot be rationally disputed that removing a convalescing 13-year-old girl from the loving, nurturing environment of her family and indefinitely placing her in foster care 250 miles away, and then restricting her parents’ access and even their communications with her, is extremely harmful to her emotional well-being.
[14] Ironically, in Texas Katie is old enough to have an abortion without her parents’ consent. Texas Fam. Code §33.003(i) allows a minor to have an abortion if the court finds that she is mature enough to understand her options or if notification of her parents would not be in her “best interests” or may result in physical, emotional, or sexual abuse. In re Doe, 19 S.W.3d 346, 350 (Tex. 2000). Since Katie is old enough by statute to make a decision on the ultimate medical-care issue—to end another human life—it is incongruous to argue that she is somehow not old enough to make personal, medical-care decisions about how to treat her own cancer.
[15] That Katie has had doctors reporting to her the side effects of radiation treatments, see Reply Appendix, Tab 4, pp. 36-37. That Katie has repeatedly and vociferously objected to radiation treatment is undisputed, see Reply Appendix, Tab 3, p. 110. See also Reply Appendix Tab 5, the Motion to Modify Placement, filed by Katie’s attorney (which motion is still pending with the trial court), indicating Katie’s adamant refusal to undergo high-dosage chemotherapy and expressing her desires to be returned to her family.
[16] Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-43, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed.2d 1655 (1942)(the right to bear children is a protected, Constitutional right; forced sterilization is unconstitutional).
[17] Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 206, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972) (discussing the basis for, and restrictions on, any application of parens patriae).
[18] Prince v Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166, 64 S.Ct. 438, 88 L.Ed.2d 645 (1944)(discussing the concept of the police power and its application to parent/child relations).
[19] Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dep’t of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 110 S.Ct. 2841, 2853, 111 L.Ed.2d 224 (1990); Miller ex rel. Miller v. HCA, Inc., 118 S.W.3d 758, 766 (Tex. 2003)(necessary corollary to parents’ right to make medical decisions for children is the right to refuse medical treatment as well).
[20] If a court cannot interfere in parental decision-making simply because the judge believes he could make a “better” decision than parents, how much shorter shrift should we give to such a decision made by a government social worker? Prince v. Massachusetts, supra.
[21] Newmark v. Williams/DCPS, 588 A.2d 1108 (Del. 1991).
[22] Newmark, 588 A.2d at 1115.
[23] The testimony of what is considered “success” by the medical community in these situations is stranger than strange: a probability that the patient will “remain alive” for two years after treatment without a recurrence of cancer. Newmark, 588 A.2d at 1119, n. 12. This makes it seem like doctors are choosing how to define “success” based not on genuine recovery from the illness, but based on surviving only a brief time following treatment—treatment that causes debilitating and horrendous side effects that will reside with the patient for the duration of his or her life. Even stranger, if chemotherapy destroys a patient’s immune system and the patient then dies of pneumonia, this is not considered a “failure” of the treatment since, technically, the patient did not die from a recurrence of cancer. This definition would not be considered “success” in any other field of endeavor known to man. It is akin to saying that bad welding on the space shuttle re-entry tiles did not cause the Columbia disaster, it was instead caused by the invasion of super-heated gases into the shuttle upon re-entry when the tiles broke off. Why such an anemic definition of “success” suffices for the medical profession is unknown, but is probably due to the fact that this is the best it can do with such horrendously dangerous and ineffective treatments. This Court should not be mislead by pleasant-sounding words like “success” when doctors are playing fast and loose with semantics solely to make their recommended treatments sound more appealing and effective than they really are.
[24] Id.
[25] Id. at 1117.
[26] Id. at 1115.
[27] Id. at 1117; Cruzan, 497 U.S. at 270. See also In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So.2d 4, 10 (Fla. 1990), holding that incompetent persons have the same rights to refuse treatment as competent persons, and the decision to refuse treatment may be made by the patient’s family members such as parents. It is incongruous to hold that a parent of a vegetative adult child should be allowed to decide to reject life-saving medical treatment for that child, but that the same parent should not be allowed to make identical medical decisions for a minor child. When discussing the surrogate’s obligation to make decisions that the patient would make, the court in Browning said: “One does not exercise another’s right to self-determination or fulfill that person’s right to privacy by making a decision which the state, the family, or public opinion would prefer. The surrogate decisionmaker must be confident that he or she can and is voicing the patient’s decision” (emphasis in original). There is no rational difference between the situation in Browning and our present case.
Here, the Werneckes are making (or trying to make) medical decisions for a legally-incapacitated person, their minor daughter Katie, which they believe are in Katie’s best interests and which Katie would choose for herself if she could. Indeed, their decision about treatment is backed up by Katie’s own repeated refusals to agree to have the proposed treatments. How much better evidence is there that a parent/surrogate is making the correct decision for a patient than to have that decision expressly agreed with by the patient herself? In a manner of speaking, Katie’s own statements about not wanting the treatments are a form of “living will.”
[28] Newmark, 588 A.2d at 1118.
[29] Technically, Katie’s proposed treatment is not a true “transplant” because the stem cells proposed for use are from her own blood stream rather than from someone else; this procedure is called a “autologous transplant” or an “autograph.” See http://www.cancerbacup.org.uk/Treatments/ Stemcellbonemarrowtransplants
/GeneralInformation. Possible side effects of this treatment include development of infections, uncontrolled bleeding, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, loss of appetite, mouth sores, hair loss, skin reactions, sterility, cataracts, cancer, damage to liver, lungs and/or heart, and—of course—death. Id. And these side effects are in addition to the side effects from the high-dosage chemotherapy and radiation treatments being proposed.
See http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Therapy/bone-marrow-transplant and http://www.nci.nig.gov/cancertopics/pdq/treatment/childhodgkins
/HealthProfessional (the National Cancer Institute’s websites). The latter website says: “The 10-year overall survival rate in this study [patients having stem cell transplants] was 48%. Salvage rates [read: chances of staying alive for 2 years without a relapse] for patients who remained refractory to pretransplant chemotherapy and LD-IFRT are approximately 30% to 50%.” Katie falls in this category.
[30] Newmark, 588 A.2d at 1119.
[31] On Thursday, October 13, 2005, trial court Judge Carl E. Lewis recused himself from further participation in this case. The administrative judge of the region has recently appointed a replacement judge, the Hon. Joaquin Villareal, to take over the case.
[32] Copies of these medical opinions are attached in the Reply Appendix at Tabs 1 and 2. See also references cited at footnote 35 in the Petition, page 19.
[33] Matter of Hofbauer, 47 N.Y.2d 648, 419 N.Y.S.2d 936, 393 N.E.2d 1009 (1979).
[34] Hofbauer, 47 N.Y.2d at 652.
[35] A copy of this hearing transcript, only recently obtained by counsel from the court reporter on October 18, 2005, is found in the Reply Appendix at Tab 3.
[36] For instance, even though the record of the June 15 and 16, 2005 hearing was ordered earlier in the case, and ordered again in mid-September 2005, the court reporter was unable to produce that transcript until October 18, 2005. A copy is now available, and is being submitted herewith at Reply Appendix, Tab 3. This should take care of the state’s claim that this Court cannot review what happened below for lack of the transcript. We also attach the transcript of the September 19, 2005 transcript to the Appendix for purposes of showing that the state’s characterization of that hearing as giving the Werneckes “a last chance to cooperate” in Katie’s treatment is totally inaccurate. See Reply Appendix, Tab 4.
[37] It has recently come to the Werneckes’ attention that the treatment regimen the State is presently forcing Katie to undergo is entirely “experimental” in nature. This fact was never explained to the Werneckes. In fact, the prescribed treatments were always referred to as “necessary” and the “only course of treatment available.” Actually, the treatment is part of a Stage II clinical trial program called the “Phase II Pilot Study of Reinduction Chemotherapy With Ifsofamide and Vinorelbine in Children With Refractory or Relapsed Hodgkin’s Lymphoma.” It is not a proven-effective course of treatment for the treatment of Hodgkin’s disease. Therefore, the state has incorrectly framed the issue for decision as involving a proven treatment (the state’s) versus an experimental treatment (the Werneckes’). If the truth be told, it is one experimental treatment versus another experimental treatment. The fact that the State got a leg up on the Werneckes by getting doctors to “approve” its regimen before the Werneckes were able to line up their own doctors does not make the State’s regimen any less experimental in nature—or any more “correct.” See http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/CPG-AHOD00P1. A copy of this information is provided for the Court’s ease of reference at Reply Appendix, Tab 6.
[38] See Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 1 (liberal construction required).
[39] Dr. Hunninghake is mistakenly referred to as “Dr. Hunningbake” in the State’s Response.
[40] “Let justice be done, though the heavens may fall.”
[41] See In re McCoy, 52 S.W.3d 297, 301 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 2001, orig. proc.).
[42] See Reply Appendix, Tab 4, p. 13.
In re §
§
Edward Wernecke §
and § CAUSE NO. 05-0838
Michele Wernecke, §
§
Relators. §
_________________________________________________________
RELATORS’ SUPPLEMENTAL
AND REPLY BRIEF
IN SUPPORT OF
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
_________________________________________________________
Submitted by:
James A. Pikl
JAMES A. PIKL, P.C.
P.O. Box 2939
McKinney, Texas 75070
Attorney for Relators
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Index of Authorities iii
Supplemental Argument
1. Texas has not yet adopted a test to be used in situations where parental
rights collide with the state’s parens patriae role in cases concerning
medical treatment of minors. However, many other courts have done so, and Texas should follow the majority trend. 1
2. Texas should adopt the reasoning and balancing test from the Newmark case. 8
1. In the alternative, this Court should vacate the July 8, 2005 order and
remand for another hearing since new evidence is available that may be dispositive of the case under the Hofbauer precedent. 13
Reply Argument
4. The State’s Response, while full of misinformation and
inapposite arguments, does not indicate that this Court lacks either the jurisdiction or all necessary information to hear the Petition. 16
Conclusion and Prayer 23
Reply Appendix separate volume
Tab 1 – Letter/opinion of Dr. Ronald E. Hunninghake, M.D. (with resume)
Tab 2 – Letter/opinion of Dr. William M. Wassell, M.D. (with resume)
Tab 3 – Transcript of hearing June 15 and 16, 2005
Tab 4 – Transcript of hearing September 19, 2005
Tab 5 – Motion filed 9/19/05 in trial court (still pending)
Tab 6 – Information from the National Cancer Institute’s website on clinical trials
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Bowen v. American Hosp. Ass’n, 476 U.S. 610, 106 S.Ct. 2101,
90 L.Ed. 2d 584 (1986) 4
In re Doe, 19 S.W.3d 346 (Tex. 2000) 6
Cruzan v. Director, Mo. Dept. Of Health,
497 U.S. 261, 110 S.Ct. 2841, 111 L.Ed.2d 224 (1990) 7, 11
Custody of a Minor, 379 N.E.2d 1053 (Mass. 1978) 2
In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So.2d 4 (Fla. 1990) 11, 12
In re Eric B., 189 Cal. App. 3d 996 (1987) 2
In re Hamilton, 657 S.W.2d 425 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983) 2
Matter of Joseph Hofbauer, 47 N.Y.2d 648, 393 N.E.2d 1009 (1979) 2, 13-16
Holly v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367 (Tex. 1976) 4
In re McCoy, 52 S.W.3d 297 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 2001, orig. proc.) 23
Michael G.B. v. Angela L.B., 642 N.Y.S.2d 452, 219 A.D. 289 (1996) 3
Miller ex rel. Miller v. HCA, Inc., 118 S.W.3d 758 (Tex. 2003) 7
Newmark v. Williams/DCPS, 588 A.2d 1108 (Del. 1991) 2, 3, 5. 8, 9, 10, 12, 13
Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 99 S.Ct. 2493, 61 L.Ed.2d 101 (1979) 3
Prince v Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 64 S.Ct. 438, 88 L.Ed.2d 645 (1944) 7, 8
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982) 3
Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed.2d 1655 (1942) 6
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000) 4
In re Willman, 24 Ohio App. 3d 191 (1986) 2
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972) 7
Statutes
Texas Family Code, §161.001(1)(D) 5
Other Authority
Goldstein, Medical Care for the Child at Risk: On State Supervision of Parental Autonomy, 86 Yale L.J. 645 (1977) 5
SUPPLEMENTAL ARGUMENT
If merely objecting to state-recommended medical care for a child is enough to render a parent “unfit” (which is exactly what has happened to the Werneckes), then Texas law is in a crisis of foundational, constitutional proportions. This may well be the most important case in the last 20 years of Texas civil jurisprudence.
There are two scenarios that occur in these cases, both of which are addressed: where the patient has no alternative treatments available (part 2), and where she does (part 3). To make that discussion cohesive, this brief first addresses the foundation for both scenarios (part 1).
1. Texas has not yet adopted a test to be used in situations where parental rights collide with the state’s parens patriae role in cases concerning medical treatment of minors. However, many other courts have done so, and Texas should follow the majority trend.
Texas does not presently have a comprehensive test approved by this Court covering situations such as we have in this case. However, courts in other jurisdictions have confronted the exact same situation, and have adopted two different tests for deciding how the important rights of parents to choose their children’s medical care, and the state’s parens patriae interest, may and should co-exist: the ad hoc test and the tripartite balancing test.
The ad hoc test deems a child “neglected” if parents refuse medical treatment recommended by state-approved doctors—and that is pretty much the end of the analysis. Admittedly, this test is easy to administer. However, it also relegates complex and emotional decisions to a Procrustean formula devoid of any sensitivity to the important, substantive rights and interests at stake. Notably, only the Ohio[1] and Tennessee[2] intermediate appellate courts have adopted this approach. This appears to be the approach taken by the County Court at Law in our case as well.
The tripartite balancing test, on the other hand, has been adopted by the highest state courts in Delaware,[3] Massachusetts,[4] and New York,[5] and by the appellate court in California.[6] This test involves examining the underlying, unique facts of every case and balancing (1) the rights of the parents, (2) the parens patriae rights of the state, and (3) the best interests of the child, to arrive at a fact-specific, logical, and fair decision. The following analysis discusses how courts have employed the tripartite balancing test, and shows why it should be adopted as the Texas standard.
(1) The rights of parents.
“Any balancing test must begin with the parental interest.”[7] It is beyond argument that parents of minor children have fundamental, protected, constitutional rights to parent their children, which includes the right to decide what, if any, medical care their children will be provided.[8]
Admittedly, these parental rights are not without limits, but neither are they vaporous. Because we have a constitution to protect citizens from the government, when the fundamental rights of parents clash with the state’s authority to “step in” when harm is predicted, the burdens of proof and standards of application for these doctrines put all of the burdens on the state, and give all of the presumptions and benefits of the doubt to the parents.[9]
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, parents are presumed “fit” unless they are incapable of participating in decision making or have made decisions that evidence a substantial lack of concern for the child’s interests.[10] Here, Katie’s parents have consistently and repeatedly expressed and attempted to address their legitimate concerns about the undisputed, deleterious side effects of the proposed treatment. If nothing else, this is compelling, unrefuted evidence of their deep concern for Katie’s present and future well-being. The Werneckes are not “unfit” parents under any definition of that term.
(2) The rights of minors.
The interests of children—including their rights to enjoy a measure of physical autonomy and to enjoy the physical and emotional nurture and guidance of their parents—cannot be overlooked nor their importance minimized. This Court has previously held that a “best interests” analysis includes consideration of the desires of the child, the emotional and physical needs of the child now and in the future, and the emotional and physical danger to the child now and in the future.[11] What could be more emotionally and physically dangerous than to forcibly take a 13-year-old child from her parents, place her in foster care 250 miles from home, friends, and school, force her against her will to have experimental, life-threatening medical treatment, and then not even allow the child to speak freely to her parents about her circumstances? This entire case shocks the conscience. The state’s averments that they just want “what is best for Katie” are absurd. “Parental autonomy to care for children free from governmental interference satisfies a child’s need for continuity and thus ensures his or her psychological and physical well-being . . . In many circumstances the State is simply not an adequate surrogate for the judgment of a loving, nurturing parent.”[12]
Texas statutes mandate an equal concern for both the emotional and the physical well-being of Texas children.[13] To a greater extent than we are capable of knowing, to arbitrarily favor Katie’s physical health over her emotional health puts both at risk. Katie’s physical and emotional well-being—and where applicable, her expressed preferences—must therefore be taken into account in any thorough, humane analysis of these issues.
Any child, especially one like Katie who is mature enough to understand the consequences of the proposed options regarding treatment and to intelligent weigh those options and articulate a rational reason for her choice, should have her personal preferences given very great—even conclusive—weight.[14] Katie Wernecke, after being advised of the proposed treatments and their consequences, has repeatedly expressed her desire NOT to undergo the treatments being proposed by M.D. Anderson doctors and has articulated rational reasons for her choice.[15] One of Katie’s main concerns is that she will be rendered sterile by the treatments. For the state to force Katie to undergo such harmful treatment against her will violates Katie’s fundamental rights of personal autonomy, freedom from harm inflicted by the state, and her right to bear children.[16]
(3) The rights of the state.
The state has a limited right to protect children from abuse and neglect by unfit parents. “Parens patriae” is a common law doctrine in which power resides in the state for the purpose of allowing it to step in and protect society’s weakest members from those who would do them harm. The parens patriae power is only properly invoked, however, when there is an immediate threat of serious danger to the health or safety of a child.[17] The doctrine of parens patriae is closely akin to the state’s police power, a power that comes into play when the state is protecting anyone from dangers imposed by others.[18] However, neither the police power nor the parens patriae doctrine are unlimited in their scope or effect, and both must be carefully weighed against the constitutionally-protected—and presumed-superior—interests of the individuals involved.[19] The state carries a heavy burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that its actions are absolutely necessary, not merely convenient or arguably and subjectively “better.”[20]
2. Texas should adopt the reasoning and balancing test from the Newmark case.
When the rights of parents and children to be free from governmental interference in their lives collide head-on with the perceived need of the state to “protect” the children from harm, some procedure or test must be established to resolve the conflict. In our case, the rights of the Werneckes to decide what medical treatment Katie will receive has collided with the state’s perceived need to protect Katie from predicted, future “harm” which may be caused by her allegedly “neglectful” parents refusing one particular form of medical treatment. Fortunately, this Court need not write from scratch the recipe for resolving this conflict, as it has come up before in several other cases.
One of the best analyses on this subject is found in the Newmark case.[21] This 1991 opinion out of the Delaware Supreme Court canvasses most of the other jurisdictions that have addressed this issue, and makes a compelling argument for why a 3-part balancing test should be used to resolve it. The opinion also sets out in detail the roadmap used to navigate the competing rights and interests involved, while maintaining a common-sense, constitutionally-sound concern for the human consequences of a proper decision.
In Newmark, three-year-old Colin Newmark was diagnosed with Burkitt’s Lymphoma, a deadly and aggressive form of non-Hodgkin’s pediatric cancer. Colin’s parents were Christian Scientists, and they objected on religious grounds to Colin receiving certain medical treatment—treatment advocated by one of the top cancer treatment centers in the country. According to the trial court, Colin’s parents did not propose any other “factually supported alternative” to the chemotherapy,[22] so the trial court took Colin away and placed him in state custody to get the treatment recommended by the state’s doctors.
When the case reached the Delaware Supreme Court, the parents’ concerns were finally afforded their due regard, and the trial court was reversed. Specifically relevant to our case was the objection by his parents to exposing Colin to the high-risk, low-probability-of-success chemotherapy and radiation treatments being prescribed because the treatment would harm Colin in many significant ways and there was only a 40% chance of Colin surviving if the treatments were done. Interestingly, the “harms” that would befall Colin are the exact same “harms” doctors have told Katie she will experience from essentially the same treatment: sterility, loss of immune functioning, kidney and heart failure, increased chance of developing other cancers, and a statistically-significant chance that the treatment itself will prove fatal. Katie has also only been given between a 25% and a 50% chance of “success” even if the treatments are done.[23]
The Newmark court said “The linchpin in all cases discussing the ‘best interests of a child’, when a parent refuses to authorize medical care, is an evaluation of the risk of the procedure compared to its potential success. This analysis is consistent with the principle that State intervention in the parent-child relationship is only justifiable under compelling conditions.”[24] The Newmark court began its analysis by stating that courts “must first consider the effectiveness of the treatment and determine the child’s chance of survival with and without medical care. [Citations omitted] The court must then consider the nature of the treatments and their effect on the child.”[25]
The Delaware Supreme Court faulted the trial court for “not explicitly considering the competing interests at stake.”[26] Those same interests have not yet been explicitly considered by the trial court in our case, either. Apparently, our trial court neither considered Katie’s expressed preference to not risk the treatment, nor the admittedly-extreme side effects and the low chance of recovery accompanying the treatment. These other factors can supercede any medical testimony about “harm from lack of treatment” or “success rates,” especially as success is defined in the medical profession. The Delaware court cited numerous opinions from other states that have respected a parent’s wishes to decline treatment when the harm from treatment was high and the chances of success were relatively low. “The State’s interest in forcing a minor to undergo medical care diminishes as the risks of treatment increase and its benefits decrease.”[27]
Applying these balancing rules, the Delaware Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in removing Colin from his parents and forcing him to undergo treatment.
The egregious facts of this case indicate that Colin’s proposed medical treatment was highly invasive, painful, involved terrible temporary and potentially permanent side effects, posed an unacceptably low chance of success, and a high risk that the treatment itself would cause his death. The State’s authority in this case, therefore, cannot outweigh the Newmark’s parental prerogative and Colin’s inherent right to enjoy a modicum of human dignity in the short time that was left to him.[28]
In our case, the facts are stunningly similar with the exception that here, Katie is not three years old but 13 years old, and she has expressed her preference NOT to undergo the treatments being recommended due to their high risk, terrible side effects, and low probability of success. Another difference: in the Newmark case the treatment being proposed for Colin “stopped short” of a bone marrow transplant (also sometimes called “peripheral blood stem cell” transplant),[29] whereas in Katie’s case, stem cell transplantation is being proposed, making Katie’s proposed treatment even more intrusive and life-threatening than that which was recommended for Colin Newmark.
No American court, even in the most egregious case, has ever authorized the State to remove a child from the loving, nurturing care of his parents and subject him, over parental objection, to an invasive regimen of treatment which offered, as Dr. Meek defined the term, only a forty percent chance of “survival.”[30]
The Werneckes pray that their daughter is not the first child subjected to such harsh, unfair, and outrageous treatment at the hands of an American court.
3. In the alternative, this Court should vacate the July 8, 2005 order and remand for another hearing since new evidence is available that may be dispositive of the case under the Hofbauer precedent.
If this Court determines that the trial court did not adequately consider all of the interests involved in this case, the Werneckes ask the Court to vacate the offending orders and remand the case to the trial court for another hearing at which all such interests can have their proper airing.[31]
Since June 15, the Werneckes have been able to obtain two separate medical doctors’ opinions that Katie’s condition may be effectively treated by using high-dosage intravenous ascorbic acid and nutritional therapy. This alternative treatment is completely safe, has no debilitating side effects, and has been successfully used on many other cancer patients. It is truly “cutting edge” medicine.[32]
Because of the existence of this alternative treatment, our case is identical to the New York State Hofbauer case.[33] In that case, the New York Court of Appeals affirmed both the trial and appellate courts’ rulings finding the Hofbauers had not neglected eight-year-old Joseph Hofbauer by refusing to subject him to the same dangerous, high-dosage chemotherapy and radiation treatments being proposed for Katie. Joseph’s parents wanted to have his cancer treated with metabolic and nutritional therapy rather than subjecting him to the harm of more “traditional” treatments being prescribed by Joseph’s oncologists. The court perceptively framed the issue as follows:
Whether a child suffering from Hodgkin’s disease whose parents failed to follow the recommendations of an attending physician to have their child treated by radiation and chemotherapy, but, rather, placed their child under the care of physicians advocating nutritional or metabolic therapy, including injections of laetrile, is a “neglected child” within the meaning of New York’s Family Code.[34]
All three levels of New York’s courts answered this question “No.”
The Hobauers (like the Werneckes) agreed that if the alternative treatments proved ineffective, they would allow Joseph to undergo “conventional” cancer treatments if necessary to save their child’s life. However, the Hofbauers (again like the Werneckes), did not want to take their child through a last-resort-style treatment until their child was in a last-resort-style condition. The Hofbauer case is directly on point to our case, and the sound legal reasoning of that case should be adopted by this Court.
Since the Werneckes did not have the medical opinions of Dr. Hunninghake and Dr. Wassell on June 15 and 16, 2005, the transcript of that hearing does not contain their opinions.[35] However, we have included those letter/opinions in the Reply Appendix to show the Court that this case now exactly tracks the fact pattern of the Hofbauer case. The Werneckes anticipate that one or both of these doctors will testify at any future hearing scheduled for that purpose. The reasoning and analysis adopted by the Hofbauer court thus can be—and should be—adopted by Texas courts.
In the alternative to overruling and vacating in its entirety the July 8 and September 20 orders and placing Katie back into the Werneckes’ permanent care and custody, we ask the Court to adopt the Hofbauer analysis as the law of Texas, and vacate or abate those orders pending a new hearing on the alternative treatments now available to Katie and a determination whether Katie should be allowed to pursue them.
REPLY ARGUMENT
4. The State’s Response, while full of misinformation and inapposite arguments, does not indicate that this Court lacks either the jurisdiction or all necessary information to hear the Petition.
The State’s Response is replete with misinformation and false statements relating to the factual background of this case.
For example, the State disingenuously refers to “Katie’s doctors” (plural) as having testified at the June 15 and 16, 2005 hearing. See, e.g., State’s Response, p. 6. In fact, only a single doctor testified at that hearing: Dr. Jehemie Alter. See Reply Appendix, Tab 3.
The Response also attempts to caste vague aspersions on the Werneckes, particularly Edward, by making out-of-context references to Mr. Wernecke’s time spent with Katie (Response, p. 4), Katie’s alleged response to those visits as “upsetting her” (Response, p. 4), and the hearsay, unexplained, and unreliable statements made by DFPS personnel about their “feelings” (Response Appendix, Tabs A and B). Apparently, the State is hoping to get this Court to dislike Mr. Wernecke so that it might be distracted from dealing squarely with the merits.
Even then, the state walks right into the admission that Katie’s parents were deemed “unfit” by the trial court solely because they objected to the medical treatment being suggested by the state’s doctors. Response, p. 15. Otherwise, if the Werneckes are “unfit” for any other reason, why are Katie’s three brothers back with their parents at this very moment, released to their parents’ care by DFPS with the court’s blessing?
Finally, the Response describes the hearing held on September 19, 2005 as if it “gave the [Werneckes] yet one more opportunity to adopt a more cooperative approach.” Response, pp. 5, 13. This is not true. Many things may be said of what occurred during that hearing, but it may not be said that the judge was giving anyone any chance to do or say anything to change his mind; he had made up his mind, and he was merely holding the hearing to announce it. See Reply Appendix, Tab 4. Indeed, that hearing was temporarily recessed but then never resumed, apparently without effect on Judge Lewis’s ruling issued the very next day while the judge was recovering from open-heart surgery.
But pushing aside all of these groundless diversions and hyper-technical arguments, the State presents no cogent response to the Petition or the legal arguments made therein. The State does not criticize or distinguish any of the authorities cited in the Petition, and makes no attempt to argue why the relief sought is not compelled under both the law and the facts of this case. And the state assiduously ignores the emergency nature of the case caused by the ongoing medical treatments Katie is presently being subjected to and which will or may moot the relief the Werneckes seek if it is allowed to continue until the trial court (now with a new judge) gets around to—someday—having a final trial on the merits.
A. There in no reason to abate this proceeding, and a very good reason not to.
The State argues that this proceeding should be abated because Judge Lewis recused himself from the case. However, Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 7.2(b) only relates to situations where the sitting judge dies, retires, or loses an election (i.e., “leaves office”). It does not relate to a situation where the sitting judge recuses himself in order to avoid potential disqualification for violating the Judicial Code, but still remains on the bench hearing other matters. Judge Lewis has not “left office.” Here, Judge Hester, the Administrative Judge for the Fifth Judicial Region, has already appointed a replacement judge (Hon. Joaquin Villarreal, Senior District Judge) to step into Judge Lewis’s shoes for purposes of handling this case only. Judge Villareal has already scheduled a status conference for November 4, 2005, and a permanency hearing is presently scheduled for November 16, 2005. The case below is moving along.
There is no reason to return the case to the trial court to allow Judge Villarreal to merely “reconsider” Judge Lewis’s order. This would only cause more delay—delay that may render the relief sought in this Petition moot.
On the other hand, if the State would agree to abate the force and effect of the July 8 and September 20 orders while such a remand occurs, then the Werneckes would not be prejudiced by such a remand. However, the State will almost certainly want those orders to remain in place (have their cake) while the remand occurs (and eat it, too). This is a bit like giving a criminal a new trial, but continuing to hold him prisoner in the penitentiary, serving his full sentence, while a new trial is scheduled and takes place. If the Court is inclined to allow Judge Villarreal to “reconsider” the offending orders of July 8 and September 20, the force and effect of those orders must be abated during the period of abatement; after all, Judge Villarreal just might decide differently.
B. The procedural requirements of mandamus have been fulfilled.
The State next criticizes the Werneckes for allegedly not dotting every “i” and crossing every “t” in bringing this Petition before the Court (which, by the way, the Werneckes dispute). Regardless of the technical precision with which the Petition was brought, however, what the State conveniently ignores is the emergency nature of the relief sought, and the dismal state of the record below when the Petition was filed.[36]
For every hour that goes by, the Werneckes are being deprived, irretrievably, of precious Constitutional rights: to equal protection; to freedom of speech and association; to liberty; to parent their daughter as they see fit; to avoid state-imposed harm to their child; and to assist Katie in avoiding—or even discussing with her—what everyone agrees is potentially-life-threatening treatment.[37] Katie is presently—this moment—undergoing dangerous, experimental medical treatment at the hands of the DFPS. If this treatment kills Katie or renders her sterile, disease-ridden, or otherwise irreparably harmed, then the alternative treatments the Werneckes would like to attempt will become impossible, or at least rendered largely irrelevant. Surely, “the rules” were never meant to be the deciding factor on the merits of a Petition of this magnitude and importance. Instead, procedural rules are meant to be instruments for getting the necessary information before this Court, in standardized form, for purposes of facilitating an expeditious and just ruling.[38] It is almost a proverb that any time a party has no real arguments on the merits, it stoops to irrelevant, rules-based nitpicking.
C. The Petition was properly verified.
The State next criticizes the alleged lack of verification of the Petition, referring to Edward and Michele’s Affidavits as “hearsay” and contradictory of other information in the record, namely the affidavit-based recollections of the state’s witnesses. But all affidavits are hearsay, by definition—including those submitted by the State itself in its Response! How exactly is a party to “verify” a Petition if not by affidavit? And how exactly is a party to obtain affidavits from its uncooperative adversaries (such as the doctors presently treating Katie) for purposes of putting in what the State mistakenly implies would be the “best evidence” of the facts otherwise set forth in the verifying affidavit of the Relators? The State never says.
As for the Hunninghake[39] (and now, the Wassell) information, that information is presented in the current form because (a) these doctors have not been allowed to examine Katie due to the State’s refusal to release Katie to the Werneckes’ custody for purposes of having those examinations, and (b) they are not making prognoses, diagnoses, or other factual findings for which verification would be required. The information they offer at this time is general information about the alternative treatment being suggested, and a brief statement that Katie “may be” a candidate for this treatment. If the case is remanded for a new hearing, the Court can expect one or both of these doctors to testify, and hopefully they will be able to do so after being allowed to examine Katie.
D. The consequences of an affirmative ruling on the Petition should not deter the Court’s attention from the issues.
Lastly, the State attempts to “scare” this Court into shirking its duties by painting a dismal picture of what might happen if the Petition is granted and the relief ordered. See Response, pp. 14-15 (“This would strip trial courts across the nation (?) of the ability to protect an entire class of vulnerable children prior to a trial such as that provided by Chapter 161"). Not only is the State’s parade of horribles unlikely to occur, but even if it were, that is no reason for this Honorable Court to dodge its responsibility for adjudicating the issues presented, as the State invites the Court to do. “Fiat justitia, ruat coelum”[40] is (or at least should be) the call of this, the highest Court in the State of Texas.
Finally, mandamus is entirely appropriate in emergency situations such as we have here. As this Court is well aware, a good percentage of petitions for mandamus relief are filed with accompanying motions for emergency relief (as was this one). This Court has already found that one order of the trial court below should be modified, on an emergency basis, pending the outcome of this Petition. The precise reason temporary orders in family-law cases are subject to immediate mandamus review is because family courts issue orders every day that may (and often do) involve compunction to do or not do something, for an indeterminate length of time, and which, if obeyed, would severely and irreparably damage a party in a manner for which there is no adequate remedy on appeal.[41]
What the state argues is that trial courts should have a free hand in issuing any type of “temporary orders” they like, and the parties affected have no chance to challenge them save in an appeal from a final judgment that may takes years to obtain. It is embarrassing that the Attorney General of Texas would advance such an argument. The State’s pleas about this Petition being inappropriate, defective, or premature are fatally flawed and hopelessly obtuse.
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
There are principled ways to distinguish between cases of true neglect (i. e., lack of concern for a child’s health or when a parent lacks capacity to make reasoned decisions), and cases such as this one—where fit, concerned parents are simply trying to find the optimal medical treatment for their child. Sadly, in our case the state and the trial court were unwilling or unable to draw this distinction.
When a child’s illness may cause death with or without treatment, and modern medicine has not developed a “silver bullet” (such as antibiotics to treat infections), the state cannot be allowed to usurp parental authority and subject a child to an experimental, uncertain, highly-invasive, and potentially-deadly treatment regimen which happens to be currently in vogue with the state’s approved doctors. The Werneckes have not “neglected” Katie’s treatment. On the contrary, they had Katie undergo 5 months of chemotherapy, and were in the process of pursuing alternatives to the dangerous, highly-invasive “follow up” treatments of high-dosage chemo and questionable radiation treatments when they found their parental rights suddenly taken away from them by the state. The Werneckes are model parents who have lovingly and actively involved themselves in the process of caring for their daughter’s well-being—past, present, and future. They are not neglectful parents under any definition of that term.[42]
Since the state-recommended treatment entails significant health risks while offering neither a certainty nor even a substantial likelihood of a genuine cure, it is grossly improper for the state to force Katie and her parents to assume those risks. The weighing of risks and benefits of such a proposed treatment should be—indeed, must be—left to the parents, especially where there is a good chance that Katie will be a candidate for effective, alternative treatment.
Mandamus should issue ordering the trial court to vacate the orders of July 8 and September 20, 2005 in their entirety, and the case should be remanded to the trial court with an order requiring DFPS to immediately return Katie to the care and possession of her parents.
Respectfully submitted,
JAMES A. PIKL, P.C.
_________________________________
James A. Pikl
State Bar No. 16008850
P. O. Box 2939
McKinney, Texas 75070
(214) 544-7000
Fax (214) 544-7001
Email jimpikl@flash.net
ATTORNEY FOR RELATORS EDWARD AND MICHELE WERNECKE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 19th day of October 2005, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing RELATORS’ REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS was served on the following by hand delivery, telefax, overnight courier, and/or certified mail, return receipt requested:
Linda J. Rhodes-Schauer
615 N. Upper Broadway, Suite 2200
Corpus Christi, Texas 78477-0017
Richard E. Salisbury
Assistant Attorney General
P.O. Box 12548
Austin, Texas 78711-2120
____________________________________
James A. Pikl
IN THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT
In re §
§
Edward Wernecke §
and § CAUSE NO. 05-0838
Michele Wernecke, §
§
Relators. §
************************************************************************
REPLY APPENDIX
TO RELATORS’
SUPPLEMENTAL AND
REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
************************************************************************
Submitted by Relators
IN THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT
In re §
§
Edward Wernecke §
and § CAUSE NO. 05-0838
Michele Wernecke, §
§
Relators. §
************************************************************************
REPLY APPENDIX
TO RELATORS’
SUPPLEMENTAL AND
REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
************************************************************************
VERIFICATION
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared James A. Pikl, known to me to be the person whose signature appears below, and upon his oath deposed and stated as follows: “My name is James A. Pikl. I am attorney of record for Relators Edward and Michele Wernecke. The facts stated in this Verification are within my personal knowledge and are true and correct. Attached to this Verification are true and correct copies of the following documents:
Tab 1 Letter report and resume, Dr. Ronald E. Hunninghake, M.D.
Tab 2 Letter report and resume, Dr. W. M. Wassell, M.D.
Tab 3 Transcript of hearing in trial court, June 15 and 16, 2005
Tab 4 Transcript of hearing in trial court, September 19, 2005
Tab 5 Motion filed 9/19/05 in trial court (still pending)
Tab 6 Information from the National Cancer Institute’s website on clinical trials”
I also hereby affirm that the documents attached to Relators’ original Appendix are true and correct copies of what they are stated to be.
_______________________________
James A. Pikl
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO this 19th day of October 2005, to which witness my hand and seal of office.
_______________________________
Notary Public, State of Texas
[1] In re Willman, 24 Ohio App. 3d 191 (1986).
[2] In re Hamilton, 657 S.W.2d 425 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).
[3] Newmark v. Williams/DCPS, 588 A.2d 1108 (Del. 1991).
[4] Custody of a Minor, 379 N.E.2d 1053 (Mass. 1978).
[5] Matter of Joseph Hofbauer, 47 N.Y.2d 648, 393 N.E.2d 1009 (1979).
[6] In re Eric B., 189 Cal. App. 3d 996 (1987).
[7] Newmark, 588 A.2d at 1115.
[8] Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982); Michael G.B. v. Angela L.B., 642 N.Y.S.2d 452, 454, 219 A.D. 289 (1996)(finding a mere “best interest” analysis inappropriate and requiring a finding of extraordinary circumstances and consideration of parental rights before the state can deprive a parent of their superior custody rights).
[9] The presumption that parents are the appropriate decision-makers for their children is deemed fundamental to our constitutional system of governance. Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 602, 99 S.Ct. 2493, 61 L.Ed.2d 101 (1979). This means that before the state can interfere in the exercise of that right, the state carries a heavy burden to prove the necessity of both the goal and the means of its interference. While a good argument could be made that the state must pass constitutional “strict scrutiny” analysis for every attempted interference with parental authority and rights, in cases involving medical care another, less-burdensome approach could be considered that takes into account the parents’ rights to make medical decisions while still respecting the authority of the state to intervene in truly-necessary circumstances. The “balancing test” proposed in this Brief—as opposed to the “ad hoc” test, or worse, a vague, constitutionally-suspect “best interests” standard alone—provides a principled, more-nuanced way to strike this balance.
[10] Bowen v. American Hosp. Ass’n, 476 U.S. 610, 106 S.Ct. 2101, 2113, n.13, 90 L.Ed. 2d 584 (1986). If the state takes over the responsibility for medical decision-making under the facts of this case, then all children will basically become wards of the state, contrary to settled jurisprudence that a child is not “a mere creature of the state.” Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000).
[11] Holly v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367, 371-72 (Tex. 1976). Admittedly, the Holly case did not concern medical decisions, but if anything, the needs and desires of the child should be more important, not less important, in a case like ours than in a case where two fit parents are merely fighting over which of them gets to be managing conservator (as in Holly). In both cases, the child’s future is being decided, but in a case like ours, the child’s very life is in the balance. Given the importance of the issue, the choices and decisions made by parents must also be given greater consideration—not lesser consideration—in cases like ours than in ordinary custody disputes.
[12] Newmark, 588 A.2d at 1115-1116, citing Goldstein, Medical Care for the Child at Risk: On State Supervision of Parental Autonomy, 86 Yale L.J. 645, 649 and nn. 13 & 14 (1977).
[13] See Texas Family Code, §161.001(1)(D)(“the parent-child relationship may be judicially terminated if the parent has knowingly place or knowingly allowed the child to remain in conditions or surroundings that endanger the physical or emotional well-being of the child”)(emphasis added). It cannot be rationally disputed that removing a convalescing 13-year-old girl from the loving, nurturing environment of her family and indefinitely placing her in foster care 250 miles away, and then restricting her parents’ access and even their communications with her, is extremely harmful to her emotional well-being.
[14] Ironically, in Texas Katie is old enough to have an abortion without her parents’ consent. Texas Fam. Code §33.003(i) allows a minor to have an abortion if the court finds that she is mature enough to understand her options or if notification of her parents would not be in her “best interests” or may result in physical, emotional, or sexual abuse. In re Doe, 19 S.W.3d 346, 350 (Tex. 2000). Since Katie is old enough by statute to make a decision on the ultimate medical-care issue—to end another human life—it is incongruous to argue that she is somehow not old enough to make personal, medical-care decisions about how to treat her own cancer.
[15] That Katie has had doctors reporting to her the side effects of radiation treatments, see Reply Appendix, Tab 4, pp. 36-37. That Katie has repeatedly and vociferously objected to radiation treatment is undisputed, see Reply Appendix, Tab 3, p. 110. See also Reply Appendix Tab 5, the Motion to Modify Placement, filed by Katie’s attorney (which motion is still pending with the trial court), indicating Katie’s adamant refusal to undergo high-dosage chemotherapy and expressing her desires to be returned to her family.
[16] Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-43, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed.2d 1655 (1942)(the right to bear children is a protected, Constitutional right; forced sterilization is unconstitutional).
[17] Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 206, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972) (discussing the basis for, and restrictions on, any application of parens patriae).
[18] Prince v Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166, 64 S.Ct. 438, 88 L.Ed.2d 645 (1944)(discussing the concept of the police power and its application to parent/child relations).
[19] Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dep’t of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 110 S.Ct. 2841, 2853, 111 L.Ed.2d 224 (1990); Miller ex rel. Miller v. HCA, Inc., 118 S.W.3d 758, 766 (Tex. 2003)(necessary corollary to parents’ right to make medical decisions for children is the right to refuse medical treatment as well).
[20] If a court cannot interfere in parental decision-making simply because the judge believes he could make a “better” decision than parents, how much shorter shrift should we give to such a decision made by a government social worker? Prince v. Massachusetts, supra.
[21] Newmark v. Williams/DCPS, 588 A.2d 1108 (Del. 1991).
[22] Newmark, 588 A.2d at 1115.
[23] The testimony of what is considered “success” by the medical community in these situations is stranger than strange: a probability that the patient will “remain alive” for two years after treatment without a recurrence of cancer. Newmark, 588 A.2d at 1119, n. 12. This makes it seem like doctors are choosing how to define “success” based not on genuine recovery from the illness, but based on surviving only a brief time following treatment—treatment that causes debilitating and horrendous side effects that will reside with the patient for the duration of his or her life. Even stranger, if chemotherapy destroys a patient’s immune system and the patient then dies of pneumonia, this is not considered a “failure” of the treatment since, technically, the patient did not die from a recurrence of cancer. This definition would not be considered “success” in any other field of endeavor known to man. It is akin to saying that bad welding on the space shuttle re-entry tiles did not cause the Columbia disaster, it was instead caused by the invasion of super-heated gases into the shuttle upon re-entry when the tiles broke off. Why such an anemic definition of “success” suffices for the medical profession is unknown, but is probably due to the fact that this is the best it can do with such horrendously dangerous and ineffective treatments. This Court should not be mislead by pleasant-sounding words like “success” when doctors are playing fast and loose with semantics solely to make their recommended treatments sound more appealing and effective than they really are.
[24] Id.
[25] Id. at 1117.
[26] Id. at 1115.
[27] Id. at 1117; Cruzan, 497 U.S. at 270. See also In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So.2d 4, 10 (Fla. 1990), holding that incompetent persons have the same rights to refuse treatment as competent persons, and the decision to refuse treatment may be made by the patient’s family members such as parents. It is incongruous to hold that a parent of a vegetative adult child should be allowed to decide to reject life-saving medical treatment for that child, but that the same parent should not be allowed to make identical medical decisions for a minor child. When discussing the surrogate’s obligation to make decisions that the patient would make, the court in Browning said: “One does not exercise another’s right to self-determination or fulfill that person’s right to privacy by making a decision which the state, the family, or public opinion would prefer. The surrogate decisionmaker must be confident that he or she can and is voicing the patient’s decision” (emphasis in original). There is no rational difference between the situation in Browning and our present case.
Here, the Werneckes are making (or trying to make) medical decisions for a legally-incapacitated person, their minor daughter Katie, which they believe are in Katie’s best interests and which Katie would choose for herself if she could. Indeed, their decision about treatment is backed up by Katie’s own repeated refusals to agree to have the proposed treatments. How much better evidence is there that a parent/surrogate is making the correct decision for a patient than to have that decision expressly agreed with by the patient herself? In a manner of speaking, Katie’s own statements about not wanting the treatments are a form of “living will.”
[28] Newmark, 588 A.2d at 1118.
[29] Technically, Katie’s proposed treatment is not a true “transplant” because the stem cells proposed for use are from her own blood stream rather than from someone else; this procedure is called a “autologous transplant” or an “autograph.” See http://www.cancerbacup.org.uk/Treatments/ Stemcellbonemarrowtransplants
/GeneralInformation. Possible side effects of this treatment include development of infections, uncontrolled bleeding, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, loss of appetite, mouth sores, hair loss, skin reactions, sterility, cataracts, cancer, damage to liver, lungs and/or heart, and—of course—death. Id. And these side effects are in addition to the side effects from the high-dosage chemotherapy and radiation treatments being proposed.
See http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Therapy/bone-marrow-transplant and http://www.nci.nig.gov/cancertopics/pdq/treatment/childhodgkins
/HealthProfessional (the National Cancer Institute’s websites). The latter website says: “The 10-year overall survival rate in this study [patients having stem cell transplants] was 48%. Salvage rates [read: chances of staying alive for 2 years without a relapse] for patients who remained refractory to pretransplant chemotherapy and LD-IFRT are approximately 30% to 50%.” Katie falls in this category.
[30] Newmark, 588 A.2d at 1119.
[31] On Thursday, October 13, 2005, trial court Judge Carl E. Lewis recused himself from further participation in this case. The administrative judge of the region has recently appointed a replacement judge, the Hon. Joaquin Villareal, to take over the case.
[32] Copies of these medical opinions are attached in the Reply Appendix at Tabs 1 and 2. See also references cited at footnote 35 in the Petition, page 19.
[33] Matter of Hofbauer, 47 N.Y.2d 648, 419 N.Y.S.2d 936, 393 N.E.2d 1009 (1979).
[34] Hofbauer, 47 N.Y.2d at 652.
[35] A copy of this hearing transcript, only recently obtained by counsel from the court reporter on October 18, 2005, is found in the Reply Appendix at Tab 3.
[36] For instance, even though the record of the June 15 and 16, 2005 hearing was ordered earlier in the case, and ordered again in mid-September 2005, the court reporter was unable to produce that transcript until October 18, 2005. A copy is now available, and is being submitted herewith at Reply Appendix, Tab 3. This should take care of the state’s claim that this Court cannot review what happened below for lack of the transcript. We also attach the transcript of the September 19, 2005 transcript to the Appendix for purposes of showing that the state’s characterization of that hearing as giving the Werneckes “a last chance to cooperate” in Katie’s treatment is totally inaccurate. See Reply Appendix, Tab 4.
[37] It has recently come to the Werneckes’ attention that the treatment regimen the State is presently forcing Katie to undergo is entirely “experimental” in nature. This fact was never explained to the Werneckes. In fact, the prescribed treatments were always referred to as “necessary” and the “only course of treatment available.” Actually, the treatment is part of a Stage II clinical trial program called the “Phase II Pilot Study of Reinduction Chemotherapy With Ifsofamide and Vinorelbine in Children With Refractory or Relapsed Hodgkin’s Lymphoma.” It is not a proven-effective course of treatment for the treatment of Hodgkin’s disease. Therefore, the state has incorrectly framed the issue for decision as involving a proven treatment (the state’s) versus an experimental treatment (the Werneckes’). If the truth be told, it is one experimental treatment versus another experimental treatment. The fact that the State got a leg up on the Werneckes by getting doctors to “approve” its regimen before the Werneckes were able to line up their own doctors does not make the State’s regimen any less experimental in nature—or any more “correct.” See http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/CPG-AHOD00P1. A copy of this information is provided for the Court’s ease of reference at Reply Appendix, Tab 6.
[38] See Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 1 (liberal construction required).
[39] Dr. Hunninghake is mistakenly referred to as “Dr. Hunningbake” in the State’s Response.
[40] “Let justice be done, though the heavens may fall.”
[41] See In re McCoy, 52 S.W.3d 297, 301 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 2001, orig. proc.).
[42] See Reply Appendix, Tab 4, p. 13.
posted by Katie W. @ Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
THE REAL REASON THE JUDGE STEPPED DOWN?
TEXAS CENTER FOR FAMILY RIGHTS
“Promoting, Protecting and Preserving the Texas Family”
2205 Ave. I; Suite 121 Telephone: 281-344-8878
Rosenberg, Texas 77471
Fax: 281-633-8816
Website: www.txcfr.org
E-mail: info@txcfr.org
PRESS RELEASE
JUDGE IN KATIE WERNECKE CASE STEPS DOWN FROM BENCH
Judge Carl E. Lewis of County Court at Law #5 in Nueces County has recused himself in the Katie Wernecke case in Texas. In June of this year Judge Lewis issued orders to remove Katie from her parents and place her in the custody of CPS because of a disagreement Katie’s parents had with a doctor over the type of cancer treatment she should receive.
Peter Johnston, President of Texas Center for Family Rights commends Judge Lewis for making the right decision but questions his motive. According to an article in the Corpus Christi Caller-Times , Lewis wrote, “In light of the substantial attention given this case by the [Texas] Supreme Court, I believe my continued participation would create a distraction of no benefit to the parents or the best interest of the child.”
His action follows on the heals of a decision by the Texas Supreme Court last week to modify orders to allow Katie’s parents to visit her. An order by Judge Lewis on September 20th forbad any contact of Katie’s father with her and permitted contact between the mom and Katie ONLY if the mom would encourage her to go ahead with chemotherapy and radiation.
The Texas Supreme Court ruled on a motion filed on September 23rd by James Pikl, attorney for Katie’s parents to void Judge Lewis’s order. The attorney’s motion also requested for the judge to recuse himself.
Pikl filed the motion for the judge to step down based upon a violation of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct (TCJC) by Lewis when he independently visited Katie and interviewed doctors in Houston on or about September 15th without counsel for the parents present.
Additionally CPS apparently independently visited Judge Lewis in a Corpus Christi hospital to obtain his signature on the orders forbidding contact with the parents. Judge Lewis temporarily adjourned a hearing regarding Katie on September 19th because he was not feeling well. Subsequently he was admitted to the hospital and underwent open heart surgery within twenty-four hours. Sometime between the adjournment and the following day CPS obtained his signature on those orders.
Canon 3 of the TCJC forbids this type of personal contact with a party or witness to a suit without the presence of other parties because it calls into question the impartiality of judges.
Peter Johnston questions the judge’s stated motive for recusal, commenting “What about his violation of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct? Is that not reason enough? Would he have considered his actions proper if it weren’t for the publicity of the Texas Supreme Court?”
“According to the canon if another person could reasonably question the judge’s impartiality based on all the circumstance the judge must step down. It should have nothing to do with publicity related to the Supreme Court.”
“Promoting, Protecting and Preserving the Texas Family”
2205 Ave. I; Suite 121 Telephone: 281-344-8878
Rosenberg, Texas 77471
Fax: 281-633-8816
Website: www.txcfr.org
E-mail: info@txcfr.org
PRESS RELEASE
JUDGE IN KATIE WERNECKE CASE STEPS DOWN FROM BENCH
Judge Carl E. Lewis of County Court at Law #5 in Nueces County has recused himself in the Katie Wernecke case in Texas. In June of this year Judge Lewis issued orders to remove Katie from her parents and place her in the custody of CPS because of a disagreement Katie’s parents had with a doctor over the type of cancer treatment she should receive.
Peter Johnston, President of Texas Center for Family Rights commends Judge Lewis for making the right decision but questions his motive. According to an article in the Corpus Christi Caller-Times , Lewis wrote, “In light of the substantial attention given this case by the [Texas] Supreme Court, I believe my continued participation would create a distraction of no benefit to the parents or the best interest of the child.”
His action follows on the heals of a decision by the Texas Supreme Court last week to modify orders to allow Katie’s parents to visit her. An order by Judge Lewis on September 20th forbad any contact of Katie’s father with her and permitted contact between the mom and Katie ONLY if the mom would encourage her to go ahead with chemotherapy and radiation.
The Texas Supreme Court ruled on a motion filed on September 23rd by James Pikl, attorney for Katie’s parents to void Judge Lewis’s order. The attorney’s motion also requested for the judge to recuse himself.
Pikl filed the motion for the judge to step down based upon a violation of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct (TCJC) by Lewis when he independently visited Katie and interviewed doctors in Houston on or about September 15th without counsel for the parents present.
Additionally CPS apparently independently visited Judge Lewis in a Corpus Christi hospital to obtain his signature on the orders forbidding contact with the parents. Judge Lewis temporarily adjourned a hearing regarding Katie on September 19th because he was not feeling well. Subsequently he was admitted to the hospital and underwent open heart surgery within twenty-four hours. Sometime between the adjournment and the following day CPS obtained his signature on those orders.
Canon 3 of the TCJC forbids this type of personal contact with a party or witness to a suit without the presence of other parties because it calls into question the impartiality of judges.
Peter Johnston questions the judge’s stated motive for recusal, commenting “What about his violation of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct? Is that not reason enough? Would he have considered his actions proper if it weren’t for the publicity of the Texas Supreme Court?”
“According to the canon if another person could reasonably question the judge’s impartiality based on all the circumstance the judge must step down. It should have nothing to do with publicity related to the Supreme Court.”
posted by Katie W. @ Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Comments from Blogs and Emails
JL Says: October 1st, 2005 at Saturday, October 1, 2005 @ 4:49 pm
I just finished reading Katie’s web blog. This whole situation, from the doctor who reported her parents, the unwarranted issuance of the Amber Alert, CPS’s decision to take Katie, and initially her brothers, to Judge Lewis’ inappropriate and irresponsible decision to place Katie in foster care, must be the cruelest abuses of power I have ever witnessed.
Since Katie has decided she wants alternatives to high dose chemo, and has no intention of cooperating with her captors, she needs to be returned to her family immediately.
Hopefully, the state officers and Judges will set their massive egos aside and let her go, but I seriously doubt they will. As her former foster mother said on the blog. “CPS would rather sacrifice Katie and her family than admit they were wrong.”
Sad, sad example of state power unleashed on the innocent.
ucsd student Says: October 1st, 2005 at Saturday, October 1, 2005 @ 9:38 pm
Katie’s story proves beyond doubt we are no longer a free people and have to bow to government and obey what they say is best.
Why do We The People put up with these massive criminal acts against us waged on a daily basis? Have we no morals? Are we so cowardly these days we hide in the corners of our homes pretending things like this will not someday happen to us?
This is Nazism at it’s worse.
No wonder we are little more than slaves to the government.
Vic Says: October 7th, 2005 at Friday, October 7, 2005 @ 9:41 am
This constant blabbering by trolls about laetrile and vitamin c is nothing but a straw man they have glommed on to, and beaten to death, in order to detract from the real issue.
Certain individuals have no qualms about gun toting thugs hunting down a little girl, throwing her mother in prison, physically assaulting her father, and dragging her brothers out of their beds and into the dead of night. Anyone who thinks that this is in anyway acceptable or excusable in a civilized society needs a serious reevaluation of their own soul. No wonder the entire world is looking at Texas CPS in unending disgust and disbelief.
As Ogre said on his blog:
“CPS and it’s supporters, cannot see reality. They cannot EVER admit they might EVER have done anything wrong — so they only way they can win is by shouting over everyone else.”
And, I might add, usually by shouting insults.
Marius Says: October 9th, 2005 at Sunday, October 9, 2005 @ 3:39 am
Further analyzing “Gordon”- I think she must be the type of malicious zealot CPS creature who resides at hospitals, spying for “abuse” so she can take kids into state care. Probably for every one case of CPS doing good for a child, there are 99 cases where they cause harm and trauma, but zealots like “Gordon” care not, because these power-crazed creatures like Gordon who succeed best within the evil CPS bureaucracy and rise up the ranks most quickly actually overtly or covertly believe that down deep all children belong to the state. The parents just have the privilege of keeping them until they “break the rules” as Gordon has said the Werneckes did.
.....What was most disturbing to me about “Gordon’s” last post was how it just shows through so clearly how she really looks forward to the Werneckes losing all parental rights. No matter the lives they will have destroyed permanently and unmercilessly, Gordon and her CPS buddies are looking forward to proudly putting another big notch in their belts as they teach a couple more parents a big lesson.“In the best interests of the child” of course. How sickening.
Marius Says: October 18th, 2005 at Tuesday, October 18, 2005 @ 12:56 am
.....Most bloggers on this topic are parents who can relate to not wanting to have their child kidnapped by CPS over a disagreement like this. And even in the most unexpected places in the blogosphere such as pro-radiation treatment thecancerblog.com you’ll find comments like this one:
“I have to say that I would never allow harm to a child but when does our responsibility as health care providers stop and the parental rights begin? Who are we to say that this child must be forced to continue treatment whether she is in remission or not? I don’t understand where we got the right to ignore the parent’s and child’s wishes and submit this person to further experimentation?”
.....From an article at USNews.com:
But the state blundered when it big-footed their custody rights for challenging “standard medical care.” Standard-care regimens are not rigid directives chiseled in stone. They are evidence-based guidelines with some give. In Katie’s case, the state mistakenly believed that the immediate radiation ordered by her doctor was a government-sanctioned and required treatment, part of the complete standard of care needed for her survival.
Controversy. Most pediatric oncologists would beg to differ. James Nachman, a Hodgkin’s expert and professor of pediatrics at the University of Chicago medical school, says standard treatment for advanced Hodgkin’s is more like five to eight cycles of chemotherapy. And there’s controversy as to whether children showing a complete response to that treatment–particularly after two or four cycles of chemotherapy–get any added benefit from radiation. “I would not hesitate,” Nachman says, “to bring in child services to insist on cancer treatment that parents are resisting if it’s a matter of life or death, but radiation for this situation is not one of them.”
(more at http://www.compassionchildren.org/katie/tyranny-of-experts.htm )
From an email: 10/18/05
Dear Michelle,
I have read your recent post. I am so sorry. I know the feeling of the
reality you are coming to. It is devastating. Remember though that Katie
will never forget you are her mom. You love her and she knows it. It does
hurt greatly to not be able to do those things with her. I am sure she
wishes it were you also.
I am praying a Judge and court system wakes up and sees the horror being
done to her and your family. Keep trusting in God.
I am sorry.
T.M.
Dear Michele:
I have been following Katie’s story for the last several months and have made it part of my daily routine to check up on how she and the family are doing via your website. I as a parent am saddened that this is happening not only to you but to the well being of your daughter. I am the mother of two daughters, 13 and 16. Thankfully they are healthy. The early teenage years are the MOST imperative years in their lives. I fear as to what they are doing to Katie and I have no doubt in my mind this will affect her the rest of her life. Katie needs the support and love of her parents – NOW! No ifs, ands, or buts – NOW. I am appalled that someone would have the audacity to tell you that you should leave your husband – wolves in sheeps clothing – that is an understatement. In all trying times of our lives – we need a partner that will be with us. I am not saying that this type of strain could not put a strain on your marriage – but obviously you and Ed have a strong relationship and are standing by each other through this. They are trying to pit you against each other to strengthen themselves – Don’t let them win.
Comment by mtrshower - 7/30/2005
I assure everyone who reads this blog the state of Texas doesn’t give a rats ass about Katie or any other child it has in its care. As long as the state controls the medical care of Katie ,she will recieve the worst care medicine can deliver. Even the dumbest and poorest of, loving parents are better than C.P.S. The only word for the cruelty endured by the Werneckes is evil. May God strengthen the hand of the Werneckes. As for those who abused the power given to them by man, that which you send out into the world , will come back to you seven fold. Do not fear my judgment. Fear God. He is not called the terrible judge for nothing.
I just finished reading Katie’s web blog. This whole situation, from the doctor who reported her parents, the unwarranted issuance of the Amber Alert, CPS’s decision to take Katie, and initially her brothers, to Judge Lewis’ inappropriate and irresponsible decision to place Katie in foster care, must be the cruelest abuses of power I have ever witnessed.
Since Katie has decided she wants alternatives to high dose chemo, and has no intention of cooperating with her captors, she needs to be returned to her family immediately.
Hopefully, the state officers and Judges will set their massive egos aside and let her go, but I seriously doubt they will. As her former foster mother said on the blog. “CPS would rather sacrifice Katie and her family than admit they were wrong.”
Sad, sad example of state power unleashed on the innocent.
ucsd student Says: October 1st, 2005 at Saturday, October 1, 2005 @ 9:38 pm
Katie’s story proves beyond doubt we are no longer a free people and have to bow to government and obey what they say is best.
Why do We The People put up with these massive criminal acts against us waged on a daily basis? Have we no morals? Are we so cowardly these days we hide in the corners of our homes pretending things like this will not someday happen to us?
This is Nazism at it’s worse.
No wonder we are little more than slaves to the government.
Vic Says: October 7th, 2005 at Friday, October 7, 2005 @ 9:41 am
This constant blabbering by trolls about laetrile and vitamin c is nothing but a straw man they have glommed on to, and beaten to death, in order to detract from the real issue.
Certain individuals have no qualms about gun toting thugs hunting down a little girl, throwing her mother in prison, physically assaulting her father, and dragging her brothers out of their beds and into the dead of night. Anyone who thinks that this is in anyway acceptable or excusable in a civilized society needs a serious reevaluation of their own soul. No wonder the entire world is looking at Texas CPS in unending disgust and disbelief.
As Ogre said on his blog:
“CPS and it’s supporters, cannot see reality. They cannot EVER admit they might EVER have done anything wrong — so they only way they can win is by shouting over everyone else.”
And, I might add, usually by shouting insults.
Marius Says: October 9th, 2005 at Sunday, October 9, 2005 @ 3:39 am
Further analyzing “Gordon”- I think she must be the type of malicious zealot CPS creature who resides at hospitals, spying for “abuse” so she can take kids into state care. Probably for every one case of CPS doing good for a child, there are 99 cases where they cause harm and trauma, but zealots like “Gordon” care not, because these power-crazed creatures like Gordon who succeed best within the evil CPS bureaucracy and rise up the ranks most quickly actually overtly or covertly believe that down deep all children belong to the state. The parents just have the privilege of keeping them until they “break the rules” as Gordon has said the Werneckes did.
.....What was most disturbing to me about “Gordon’s” last post was how it just shows through so clearly how she really looks forward to the Werneckes losing all parental rights. No matter the lives they will have destroyed permanently and unmercilessly, Gordon and her CPS buddies are looking forward to proudly putting another big notch in their belts as they teach a couple more parents a big lesson.“In the best interests of the child” of course. How sickening.
Marius Says: October 18th, 2005 at Tuesday, October 18, 2005 @ 12:56 am
.....Most bloggers on this topic are parents who can relate to not wanting to have their child kidnapped by CPS over a disagreement like this. And even in the most unexpected places in the blogosphere such as pro-radiation treatment thecancerblog.com you’ll find comments like this one:
“I have to say that I would never allow harm to a child but when does our responsibility as health care providers stop and the parental rights begin? Who are we to say that this child must be forced to continue treatment whether she is in remission or not? I don’t understand where we got the right to ignore the parent’s and child’s wishes and submit this person to further experimentation?”
.....From an article at USNews.com:
But the state blundered when it big-footed their custody rights for challenging “standard medical care.” Standard-care regimens are not rigid directives chiseled in stone. They are evidence-based guidelines with some give. In Katie’s case, the state mistakenly believed that the immediate radiation ordered by her doctor was a government-sanctioned and required treatment, part of the complete standard of care needed for her survival.
Controversy. Most pediatric oncologists would beg to differ. James Nachman, a Hodgkin’s expert and professor of pediatrics at the University of Chicago medical school, says standard treatment for advanced Hodgkin’s is more like five to eight cycles of chemotherapy. And there’s controversy as to whether children showing a complete response to that treatment–particularly after two or four cycles of chemotherapy–get any added benefit from radiation. “I would not hesitate,” Nachman says, “to bring in child services to insist on cancer treatment that parents are resisting if it’s a matter of life or death, but radiation for this situation is not one of them.”
(more at http://www.compassionchildren.org/katie/tyranny-of-experts.htm )
From an email: 10/18/05
Dear Michelle,
I have read your recent post. I am so sorry. I know the feeling of the
reality you are coming to. It is devastating. Remember though that Katie
will never forget you are her mom. You love her and she knows it. It does
hurt greatly to not be able to do those things with her. I am sure she
wishes it were you also.
I am praying a Judge and court system wakes up and sees the horror being
done to her and your family. Keep trusting in God.
I am sorry.
T.M.
Dear Michele:
I have been following Katie’s story for the last several months and have made it part of my daily routine to check up on how she and the family are doing via your website. I as a parent am saddened that this is happening not only to you but to the well being of your daughter. I am the mother of two daughters, 13 and 16. Thankfully they are healthy. The early teenage years are the MOST imperative years in their lives. I fear as to what they are doing to Katie and I have no doubt in my mind this will affect her the rest of her life. Katie needs the support and love of her parents – NOW! No ifs, ands, or buts – NOW. I am appalled that someone would have the audacity to tell you that you should leave your husband – wolves in sheeps clothing – that is an understatement. In all trying times of our lives – we need a partner that will be with us. I am not saying that this type of strain could not put a strain on your marriage – but obviously you and Ed have a strong relationship and are standing by each other through this. They are trying to pit you against each other to strengthen themselves – Don’t let them win.
Comment by mtrshower - 7/30/2005
I assure everyone who reads this blog the state of Texas doesn’t give a rats ass about Katie or any other child it has in its care. As long as the state controls the medical care of Katie ,she will recieve the worst care medicine can deliver. Even the dumbest and poorest of, loving parents are better than C.P.S. The only word for the cruelty endured by the Werneckes is evil. May God strengthen the hand of the Werneckes. As for those who abused the power given to them by man, that which you send out into the world , will come back to you seven fold. Do not fear my judgment. Fear God. He is not called the terrible judge for nothing.
posted by Katie W. @ Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Monday, October 17, 2005
TAKING KATIE OUT OF OUR LIVES SLOWLY
9:35am 10/17/05 - Stella called and said we can visit Katie in person Thursday 10/20/05 at CPS building in Houston 4-6 pm or visit on phone 5 to 6 pm for us and 6 to 6:30PM for the boys. [Again why split the family visitation up into parents and boys separately? This is very anti-family.] Need to let Stella know by tomorrow at 3pm what we are going to do. They need to know 24 hours in advance if we are going to cancel or if any changes by Wednesday. I went over it with Stella twice to make sure everything was right. [Stella schedules visits she knows we cannot possibly make. My boys have after school programs till 6:30pm on Thursday, my husband works cows on Thursdays. Its a 9 hour trip to Houston and back and a 2 hour visit makes a 11 hour day and we would have to take the kids out of school a day to visit Katie and they have already missed too many days due to CPS dental appointments and screw ups. And I have no one to work for me. That is why we requested a visit on the last two Sundays. ] Not working with us to see that we can visit Katie is certainly not in the best interest of Katie. Plus Katie is scheduled for a PET scan on that Thursday too. Her body emits harmful radiation for a day afterwards and she can't be near people. There is no schedule and its always a last minute thing. We want to visit and do things with Katie, not be stuck in a hospital room or CPS office. How inconsiderate! The boys haven't seen Katie in over two months, Edward over a month, and its been two weeks since I saw her. The boys especially James (3) are slowly forgetting her because its been so long now, nearly 5 months, that she has been gone. That isn't right.
[Edward comments: Classic Brainwashing -Now after forcing Katie to give in to their treatments they start restoring visits and showing her "see we let you visit as we said we would." To use and abuse emotionally a child that way is straight from the pits of hell. I would like to see a grand jury sit to indict CPS for child abuse.]
I asked about Katie if she was doing okay. Stella said they called last Thursday and Katie wanted a haircut. They pulled a fast one with Stella. She tells me the foster mom took Katie shopping and they were having a good time. Foster mom bought Katie a pair of jeans to wear. Boy did it hurt to be told this. Thats my job! I don't know why this hurt so much. [sobs]
They, the foster mom and Katie, were planning stuff for Halloween. I never felt so hurt and lost. She is my daughter and I want to do those things with her. I feel that CPS is purposely doing this so Katie won't miss us anymore and won't need us anymore. They are slowly taking her out of our lives. [sobs]
I am so tired. I used to look forward for tomorrow. Now I dread each day, not knowing what tomorrow will bring me. I'm so tired of fighting for the right to see or talk to my daughter. Just so tired of reasoning with everyone. [they don't even listen or try to cooperate with us, its their way or nothing] CPS sure drains you and takes your will power away from you. They give you no hope or future. I believe they have no intention of ever returning her to us. [crying]
Michele
[Edward comments: Classic Brainwashing -Now after forcing Katie to give in to their treatments they start restoring visits and showing her "see we let you visit as we said we would." To use and abuse emotionally a child that way is straight from the pits of hell. I would like to see a grand jury sit to indict CPS for child abuse.]
I asked about Katie if she was doing okay. Stella said they called last Thursday and Katie wanted a haircut. They pulled a fast one with Stella. She tells me the foster mom took Katie shopping and they were having a good time. Foster mom bought Katie a pair of jeans to wear. Boy did it hurt to be told this. Thats my job! I don't know why this hurt so much. [sobs]
They, the foster mom and Katie, were planning stuff for Halloween. I never felt so hurt and lost. She is my daughter and I want to do those things with her. I feel that CPS is purposely doing this so Katie won't miss us anymore and won't need us anymore. They are slowly taking her out of our lives. [sobs]
I am so tired. I used to look forward for tomorrow. Now I dread each day, not knowing what tomorrow will bring me. I'm so tired of fighting for the right to see or talk to my daughter. Just so tired of reasoning with everyone. [they don't even listen or try to cooperate with us, its their way or nothing] CPS sure drains you and takes your will power away from you. They give you no hope or future. I believe they have no intention of ever returning her to us. [crying]
Michele
posted by Katie W. @ Monday, October 17, 2005
27 comments
Sunday, October 16, 2005
Texas Supreme Court - To Consider Writ of Mandamus This Week
The state has to file its answer on October 17th. That means that the Texas Supreme Court can begin hearing our Writ of Mandamus this week to set aside the September 20th and July 8th orders. The July 8th order is the order out of the June 15th and 16th adversary hearing giving the state custody of Katie.
Edward
Edward
posted by Katie W. @ Sunday, October 16, 2005
Saturday, October 15, 2005
CPS FAILS TO COMPLY WITH SUPREME COURT ORDER
WERNECKE JUDGE RECUSES HIMSELF
MSNBC.com
KRIS-TV
CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas (AP) - A judge has granted a couple's request to remove himself from their battle with the state over cancer treatment for their 13-year-old daughter after the Texas Supreme Court reversed part of his ruling on visitation rights.
Juvenile Court Judge Carl Lewis on Thursday recused himself from the case involving Child Protective Services and the parents of Katie Wernecke, who had been resisting treatment for her Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymph nodes.
By a previous order from Lewis, CPS has custody of Katie and control over her cancer treatments at least until another hearing with a new judge presiding. Lewis' next hearing had been scheduled for Nov. 18. The family has asked the state Supreme Court to overturn the ruling granting CPS custody. "In light of the substantial attention given this case by the Supreme Court, I believe my continued participation would create a distraction of no benefit to the parents or the best interest of the child," Lewis wrote.
The higher court on Oct. 7 partially overturned Lewis' order barring visits from Edward Wernecke and limiting mother Michele Wernecke's contact with Katie.Lewis' order came after visiting Katie in the hospital and determining that her father's influence was causing her to tear out catheters and fight nurses. [ALLEGED]
The Supreme Court instead allowed both parents supervised visits arranged by social workers. But the court said contact would be cut off if either parent was found to be telling Katie not to comply with treatment.
A family attorney filed a motion last month seeking Lewis' recusal on the grounds that his trip to see Katie compromised his impartiality. Lewis initially denied the motion but said he changed his mind after the Supreme Court ruling.
Ed Wernecke said Friday the family had a supervised telephone call with Katie on Wednesday but that CPS was still keeping the family away from Katie.
"I tried to ask them to have a visit on Sunday, and they said, 'No, you're not going to have a visit,'" Wernecke said. "They told us what we could and could not say, which wasn't right either."
Wernecke said he was shocked when Katie said she had received platelets.
"The law requires them to notify us of any life-threatening event within 24 hours. They didn't notify us they were giving her platelets," he said. "We don't know what they're doing to our daughter."
CPS spokesman Aaron Reed said the agency told the family that visits would be arranged around Katie's treatment and school schedule. [ANOTHER CPS LIE - THEY NEVER SAID THAT]
"We fully intend to comply with the court order," he said. "Every Monday we'll let them know." [THAT IS YET TO BE SEEN]
Katie was diagnosed in January and began receiving chemotherapy, which doctors recommended be followed with radiation.
Her parents kept Katie from the radiation, prompting CPS to remove Katie from her family. Edward Wernecke said the treatment could put Katie at a heightened risk for breast cancer, stunt her growth and cause learning problems.
Lewis gave CPS temporary custody of Katie in June after doctors testified the Werneckes were risking their daughter's life and a scan showed the cancer had returned.
Katie has been with a foster family in Houston.
Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press
© 2005 MSNBC.com
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9700284/
MSNBC.com
KRIS-TV
CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas (AP) - A judge has granted a couple's request to remove himself from their battle with the state over cancer treatment for their 13-year-old daughter after the Texas Supreme Court reversed part of his ruling on visitation rights.
Juvenile Court Judge Carl Lewis on Thursday recused himself from the case involving Child Protective Services and the parents of Katie Wernecke, who had been resisting treatment for her Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymph nodes.
By a previous order from Lewis, CPS has custody of Katie and control over her cancer treatments at least until another hearing with a new judge presiding. Lewis' next hearing had been scheduled for Nov. 18. The family has asked the state Supreme Court to overturn the ruling granting CPS custody. "In light of the substantial attention given this case by the Supreme Court, I believe my continued participation would create a distraction of no benefit to the parents or the best interest of the child," Lewis wrote.
The higher court on Oct. 7 partially overturned Lewis' order barring visits from Edward Wernecke and limiting mother Michele Wernecke's contact with Katie.Lewis' order came after visiting Katie in the hospital and determining that her father's influence was causing her to tear out catheters and fight nurses. [ALLEGED]
The Supreme Court instead allowed both parents supervised visits arranged by social workers. But the court said contact would be cut off if either parent was found to be telling Katie not to comply with treatment.
A family attorney filed a motion last month seeking Lewis' recusal on the grounds that his trip to see Katie compromised his impartiality. Lewis initially denied the motion but said he changed his mind after the Supreme Court ruling.
Ed Wernecke said Friday the family had a supervised telephone call with Katie on Wednesday but that CPS was still keeping the family away from Katie.
"I tried to ask them to have a visit on Sunday, and they said, 'No, you're not going to have a visit,'" Wernecke said. "They told us what we could and could not say, which wasn't right either."
Wernecke said he was shocked when Katie said she had received platelets.
"The law requires them to notify us of any life-threatening event within 24 hours. They didn't notify us they were giving her platelets," he said. "We don't know what they're doing to our daughter."
CPS spokesman Aaron Reed said the agency told the family that visits would be arranged around Katie's treatment and school schedule. [ANOTHER CPS LIE - THEY NEVER SAID THAT]
"We fully intend to comply with the court order," he said. "Every Monday we'll let them know." [THAT IS YET TO BE SEEN]
Katie was diagnosed in January and began receiving chemotherapy, which doctors recommended be followed with radiation.
Her parents kept Katie from the radiation, prompting CPS to remove Katie from her family. Edward Wernecke said the treatment could put Katie at a heightened risk for breast cancer, stunt her growth and cause learning problems.
Lewis gave CPS temporary custody of Katie in June after doctors testified the Werneckes were risking their daughter's life and a scan showed the cancer had returned.
Katie has been with a foster family in Houston.
Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press
© 2005 MSNBC.com
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9700284/
[My comments added in brackets. Edward]
posted by Katie W. @ Saturday, October 15, 2005
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Judge Lewis Recluses Self And Withdrawls From Case
October 13, 2005
The Honorable Darrell Hestor
Prssiding Judge
Fifth Administrative Judicial Region
Re: Order of Recusal 05-60955-5 In the Interest of Katie Werncke
Honorable Judge Hester
Attached please find the Order of Recusal and the Request for Assignment. By this order I have recused myself and withdrawn the prior Order of October 4, 2005. In light of the substantial attention given this case by the Supreme Court, I believe my continued participation would create a distraction of no benefit to the parents or the best interest of the child. Thank you for your attention in all these matters. Please advise if further action is required.
By the way, thanks to you and Mr. Raul Martinez for your show of concern regarding my recent surgery. I expect to be back on full duty in about two weeks.
Yours truly,
Carl E. Lewis
Judge
ORDER OF RECUSAL
On reconsideration of the motion of the Respondents Edward D. and Michelle Wernecke to recuse the presiding judge in this case, the court hereby GRANTS the Motion, withdraws the prior order of October 4, 2005, and requests the Presiding Judge of the local judicial region to assign another judge to preside in all future proceedings in this cause. The court has previously forwarded, pursuant to TRCP 18a, the motion and all opposing and concurring statements.
SIGNED AND ORDERED ENTERED this 13th day of October, 2005
Judge Carl Lewis
JUDGE PRESIDING
The Honorable Darrell Hestor
Prssiding Judge
Fifth Administrative Judicial Region
Re: Order of Recusal 05-60955-5 In the Interest of Katie Werncke
Honorable Judge Hester
Attached please find the Order of Recusal and the Request for Assignment. By this order I have recused myself and withdrawn the prior Order of October 4, 2005. In light of the substantial attention given this case by the Supreme Court, I believe my continued participation would create a distraction of no benefit to the parents or the best interest of the child. Thank you for your attention in all these matters. Please advise if further action is required.
By the way, thanks to you and Mr. Raul Martinez for your show of concern regarding my recent surgery. I expect to be back on full duty in about two weeks.
Yours truly,
Carl E. Lewis
Judge
ORDER OF RECUSAL
On reconsideration of the motion of the Respondents Edward D. and Michelle Wernecke to recuse the presiding judge in this case, the court hereby GRANTS the Motion, withdraws the prior order of October 4, 2005, and requests the Presiding Judge of the local judicial region to assign another judge to preside in all future proceedings in this cause. The court has previously forwarded, pursuant to TRCP 18a, the motion and all opposing and concurring statements.
SIGNED AND ORDERED ENTERED this 13th day of October, 2005
Judge Carl Lewis
JUDGE PRESIDING
posted by Katie W. @ Thursday, October 13, 2005
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
TELEPHONE VISIT WITH KATIE
Since the Texas Supreme Court ruling on Friday I had been calling the CPS office twice each day on Friday and Saturday trying to arrange a phone visit with Katie and to arrange a physical visit with Katie on Sunday. I finally receive a call back from Stella Klein on Sunday saying she would make a schedule for our visits on Monday but at this time there would be no physical visit with Katie. I waited all day Monday for her to call. She finally calls on Monday at 4:45 PM. She says we can have a phone visit with Katie but it has to be done from the CPS office in Corpus Chrisiti. I ask why when conference calls can easily be done from anywhere and we would have to both get off our jobs early to drive 40 miles into Corpus Christi. They could have monitored the call in their office on speaker phone. The meeting was set in CPS office in Corpus from 5:30 to 7pm.
When we get there Stella Klein [CPS] tells us the parents can only visit Katie separately from the 3 boys. I said we want to visit with Katie together as a family. Stella Klein insisted that it had to be her way or there would be no visit at all. I asked her by what authority she was making that decision? Is it in the CPS handbook and where? She would not give us an answer. We did not want to leave our kids without a parent watching them or in CPS care. She said she had another CPS worker that would watch them in another room. We didn't like the situation, but we really wanted to talk to Katie, and we had no choice but to go along with it.
The boys were put in a separate room and we were taken to a conference room. Stella Klein told us what we could and could not say to Katie or she would immediately disconnect the call.
We were told we could not talk about Katie's treatments or the case or the Supreme Court Case.
We did learn from Katie that her white blood cells were very, very low - 0.1 WBC - and that she had to have a platelet transfusion. We were upset because once again CPS had not notified us of this life threatening event. We have received no notices of her treatment plan and schedules. The law requires them to give us notice within 24 hours and 24 hours before each scheduled hospital admission. They have never done this. We don't know what they are doing to our daughter! They want to keep us in the dark.
We had a nice phone visit with Katie and tried to cheer her up. My three boys visited separately with Katie after Michele and I finished. But it is not the same as being there in person. You can't see her, hold her, hug her, or give her a kiss. Upon leaving I asked again for a physical visit for the following Sunday and again I was denied. We were told we could talk by phone again next week and would be contacted. I don't think this is what the Supreme Court of Texas intended.
The boys haven't seen their sister Katie since August 20th and now its been almost 2 months since then. I [Edward] haven't seen Katie in almost a month and a half. Michele saw her about 2 weeks ago. The CPS handbook states that a face to face visit is require at least every 30 days. Again, CPS, isn't following the law and their own rules and guidelines.
CPS is very anti-family. What they say to the press and the public is one thing and what they do behind closed doors in their offices and to the families involved is very different.
When we get there Stella Klein [CPS] tells us the parents can only visit Katie separately from the 3 boys. I said we want to visit with Katie together as a family. Stella Klein insisted that it had to be her way or there would be no visit at all. I asked her by what authority she was making that decision? Is it in the CPS handbook and where? She would not give us an answer. We did not want to leave our kids without a parent watching them or in CPS care. She said she had another CPS worker that would watch them in another room. We didn't like the situation, but we really wanted to talk to Katie, and we had no choice but to go along with it.
The boys were put in a separate room and we were taken to a conference room. Stella Klein told us what we could and could not say to Katie or she would immediately disconnect the call.
We were told we could not talk about Katie's treatments or the case or the Supreme Court Case.
We did learn from Katie that her white blood cells were very, very low - 0.1 WBC - and that she had to have a platelet transfusion. We were upset because once again CPS had not notified us of this life threatening event. We have received no notices of her treatment plan and schedules. The law requires them to give us notice within 24 hours and 24 hours before each scheduled hospital admission. They have never done this. We don't know what they are doing to our daughter! They want to keep us in the dark.
We had a nice phone visit with Katie and tried to cheer her up. My three boys visited separately with Katie after Michele and I finished. But it is not the same as being there in person. You can't see her, hold her, hug her, or give her a kiss. Upon leaving I asked again for a physical visit for the following Sunday and again I was denied. We were told we could talk by phone again next week and would be contacted. I don't think this is what the Supreme Court of Texas intended.
The boys haven't seen their sister Katie since August 20th and now its been almost 2 months since then. I [Edward] haven't seen Katie in almost a month and a half. Michele saw her about 2 weeks ago. The CPS handbook states that a face to face visit is require at least every 30 days. Again, CPS, isn't following the law and their own rules and guidelines.
CPS is very anti-family. What they say to the press and the public is one thing and what they do behind closed doors in their offices and to the families involved is very different.
posted by Katie W. @ Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Monday, October 10, 2005
Texas Supreme Court - Writ of Mandamus
Below is the Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed in the Texas Supreme Court by James A. Pikl, Attorney. There are some display errors when copied to the blog and the footnotes did not copy with the text but the main document is there. If there is a Non Profit Organization that would like to lend support and legal assistance pro bono in this case please contact James Pikl P. O. Box 2939 McKinney, Texas 75070 (214) 544-7000 Fax (214) 544-7001. We need free legal assistance in this case. Edward Wernecke.
IN THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT
In re §
§
Edward Wernecke §
and § CAUSE NO. ____________________
Michele Wernecke, §
§
Relators. §
________________________________________
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT
________________________________________
Submitted by:
James A. Pikl
JAMES A. PIKL, P.C.
P.O. Box 2939
McKinney, Texas 75070
Attorney for Relators
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
Edward Wernecke Relator
Michele Wernecke Relator
James A. Pikl Attorney for Relators (Supreme Court)
JAMES A. PIKL, P.C.
P.O. Box 2939
McKinney, Texas 75070
Luis Corona Attorney for Edward and Michele Wernecke (trial court)
Law Office of Luis J. Corona
P.O. Box 3888
Corpus Christi, Texas 88463
Hon. Carl E. Lewis, Judge, County Court at Law No. 5 Respondent
(Relators are not aware of counsel for Judge Lewis)
Katie Wernecke, a minor child Real Party in Interest
Linda J. Rhodes-Schauer Attorney Ad Litem for Katie Wernecke
615 N. Upper Broadway, Suite 2000
Corpus Christi, Texas 78477
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services Real Party in Interest
Duke Hooten Attorney for Texas Department of Family
701 West 51st Street and Protective Services
Austin, Texas 78751
Annette Sultemeier Co-Guardian Ad Litem for Katie Wernecke
CASA
413 N. Tancahua Street
Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
Lauren C. Ranly Co-Guardian Ad Litem for Katie Wernecke
P.O. Box 900
Corpus Christi, Texas 78403
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Identity of Parties and Counsel ii
Index of Authorities v
Statement of the Case vii
Statement of Jurisdiction viii
Issues Presented ix
Statement of Facts 1
Argument
1. Mandamus is available in this situation to correct abuses of discretion
by the trial court, and because the trial court’s orders infringe fundamental
Constitutional rights of Relators 8
2. Respondent abused his discretion and commit errors of law by
entering his orders dated July 8, 2005 and September 20, 2005 without
holding evidentiary hearings in which he could have found, by clear and
convincing evidence, that Edward and Michele Wernecke were unfit
parents (July 8), or that their possible future communications with Katie
Wernecke were likely to endanger Katie’s health or safety (September 20) 12
1. The “liberty” interests protected by the Due Process clause of the
14th Amendment include parents’ rights to choose the medical care
being provided to their children, and include the rights to refuse unwanted
medical treatment and to get second opinions 13
2. The order dated September 20, 2005 violates the U.S. Constitution
because it deprives the Relators, or some of them, of their fundamental
constitutional rights of freedom of speech (Amendment 1), freedom of
association (Amendment 1), freedom to parent their children (Amendments
5, 14 and penumbra), to be free from illicit government coercion and force
(substantive due process, Amendments 5 and 14), and because the hearing at which the order was entered did not comport with binding rules of procedural due process (Amendments 5 and 14) 20
3. By ordering Michele Wernecke to only speak to Katie using language
approved by the court, the court abused its discretion by mandating
certain speech, which violates Michele’s Constitutional rights 28
Conclusion and Prayer 29
Appendix end
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Cruzan v. Director, Mo. Dept. Of Health,
487 U.S. 261, 110 S.Ct. 2841, 111 L.Ed. 2d 224 (1990) 13
Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. 1985) 8
FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 110 S.Ct. 596, 107 L.Ed. 2d 603 (1990) 23
In re G.M., 596 S.W.2d 846 (Tex. 1980) 11, 19, 21
Matter of Hofbauer, 47 N.Y.2d 648, 419 N.Y.S.2d 936, 393 N.E.2d 1009 (1979) 13
Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) 18
In re J.R., ___ S.W.3d ___, 2005 WL 1771721
(Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet. history) 18
Kilroy v. Kilroy, 137 S.W.3d 780 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.) 8, 9
Low v. King, 867 S.W.2d 141 (Tex. App. – Beaumont 1993, no writ) 9
In re McCoy, 52 S.W.3d 297 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 2001, orig. proc.) vii, 8
In the Matter of Noah Maxin, Case No. JU-124918 (Court of Common Pleas,
Stark County, Ohio, 2002) 14, 16, 19
Neiswander v. Bailey, 645 S.W.2d 835 (Tex. App. – Dallas 1982, no writ) 23
In re Ostrofsky, 112 S.W.3d 925 (Tex. App. – Houston [14ht Dist.] 2003, no pet.) 8
Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 99 S.Ct. 2493, 61 L.Ed.2d 101 (1979) 18
Perry v. Levegood, ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2005 WL 2296716 (E.D. Pa. 9/21/05) 15
San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez,
411 U.S. 1, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 36 L.Ed. 2d 16 (1973) 10
In re S.A.P., ___ S.W.3d ___, 2005 WL 1479007
(Tex. App. – Waco 2005, no pet. history) 24
In re Santos, 2005 WL 2082989 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi, no pet.)
(not designated for publication) 8
In re S.P., 168 S.W.3d 197, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2005 WL 1249304
(Tex. App. – Dallas 2005, no pet. history) 12
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed. 2d 49 (2000) 22, 23
In re Vernor, 94 S.W.3d 201 (Tex. App. – Austin 2002, orig. proc.) 10
State in Interest of E.G., 657 So.2d 1094 (La. App. 1995) 13
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) 8
Walsh v. Ferguson, 712 S.W.2d 885 (Tex. App. – Austin 1986, no writ) 10
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette,
319 U.S. 624, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 87 L.Ed. 2d 1628 (1943) 29
In re W.J.H., 111 S.W.3d 707 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 2003, no pet.) 13
Constitutional Provisions
U.S. Constitution, Amendment 1 21, 26
U.S Constitution, Amendment 5 21
U.S. Constitution, Amendment 14 10
Texas Constitution, art. 1, section 8 9, 25
Texas Constitution, art. 5, sec. 3(a) ix
Statutes
Texas Family Code §161.001 12, 21, 22, 24
Texas Government Code §22.001 ix
Texas Probate Code §875(a) 15
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
(1) Concise Description of the Nature of the Underlying Proceeding.
This case arises out of a proceeding filed by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (“DFPS”) in County Court at Law No. 5, Nueces County, Texas in June 2005. DFPS originally filed the case alleging that Edward and Michele Wernecke were not acting as good parents to their four children.
DFPS sought and obtained a court order dated July 8, 2005 which allowed it to remove Katie from her parents and place her in foster care. Apparently, either on his own motion or at the insistence of counsel for the DFPS, trial court judge Carl E. Lewis, Respondent, also entered an order (in the form or an injunction) dated September 20, 2005, in which he terminated in total Edward Wernecke’s ability to communicate with his daughter, and severely limited Michele Wernecke’s ability to do so. The orders of July 8, 2005 and September 20, 2005 are the subject of this Petition.
(2) Respondent:
Hon. Carl E. Lewis
Judge, County Court at Law No. 5
Nueces County, Corpus Christi, Texas
(3) Concise Description of the Respondent’s Action From Which the Relator Seeks Relief.
Relator seeks a writ of mandamus requiring the trial court to vacate the temporary orders issued by Respondent dated July 8, 2005 and September 20, 2005. These orders impair and destroy the fundamental constitutional rights of the Relators to engage in free speech, free association, family relations, and to be free from illegitimate, governmental coercion and force (substantive due process, equal protection, and liberty). The orders also violate fundamental statutory and constitutional rights of procedural due process in that they were issued without a proper hearing, they are based on the wrong burden or proof, and they are not supported by legally-sufficient evidence.
(4) If Writ of Habeas Corpus is Sought, a Statement Describing How and Where the Relator is Being Deprived of Liberty.
N/A.
(5) If the Petition is Being Filed in the Supreme Court.
A. Date petition was filed in Court of Appeals: September 23, 2005
B. Court and Justices: 13th Court of Appeals;
Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Castillo and Garza
C. Author of any Opinion: The sole “Memorandum Opinion” was issued per curiam.
D. Citation to the court’s opinion: No citation available.
E. Disposition by court of appeals: Writ denied.
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This Court has jurisdiction over this original proceeding in accordance with Texas Government Code §22.001, and Texas Constitution, art. 5, sec. 3(a). See In re McCoy, 52 S.W.3d 297, 301 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 2001, orig. proc.).
ISSUES PRESENTED
3. Is mandamus available in this situation to correct abuses of discretion
by the trial court and because the trial court’s orders infringe fundamental
Constitutional rights?
4. Did Respondent abuse his discretion and commit errors of law by entering his orders dated July 8, 2005 and September 20, 2005 without holding evidentiary hearings in which he could have found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Edward and Michele Wernecke were unfit parents (July 8), or that their possible future communications with Katie Wernecke were likely to endanger Katie’s health or safety (September 20)?
1. Do the “liberty” interests protected by the Due Process clause of the
14th Amendment include parents’ rights to choose the medical care
being provided to their children, and include the rights to refuse unwanted
medical treatment and to get second opinions?
2. Does the order dated September 20, 2005 violates the U.S. Constitution
because it deprives the Relators, or some of them, of their fundamental
constitutional rights of freedom of speech (Amendment 1), freedom of
association (Amendment 1), freedom to parent their children (Amendments
5, 14 and penumbra), to be free from illicit government coercion and force
(substantive due process, Amendments 5 and 14), and because the hearing at
which the order was entered did not comport with binding rules of
procedural due process (Amendments 5 and 14)?
3. By ordering Michele Wernecke to only speak to Katie using language
approved by the court, did the court abuse its discretion by mandating certain
speech and thus violate Michele’s Constitutional rights?
STATEMENT OF FACTS
This statement of facts is supported by the Affidavits of Edward David Wernecke and Michele Wernecke, found in the Appendix at Tabs 5(1) and 5(2). More-detailed facts are contained in those affidavits; the following is a brief summary of the facts germane to the mandamus.
In late 2004, Katie Wernecke, then a 12-year-old girl, became sick. On January 7, 2005, Katie was admitted to Driscoll hospital in Corpus Christi, Texas to determine what was wrong with her. A biopsy was performed, and by January 13, 2005, the doctors diagnosed Katie as having Hodgkin’s Disease.
Beginning on January 15, 2005, at the instance of her parents, Edward and Michele Wernecke, Katie began multiple rounds of chemotherapy for treatment of the cancer. Numerous CT and PET scans were also performed on Katie over the course of the next several months.
On May 12, 2005, Doctor Alter, Katie’s main doctor, talked to Katie without either of the Werneckes being present. He told Katie that she needed radiation treatments or she might die. On May 24, 2005, CPS called and asked the Werneckes what they were going to do about the radiation therapy. The Werneckes told CPS that they wanted to do another PET scan to see if the cancer was still shrinking, and would then determine if the radiation therapy would be authorized.
On May 27, 2005, CPS worker Kim Garcia called the Werneckes. In regard to the Wernecke’s desire for another PET scan and their consequent delay in ordering radiation therapy for Katie, Ms. Garcia refused to approve a new scan, and said: “We’re calling it in as medical neglect. You have ten days to make the radiation appointment.” Michele Wernecke complained about being forced into consenting to this treatment without further testing or an objective second opinion, and said she wanted to talk to a lawyer.
On June 1, 2005, Michele tried to call numerous oncologists to arrange to get a second opinion. She asked Dr. Alter for a referral, but he never gave her one.
On June 1, 2005, the police came to the Wernecke home to pick up Katie. However, on that day, Katie was in Kingsville visiting her grandmother. Not wanting to leave empty-handed, CPS instead absconded with the three Wernecke boys, claiming that their house was in a dangerous condition. To come to this conclusion, CPS workers mistook a watermelon seed for rat feces, and thought that needle-less syringes on the kitchen counter posed some sort of threat to the boys, even though the Werneckes live on a ranch, the boys are around farm and ranch equipment all the time, and the syringes were not even armed or loaded.
On June 4, 2005, without a warrant, law enforcement entered through several ranches and captured Michele and Katie. The police arrested Michele for child endangerment.
At the first hearing in court on June 8, 2005, Judge Lewis told CPS to “give the boys back” to the Werneckes. CPS performed a “face-saving inspection” of the Wernecke home on June 9, 2005, and the boys were returned to them on June 10, 2005. However, Katie was placed in a foster home under the direction of CPS. At this time, the Werneckes lost their right to make medical decisions for Katie and their three sons.
Another hearing took place on June 10, 2005. In this hearing, the doctors produced the results of the PET scan which supposedly showed Katie’s cancer was still alive but was shrinking.
The Werneckes were then back in court on June 15 and 16, 2005. The purpose of this hearing was to decide what to do with Katie. Both Michele and Edward testified. The doctors also testified and said that Katie needed regular chemo and radiation treatment to ensure the cancer was eradicated. The Werneckes both said they would allow and encourage Katie to undergo cancer treatments, including regular chemo and radiation. High-dose chemotherapy was never mentioned at these hearings, and the Werneckes refused to consent to radiation without further study of the alternative treatments that might be available for Katie.
The order dated July 8, 2005 that was issued following the hearings on June 15 and 16, 2005, contains no factual findings regarding safety or health reasons for removing the Werneckes boys from their parents, and contains only conclusory and vague findings that “Edward Wernecke was in great conflict with Katie’s doctors as to her treatment and acted unreasonably in the care and treatment of his daughter Katie Wernecke.” This order stripped the Werneckes of all their parental rights as to medical decisions for Katie and the Werneckes boys until further order of the court. See 7/8/05 Order, Appendix Tab 5, page 6.
On June 20, 2005, more CT and PET scans were done on Katie. On June 22, 2005, a bone marrow scan was done. Both of these tests showed negative as to active cancer. On June 23, 2005, apparently not satisfied with the CT and PET scans, the doctors performed six separate biopsies on Katie. All of these biopsies also showed negative for active cancer.
Katie went back to her foster home on June 24, 2005. On June 29, 2005, Stella Klein with CPS called and said they were going to do a more intense biopsy through Katie’s throat or through her ribs. Michele refused to allow this surgery since all 6 biopsies had come back negative and the PET and CT scans had showed negative for active cancer. CPS then reported to the court that Michele was being “uncooperative.”
June 30, 2005, CPS said the doctors had to go into Katie’s side and deflate her lung in order to do more biopsies. This surgery was done against the Wernecke’s wishes. During this surgery, the doctors removed almost 90% of Katie’s thymus gland. A biopsy on the thymus showed negative for cancer.
On July 8, 2005, the Werneckes first heard about a high-dose chemotherapy and radiation proposal being made for Katie. This occurred at a meeting with Katie, Dr. Nunez (a radiologist), child activists, Dr. Wells, CPS personnel (Stella Klein), and Katie’s foster mom. Contrary to the biopsies and scans, the doctors said in this meeting that Katie’s cancer was positive and they showed some slides. “More aggressive” is how they termed the cancer they said was in Katie’s body. The Werneckes asked a bunch of questions. The doctors explained to the Wernenckes and Katie what they were going to do. The doctors were asked what they would do if the PET scan then came back negative. They said in that instance, they would do only two rounds of chemo, regular dose, but if the PET scan came back positive, they would do four rounds of regular chemo, then high-dose chemo-therapy, and then radiation. They also explained some of the negative side-effects such high-does chemo and radiation would have on Katie’s body, such as possible heart and liver failure, kidney failure, sterilization, higher susceptibility later to cancer.
On July 8, 2005, the order was issued by the trial court following the June 15 and 16, 2005 hearing. However, Katie has been in CPS custody since early June 2005.
On August 23, 2005, Katie’s doctors did another CT scan, followed by another PET scan on August 25, 2005. On August 30, 2005, the Werneckes consulted with Katie’s doctors on the next steps in Katie’s treatments. This meeting was attended by Katie, Dr. Wells, Dr. Nunez, a social worker, and others. The doctors explained high dose chemotherapy in detail, and said it would be needed even though all tests, scans, and biopsies had come back negative. They explained many of the potential side effects of high-dose chemotherapy. Katie was there, hearing everything. Even though Katie’s cancer was dead and shrinking, the doctors still wanted to do this high-risk treatment, remarking when asked the reason: “just in case one cancer cell is left alive.” At the meeting, Katie said: “If they are going to kill the last cell with high dose chemo, why am I doing radiation that is supposed to do the same thing?” No answer was provided to this very insightful question.
On September 6, 2005, everyone was back in court. Doctors testified that Katie would die without the high-dose treatment. The judge said “how long before she dies,” apparently trying to figure out what to do. When the doctors agreed that Katie’s cooperation was essential to her treatment, the judge said: “Sounds to me like you [CPS] don’t have a case, give the child back [to her parents].” CPS then objected, asking the judge not to do that. Daniel Horne, the Werneckes’ other trial counsel, suggested that he would try to get second opinions by Friday, September 9, 2005. CPS also asked the judge to cut off all communications between Katie and her parents, obviously planning to institute a program of brainwashing Katie, and they didn’t want the Werneckes tampering with their plans. The judge refused to cut off contact.
On September 9, 2005, the court had another hearing. There had not been enough time to get the promised second opinion, so no opinion was provided to the court at that time. The judge said to the Werneckes: “You have nothing [no second opinions], you have run out of time.” The court went into recess while the judge again spoke to Katie on the telephone, ex parte and off the record. During the break in the case, Linda Schauer, attorney ad litem for Katie, told the Werneckes: “The court is going cut off all your parental rights unless you cooperate.” The judge came back in from the recess and said he was going to go talk to Katie in person the next week.
Katie called her parents on Sept 16, 2005 and said the judge was there, “What do I do?” They told her: “Calm down, just tell the judge what you want.” On September 16, 2005, an order was signed saying there would be a hearing on September 19, 2005.
There was a hearing on September 19, 2005. That hearing was not completed but was postponed due to Judge Lewis getting sick. The parties were told they would be contacted when the hearing would resume. At this hearing, the Werneckes did not get to testify, and no other testimony was taken or evidence submitted. On September 20, 2005, the parties learned that Judge Lewis had experienced a heart attack or other problem on September 19, and had to have open-heart surgery that night. Apparently just out of surgery, on September 20, 2005, Judge Lewis signed an order terminating virtually all of the Werneckes parental rights, including their right to communicate with or visit Katie, with limited exceptions for Michele being able to communicate with Katie only in person, with CPS personnel permission, and while they were present. The purported reason for terminating their communication with Katie was to prevent the Werneckes from influencing her not to undergo the treatment. However, there is no evidence in the record supporting a finding that either of the Werneckes had ever attempted to influence Katie to refuse treatment.
The Werneckes sought mandamus relief from the July 8 and September 20 orders in the Court of Appeals, but were denied. This Petition followed.
ARGUMENT
1. Mandamus is available in this situation to correct abuses of discretion by the trial court, and because the trial court’s orders infringe fundamental Constitutional rights.
Mandamus is used to correct a trial court’s abuse of discretion. “Interference through the issuance of a writ of mandamus is justified ‘when parties stand to lose their substantial rights.’” Id., citing Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 842 (Tex. 1992). Mandamus relief is available if the trial court abuses its discretion and there is no adequate remedy by appeal. Id. A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts without reference to any guiding rules or principles, or in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner. Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 (Tex. 1985). “Mandamus relief is available if the trial court abuses, either in resolving factual issues or in determining legal principles.” In re Ostrofsky, 112 S.W.3d 925, 928 (Tex. App. – Houston [14ht Dist.] 2003, no pet.). If the argument is that the trial court erred in “resolving factual disputes,” then it must be the case that there are disputed factual issues in the case. Because the DFPS disputes many of the facts set forth herein, mandamus is proper under the circumstances of this case, both specifically and generally.
It is settled law in Texas that temporary orders issued in a family law case are not immediately appealable. They are, however, reviewable by mandamus. See In re McCoy, 52 S.W.3d 297, 301 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 2001, orig. proc.); In re Santos, 2005 WL 2082989 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi, no pet.)(not designated for publication)(“Mandamus is the appropriate vehicle to challenge the trial court’s temporary orders in pending family law litigation, as temporary orders under the Texas Family Code are not subject to interlocutory appeal”).
Mandamus relief is also generally available in circumstances of manifest and urgent necessity, such as we have here. Kilroy v. Kilroy, 137 S.W.3d 780, 784 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.). Mandamus properly lies to correct invalid prior restraints on constitutional rights to freedom of speech. Low v. King, 867 S.W.2d 141, 142 (Tex. App. 00 Beaumont 1993, no writ)(issuing mandamus to require trial court to rescind orders that infringed constitutional free-speech rights granted by Texas Constitution, art. 1, sec. 8).
If the order of September 20 is not set aside, the fundamental constitutional rights of the Werneckes to freedom or speech, of association, and to parent their children, will be irretrievably lost. If the order of July 8 is not set aside, the Werneckes fundamental constitutional rights to parent their children and make critical medical decisions for Katie will be irretrievably lost. These rights cannot be infringed by state action unless the orders infringing them pass strict-scrutiny analysis, which the subject orders cannot do.
Ordinary mandamus is available here. In a typical mandamus proceeding, the issue for the appellate court is whether the trial court orders were made without reference to any guiding rules or principles, or whether they are arbitrary or unreasonable. Naturally, this involves examination of the alleged “guiding rules or principles” under which the trial court supposedly issued its orders, followed by examination of the orders themselves to determine if they are either arbitrary or unreasonable. Here, there are no stated “guiding rules or principles” that could possibly have been employed by the trial court in imposing a full-blown prior restraint on the free speech rights of the Relators following the September 19, 2005 hearing (the full transcript of which is attached hereto, Appendix Tab 5). No facts are stated. No statute is cited. No case law is quoted. Mandamus lies to correct this error.
Constitutional issues allow mandamus here. Mandamus will also lie to correct a trial court’s deprivation of fundamental constitutional rights, such as is happening here. In re Vernor, 94 S.W.3d 201, 209-10 (Tex. App. – Austin 2002, orig. proc.). In constitutional cases, particularly involving prior restraints like the September 20 order, and involving the deprivation of parental rights like the July 8 order, the state’s action comes to this Court under a heavy presumption that it is unconstitutional, and the burden is fully on the state to show that the orders (1) advance or further a (2) compelling state interest, and that the orders were (3) the least-restrictive means for achieving that purpose. U.S. Constitution Amend. 14; San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 17, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 36 L.Ed. 2d 16 (1973). There are thus three required pieces of the analysis: an interest, a means, and a proximate connection (“advance or further” or “achieve”) between the means and the interest.
Relators concede for purposes of this Petition that the protection of children who are abused or neglected is a compelling state interest or goal. But even if Katie Wernecke were “abused or neglected” (which she is not), that is only one-third of the required analysis under the Constitution. The state must also prove that the restraint was the least-restrictive means possible for achieving that goal, and it must prove that the means employed (in this case, a court order) is actually effective to further that goal.
The second and third phases of this burden were never met in this case. The September 20 order has not been shown to be the least-restrictive means available, nor has it been shown that the order is designed to fulfill or effect the state’s interest in preventing any abuse of Katie Wernecke. Surely, the trial court merely claiming that its order does this is not sufficient under the strict-scrutiny analysis this Court must employ here; if that sufficed, strict scrutiny would be a thin barrier indeed. Since these prongs of the test have not been fulfilled, the presumption of unconstitutionality remains, and the September 20 order must be stricken.
Here, for every hour that passes, Edward Wernecke and Michele Wernecke (and their daughter Katie Wernecke) are losing—irreparably and irretrievably—their Constitutional rights to communicate with each other, to exercise their rights of freedom of speech and freedom of association, and to exercise their liberty interests to engage in normal familial relations, including the rights to parent and the right to make intimate, personal medical decisions without undue government interference. These rights are among the most important and pre-eminent in our legal system. It is beyond dispute that the loss of these rights cannot wait until the end of trial or for an ordinary appeal, especially in the situation the Werneckes find themselves in.
Mandamus was made precisely for situations just like this one.
2. Respondent abused his discretion and commit errors of law by entering his orders dated July 8, 2005 and September 20, 2005 without holding evidentiary hearings in which he could have found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Edward and Michele Wernecke were unfit parents (July 8), or that their possible future communications with Katie Wernecke were likely to endanger Katie’s health or safety (September 20).
Basic due process requires that a court hold an evidentiary hearing before deciding disputed matters pending in its court. In re S.P., 168 S.W.3d 197, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2005 WL 1249304 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2005, no pet. history). Under the Texas Family Code, before a person’s parental rights can be terminated—in whole or in part—the court is required to hold an evidentiary hearing, and the proponent must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that specific grounds exist to adversely affect those rights. See Texas Family Code §161.001; In re G.M., 596 S.W.2d 846, 847 (Tex. 1980)(“Hereafter, the ‘clear and convincing evidence’ standard of proof will be required in all proceedings for involuntary termination of the parent-child relationship”).
In this case, it is undisputed that there was no evidentiary hearing whatsoever at which evidence was taken showing facts sufficient to support termination of the Werneckes’ parental rights as was accomplished with the September 20 order—under any burden of proof. In addition, there was insufficient evidence presented to the trial court to support the order entered July 8.
Texas courts have opined on the type and amount of proof that suffices to terminate parental rights. In In re W.J.H., 111 S.W.3d 707 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 2003, no pet.), the court found evidence sufficient to terminate a mother’s parental rights when she knowingly placed her children in conditions that endangered their lives and failed to provide any medical care for them whatsoever. However, in that case, the mother was completely neglecting the children; there was not merely a disagreement with the state about what form of medical care was best for the children. In virtually every case in the country in which parental rights have been terminated for failure to provide adequate medical care, the evidence was that NO care was being provided, not that alternative care was being provided that the state simply disagreed with. See, e.g., State in Interest of E.G., 657 So.2d 1094 (La. App. 1995).
There are no cases in Texas which support what the trial court did in this case. As such, the orders of July 8 and September 20 lack substantive guidelines or principles informing their existence, their entry constitutes an abuse of discretion, and they must be vacated.
3.The “liberty” interests protected by the Due Process clause of the
14th Amendment include parents’ rights to choose the medical care
being provided to their children, and include the rights to refuse unwanted medical treatment and to get second opinions.
In Cruzan v. Director, Mo. Dept. Of Health, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a parent’s constitutional rights to determine medical care for their children includes the right to refuse medical treatment. There would never be an issue on this point to be decided—in this case or any other—unless there existed a state-sponsored, contrary desire that the medical treatment “should be” dispensed. When these types of conflicts exist between what the state says is best and what a fit parent says is best, the question becomes “whose wishes prevail, the state’s or the parent’s?”
In a case directly on point to our situation, the New York Court of Appeals held that parents had the right to decide which medical treatment was right for their children, even where the parents’ decision was contrary to their child’s treating physician’s “mainstream” medical opinion. In Matter of Hofbauer, the parents rejected recommendations that their 8-year-old son undergo “traditional” high-dose chemotherapy and radiation treatment (similar treatment now being recommended for Katie), but instead chose to have their child undergo nutritional and metabolic therapy for Hodgkin’s Disease. The trial court found the child was “neglected” and removed him from his parents’ care, finding them “unfit” to care for him. The intermediate appellate court affirmed. But New York’s highest court reversed, finding that the parents could not be found to be “unfit” since they were pursuing or attempting to pursue some course of treatment, albeit treatment different from that which was recommended by one particular doctor. The Hofbauer case provides compelling and substantial support for the Werneckes’ position in this case.
In another case directly on point to the present dispute, a proper analysis of a parent’s right to choose alternative treatment for their minor children was done by the Court of Common Pleas in Ohio. In Matter of Noah Maxin, Case No. JU-124918 (Court of Common Pleas, Stark County, Ohio, 2002), the court denied the state’s request to declare Noah a “neglected” child just because his parents were electing to pursue alternative cancer treatments rather than subject Noah to the dangers of conventional chemotherapy. This opinion is well worth reading (a copy of the opinion is attached in the Appendix to this brief; Tab 5(5)). It shows a thoughtful and constitutionally-sound analysis of a situation identical to this one, and stands in stark contrast to the superficial analysis reflected in the orders of July 8 and September 20.
The Werneckes have recently obtained a letter from the Center for the Improvement of Human Functioning in Wichita, Kansas. The letter is from Dr. Ronald E. Hunningbake, M.D. It suggests that Katie is a candidate for the ascorbic acid and nutritional therapy provided by the Center. The letter is from a licensed physician. It includes a copy of the study from the PNAS website cited at footnote 35. (Copy attached at Appendix, Tab 5(4)).
These materials were not available to the Werneckes in June 2005, and so they were not presented to the trial court. At the very least, the Werneckes are entitled to pursue this alternative form of treatment for Katie, which the subject trial-court orders are denying them the opportunity to do. By granting this Petition, the Court restore the Wernecke’s constitutional rights and make this possible.
Here, the trial court has apparently decided that the Werneckes are, at least in part, “unfit” based solely on their decision not to adopt or allow the medical treatment being proposed by the state, or because they wanted to get second opinions or pursue alternative treatments for Katie. See order dated July 8. But if mere disagreement with the state’s proposal renders a parent “unfit” to make such decisions, then the right to make such decisions is altogether illusory.
“If you (parents) agree with us (the state), then you are free to make the decision on your child’s medical care. But if you disagree with us, then you are unfit and we will take your children away from you and follow our own decision.”
This is absurd reasoning, but it is the state’s argument in this case. At least, that appears to be the only argument they presented to the trial court before obtaining the July 8 order, since the only “unfitness” specified in that order concerns a “conflict” between Edward Wernecke and Katie’s doctors over treatment decisions. As such, the July 8 order is constitutionally infirm, and will not in any way support the September 20 order.
The logical reach of this case. This case has implications far beyond who makes medical decisions for minors. If any person, including an adult, is declared “incompetent” to make his or her own medical decisions, then a guardian can be appointed for the purpose of making those decision. Imagine the situation where an adult disagrees with a prescribed course of treatment suggested by a doctor. If that disagreement is in and of itself sufficient evidence to render that adult “incompetent” to make his own medical decisions such that a guardian must be appointed to make those decisions for him, then we have finally arrived at the place where the “all-powerful, all-knowing” state government is totally in charge of all medical decisions for all citizens—minors and adults.
Before the Court disregards this logical conclusion, the Court must be able to logically distinguish the case of a disagreeable adult (presumed to be legally entitled to make his or her own medical decisions) from a disagreeable parent (presumed to be legally entitled to make medical decisions for his or her children). Here, the parents and guardians of Katie Wernecke, the people with the ostensible legal right to make medical decisions for Katie, have had a disagreement with the state on a prescribed course of medical treatment. On that basis—and that basis alone—the Werneckes have been stripped of their right to make those medical decisions.
Another logical syllogism is germane to this point: the right to make medical decisions must include the right to refuse medical care, which care must include treatment which is being recommended by a doctor. Cruzan, Maxin, Hofbauer, all supra. The right to refuse treatment, or to choose between alternatives, must also includes the right to gather and analyze sufficient information to intelligently exercise that right. That is, in order to be intelligently informed, one needs to have access to all reasonably-available medical opinions germane to the treatment or condition.
Here, the Werneckes are being deprived of access to Katie (by both orders under review), access which is required to be able to get second opinions about treatment options. By depriving the Werneckes of the ability to get Katie evaluated by other doctors (other than clones of the present doctors), the state is essentially saying “it’s our way or no way.” The state is also cutting off the Werneckes’ ability to intelligently decide, as a family, whether the state-recommended treatment is or is not the best solution for their daughter’s condition.
In our case, not only had the Werneckes provided proper care to Katie for almost five months, but their decision to seek second opinions relating to “follow up” care made while Katie appears to be in remission, cannot be found to be “no care” or “medical neglect” under any principled definition of those terms. Rather, what we have here is a mere disagreement between the state and the Werneckes—not relating to care—but relating to whether there is time to get second opinions and, if discovered, whether those alternative courses of treatment might be profitably followed.
There has been no “neglect” of Katie’s health care by the Werneckes. Indeed, the record in the case affirmatively shows that the Werneckes engaged qualified medical personnel for over five months in treating Katie’s cancer with chemotherapy treatments. The issue now before the Court only arose when the Werneckes—including Katie—wanted to get second opinions as to her “follow up” care and possible alternative treatments once medical scans and biopsies showed the tumor had been killed and was shrinking in size.
The doctors at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center are advocating one regimen of follow up care that they admit is extreme and hazardous. The likely side effects of this purported “cure” include the virtual certainty that Katie will be rendered sterile, great enhancement of her chances of contracting infections, possible irreparable damage to her liver, kidneys, and other vital organs, increase in the possibility of her contracting other forms of cancer, including breast cancer and leukemia, and the statistically-significant possibility that Katie might die from the treatment itself. The state’s recommended “cure” may indeed be worse than the disease in this case.
On the other hand, Katie’s cancer appears to be in remission. Numerous biopsies and scans have revealed that her tumor is dead and shrinking. She appears healthy and on the mend. There is no exigent circumstance under which she must endure the dangerous, life-altering medical regimen recommended by DFPS doctors at this time. Instead, there is time for her to pursue—or at least to investigate—alternative forms of follow-up treatment that do not carry the same predictable and certain side effects that the high-dose chemotherapy and radiation treatments the DFPS doctors insist upon inflicting on her. However, the trial court’s orders are standing in the way of Katie’s examination by other doctors.
The Werneckes want to pursue, or at least consider, using high-dosage, intravenous ascorbic acid and nutritional therapy treatment for Katie at the Center for the Improvement of Human Functioning in Wichita, Kansas. This alternative course of treatment is available to and has been used by persons in Katie’s circumstance, and the procedure is currently undergoing several clinical tests across the country. Therefore, just as in the Hofbauer and Maxin cases, the Werneckes cannot be found to be “neglecting” Katie just because they want to pursue alternative treatment protocols.
Any finding that the Werneckes were hampering or interfering in medical treatment “necessary to save Katie’s life” is completely unsupported by the record. Since this vital part of the state’s proof is missing, the trial court abused its discretion and committed an error of law in terminating in part the Wernecke’s parental rights by the July 8 order.
The orders of July 8 and September 20 are both based on legally-deficient, erroneous, contradictory, and unsupported “findings” that the Werneckes were “neglecting” Katie’s medical care. Since there is no support (insufficient evidence) in the record for those orders, they must be vacated.
4. The order dated September 20, 2005 violates the U.S. Constitution because it deprives the Relators, or some of them, of their fundamental constitutional rights of freedom of speech (Amendment 1), freedom of association (Amendment 1), freedom to parent their children (Amendments 5, 14 and penumbra), to be free from illicit government coercion and force (substantive due process, Amendments 5 and 14), and because the hearing at which the order was entered did not comport with binding rules of procedural due process (Amendments 5 and 14).
“The natural right that exists between parents and children is one of constitutional dimensions.” In re J.R., ___ S.W.3d ___, 2005 WL 1771721 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet. history)(citing Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18, 20 (Tex. 1985)). Included under this rubric is the nearly-inviolate constitutional right of parents to make medical decisions for their children. This proposition is so well-established in American constitutional law as to be beyond all rational dispute. Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 600, 99 S.Ct. 2493, 61 L.Ed.2d 101 (1979).
This right springs from the 1st Amendment freedom of association and the rights to privacy, liberty, and procedural and substantive due process. This right can be infringed by state action only in the narrowest of circumstances, and only following strict-scrutiny analysis.
Because the termination of parental rights is so serious, termination proceedings should be strictly construed in favor of the parents, and termination is only possible from proof by clear and convincing evidence that conduct prohibited by Texas Family Code §161.001 has occurred, and termination is in the “best interests of the child.” Id; In re G.M., 596 S.W.2d 846, 847 (Tex. 1980). The heightened burden under the Family Code (i.e., clear and convincing evidence; Tex. Fam. Code §161.001) changes the appellate review process:
In conducting such a legal-sufficiency review, a court must look at all the evidence in the light most favorable to the termination findings to determine whether a reasonable trier of fact could have formed a firm belief or conviction that these finding are true. To give appropriate deference to the factfinder's conclusions and the role of a court conducting a legal-sufficiency review, looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment means that a reviewing court must assume that the factfinder resolved disputed facts in favor of its findings if a reasonable factfinder could do so. Furthermore, a reviewing court should disregard all evidence that a reasonable factfinder could have disbelieved or found to have been incredible. This does not mean that a reviewing court must disregard all evidence that does not support the findings in question. Disregarding undisputed facts that do not support the finding could skew the analysis of whether there is clear and convincing evidence. If, after conducting its legal-sufficiency review of the record evidence, a court determines that a reasonable factfinder could not form a firm belief or conviction that the matter that must be proven is true, then that court must conclude that the evidence is legally insufficient. In re J.R., supra (emphasis added).
What the trial court has done is severed the lines of communication and restricted the Wernecke’s rights to freedom of speech and association through which such second opinions might be found and considered. The trial court has set itself up as the final authority on what medical treatment is “right” for Katie, and has made it virtually impossible to challenge that decision—even though there appears to be sufficient time available to pursue other treatment plans or possibilities.
In Troxel v. Granville, the U.S. Supreme Court discussed and affirmed a dozen cases discussing the history and foundational importance of this right:
The liberty interest at issue in this case – the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children – is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court. More than 75 years ago, in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 401, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923), we held that the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right of parents to "establish a home and bring up children" and "to control the education of their own." Two years later, in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534-535, 45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed. 1070 (1925), we again held that the "liberty of parents and guardians" includes the right "to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control." We explained in Pierce that "[t]he child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations." Id., at 535, 45 S.Ct. 571. We returned to the subject in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 64 S.Ct. 438, 88 L.Ed. 645 (1944), and again confirmed that there is a constitutional dimension to the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. "It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder." Id., at 166, 64 S.Ct. 438.
The trial court has not fulfilled even one of the procedural requirements necessary before fundamental constitutional rights such as the right to parent may be infringed. As such, the orders of July 8 and September 20 must be vacated.
Lack of Procedural Due Process. The hearing from which the September 20 order issued was not instigated by a state motion asking that the Wernecke’s parental rights be terminated. The state thus shouldered no burden of proving the criteria under Texas Family Code §161.001. Instead, it appears that Judge Lewis undertook to deprive the Werneckes of their valuable and irreplaceable constitutional rights sua sponte.
With no proponent carrying the burden of proof to support termination of the Wernecke’s parental rights, no proof was submitted and no “burden” was enforced. This means that the Werneckes were essentially faced with a raw exercise of judicial power against which they were powerless to fight. This is the very definition of “violation of due process.” The judge essentially became the Wernecke’s adversary, considered who-knows-what evidence (there is no record of what evidence he supposedly considered, if any), and “found for himself” on the merits which resulted in issuance of the subject order on 9/20/05. There was no real “hearing” in any ordinary sense of that term, no evidence received, and no burden fulfilled.
Since the Werneckes have been deprived of fundamental due process, and because the state has not met its burden of proof under Texas law, the order of September 20 must be vacated.
As for the hearing on June 15 and 16, 2005, not much more can be said. While the Werneckes were afforded the opportunity to testify at that hearing, the state was not required to prove their unfitness as parents by clear and convincing evidence—or at least there is no proof that this standard was employed. In the July 8 order, the trial court never says it employed a clear and convincing evidence standard, nor does it employ the words describing use of such a standard: “whether the evidence is such that a reasonable factfinder could reasonably form a firm belief or conviction about the truth of the State’s allegations.” In re S.A.P., ___ S.W.3d ___, 2005 WL 1479007 (Tex. App. – Waco 2005, no pet. history). No findings of the court contained in the July 8 order show that the Court employed a clear-and-convincing-evidence burden. Therefore, since this critical, statutory burden is not proved by the record, it must be assumed that the court employed only a preponderance standard in derogation of controlling Texas law.
Freedom of Speech and Family Rights. Freedom of speech is guarantied by the Texas and federal constitutions to every citizen. See U.S. Constitution, Amendment 1; Texas Constitution, article 1, section 8.
By ordering Edward and Michele Wernecke not to speak to their daughter, or by depriving them of the ability to freely speak to her, the trial court has issued an order which constitutes a prior restraint of the Wernecke’s speech. Not only is this particular restraint not content-neutral, but any prior restraint is automatically suspect under the constitution. In FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 110 S.Ct. 596, 618 (1990)(emphasis added), the Supreme Court said:
While prior restraints are not unconstitutional per se . . . any system of prior restraint . . . comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity. . . . [A]n ordinance which . . . makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an [government] official – as by requiring [permission] which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official – is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms.
The September 20 order constitutes just such a system of prior restraint. It purports to restrain the future speech of the Werneckes, subject to the whims of the trial judge. As such, it must pass constitutional muster in order to be upheld. And it cannot do so.
The burden is on the state to show that the order is constitutional. The state must show two things: (a) that the restraint promotes a compelling state interest, and (b) that the restraint is the least-restrictive means of fulfilling that interest. This is the so-called “strict scrutiny” analysis.
It is conceded for purposes of this Brief that protecting the health and safety of Texas children from neglectful parents is a compelling state interest. However, the restraint imposed on the Werneckes by the order of September 20 can in no manner be deemed or found to be the “least restrictive means for fulfilling that interest.”
First, there is no evidence in this record—none—that the Werneckes had previously attempted to influence Katie not to undergo the cancer treatments presently being recommended by DFPS. Then, there is no evidence, circumstantial or direct, that if allowed to speak to Katie either of the Werneckes are likely to engage in any such influence on Katie in the future. The “evidence” the trial court must necessarily have considered before rendering an order of the magnitude of the September 20 order is wholly absent from the record.
Second, even if we were to assume, arguendo, that Edward Wernecke were inclined to verbally attempt to influence Katie not to undergo life-threatening cancer treatments, the restraint imposed on Edward Wernecke by the September 20, 2005 order is not narrowly tailored to fulfill that goal. Instead, it is a complete and total injunction preventing any and all communications whatsoever between Katie and her father, not merely any such “influencing.” A “narrowly tailored” injunction may at times be difficult to precisely describe, but it is certainly somewhat shy of the complete gag order invoked by the September 20 order.
Last but not least, there is no evidence in this record that preventing communication between the Werneckes and Katie will or is likely to serve as a means (least-restrictive or otherwise) to fulfill the court’s ultimate goal: preserving Katie’s health. Indeed, just the opposite is probably true if the Court accepts the possibility that stress is a debilitating condition, and that being far from home and unable to speak to your parents may cause stress to a 13-year-old girl facing life-threatening cancer treatments. From all appearances, Katie is making up her own mind on this issue, influenced by no one including the judge , the doctors, or her parents. However, the only possible reasoning Judge Lewis employed here must be that if he cut Katie off from communicating with those she loved and trusted the most, that would psychologically torture her and beat her down, and if he then told her she could once again speak with them “if only” she would just agree to the treatment, that would somehow influence her—along with the overanxious, professional, and efficient assistance of the experts employed by DFPS—into changing her mind.
This conclusion, while difficult to swallow and arrived at very reluctantly, is the only conclusion supported by the totality of the circumstances, including other language in the order in which the judge tells Michele Wernecke that he expects her to coerce Katie into agreeing to the treatment, and if she fails to do so—in writing—she like Edward will also suffer complete loss of her ability to speak with Katie. See 9/19/05 Transcript and September 20 order, Appendix Tab 1. State personnel have also been threatening Katie with deprivation of contact with Michele and Katie’s friends unless Katie began to cooperate with state-mandated instructions. See Affidavit of Michele Wernecke, Appendix Tab 5(2), ¶¶ 14-18. No other conclusion fits all the facts. There is no nice way to say this: if this was in fact Judge Lewis’s plan—to psychologically beat Katie into submission—it utterly shocks the conscience and constitutes an abuse of discretion rarely if ever before seen in U.S. jurisprudence.
5. By ordering Michele Wernecke to only speak to Katie using language
approved by the court, the court has abused its discretion by mandating certain speech, which violates Michele’s Constitutional rights.
According to the September 20 order under review, Michele Wernecke is being forced to make specific, content-based communications with Katie on the threat of losing her ability to communicate with her daughter at all. Specifically, the September 20 order requires Michele, when she speaks to Katie, to “encourage” her to have the dangerous medical treatment the court apparently believes is necessary. The order leaves no room for Michele to speak her true feelings to Katie, and in fact, threatens Michele and Katie with complete loss of all communications between them unless Michele abides by the order.
The state may not lawfully mandate that a person engage in particular speech or speak any particular words. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that “freedom of speech” is not only the freedom to speak, but includes the freedom not to speak—to be free from governmental coercion to speak particular words or ideas. In West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the high Court held that a student’s first amendment rights to freedom of speech are violated if the student is required, by government fiat, to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, salute the flag, or in some other way express a particular belief (citing numerous cases).
Here, Michele Wernecke is being forced—by court order—to “encourage” Katie Wernecke to submit to medical treatment which Michele does not agree with and which Katie herself has repeatedly rejected. Michele is being threatened with losing her ability to communicate with her young daughter if she does not go along with the state-imposed script, and she is even required to go along with that script in writing. See the September 20 order.
This restraint on Michele’s free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution must pass strict scrutiny analysis. However, the state in this case cannot show that the order is sufficiently narrowly-tailored to advance any compelling state interest. Not only is there no “compelling state interest” being advanced by the restriction, but even if one were to stretch to find the order is meant to somehow protect Katie Wernecke’s health, the order is not the least-restrictive means of advancing that interest. The September 20 order thus cannot withstand the strict scrutiny which the law applies to such restraints, and it must be stricken.
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
In this case, we have an emergency situation where a little girl is poised on the brink of having her will destroyed for purposes of getting her to “agree” to have life-threatening, irreversible, and non-essential cancer treatment. The only facts on which the trial court made this decision are illusory: that Katie’s parents are somehow endangering her health by influencing her not to have the treatment. In order to force Katie into “agreeing” to have this care, the court has used the infringement of both Katie’s and her parents’ constitutional rights as a bludgeon for coercing them into accepting the treatment. Such action is not only an abuse of discretion, but shocks the conscience of every thinking person, regardless of the “good intentions” behind the action. The end does not justify these means.
Our precious civil rights were not created or designed to be used by the state as levers to pressure us into doing what the state wants us to do. And our civil rights cannot lawfully be held ransom to secure our “agreement” to go along with what the state wants us to do. Yet, that is the net effect of the orders under review in this case.
If our rights are that fragile, if they are subject to manipulation in that manner, and if a trial court can so readily invalidate and disregard them on the record we see before us in this case, then our country is in deep, deep trouble.
Relators seek the following relief:
A. A writ of mandamus compelling the judge of the County Court at Law to immediately vacate the trial court’s order dated July 8, 2005.
B. A writ of mandamus compelling the judge of the County Court at Law to immediately vacate the trial court’s order dated September 20, 2005.
C. Remand for further proceedings.
D. Such other and further relief as is just.
Respectfully submitted,
JAMES A. PIKL, P.C.
_________________________________
James A. Pikl
State Bar No. 16008850
P. O. Box 2939
McKinney, Texas 75070
(214) 544-7000
Fax (214) 544-7001
Email jimpikl@flash.net
ATTORNEY FOR RELATORS EDWARD AND MICHELE WERNECKE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 4th day of October 2005, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS was served on the following by hand delivery, telefax, and/or certified mail, return receipt requested:
Linda J. Rhodes-Schauer
615 N. Upper Broadway, Suite 2200
Corpus Christi, Texas 78477
Duke Hooten
701 West 51st Street
Austin, Texas 78751
____________________________________
James A. Pikl
_______________________________________________________
APPENDIX
_______________________________________________________
1. Certified or sworn copies of any orders complained of, or any other document showing the matter complained of.
See attached.
2. Any orders or opinions of the court of appeals, if the petition is filed in the Supreme Court.
See attached.
3. Unless voluminous or impracticable, the text of any rule, regulation, ordinance, statute, constitutional provision, or other law (excluding case law) on which the argument is based.
See attached.
4. If a writ of habeas corpus is sought, proof that the relator is being restrained.
N/A (no tab in Appendix).
5. Optional contents:
(1) Affidavit of Edward David Wernecke
(2) Affidavit of Michele Wernecke
(3) Transcript of Hearing, In re Wernecke, September 19, 2005, County Court at Law No. 5, Nueces County, Texas
(4) Letter dated 9/27/05 from Dr. Hunningbake, M.D., to Edward D. Wernecke (includes report from the PNAS—Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences)
(5) Opinion: In the Matter of Noah Maxin, Case No. JU-124918, Court of Common Pleas, Stark County, Ohio (2002)
U.S. Constitution, Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
U.S. Constitution, Amendment 5
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
U.S. Constitution, Amendment 14
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Texas Constitution, art. 1, sec. 8
Every person shall be at liberty to speak, write or publish his opinions on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege; and no law shall ever be passed curtailing the liberty of speech or of the press. In prosecutions for the publication of papers, investigating the conduct of officers, or men in public capacity, or when the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence. And in all indictments for libels, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.
Texas Constitution, art. 5, sec. 3(a)
(a) The Supreme Court shall exercise the judicial power of the state except as otherwise provided in this Constitution. Its jurisdiction shall be co-extensive with the limits of the State and its determinations shall be final except in criminal law matters. Its appellate jurisdiction shall be final and shall extend to all cases except in criminal law matters and as otherwise provided in this Constitution or by law. The Supreme Court and the Justices thereof shall have power to issue writs of habeas corpus, as may be prescribed by law, and under such regulations as may be prescribed by law, the said courts and the Justices thereof may issue the writs of mandamus, procedendo, certiorari and such other writs, as may be necessary to enforce its jurisdiction. The Legislature may confer original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to issue writs of quo warranto and mandamus in such cases as may be specified, except as against the Governor of the State.
"(b) The Supreme Court shall also have power, upon affidavit or otherwise as by the court may be determined, to ascertain such matters of fact as may be necessary to the proper exercise of its jurisdiction.
Texas Government Code §22.001
(a) The supreme court has appellate jurisdiction, except in criminal law matters, coextensive with the limits of the state and extending to all questions of law arising in the following cases when they have been brought to the courts of appeals from appealable judgment of the trial courts:
(1) a case in which the justices of a court of appeals disagree on a question of law material to the decision;
(2) a case in which one of the courts of appeals holds differently from a prior decision of another court of appeals or of the supreme court on a question of law material to a decision of the case;
(3) a case involving the construction or validity of a statute necessary to a determination of the case;
(4) a case involving state revenue;
(5) a case in which the railroad commission is a party; and
(6) any other case in which it appears that an error of law has been committed by the court of appeals, and that error is of such importance to the jurisprudence of the state that, in the opinion of the supreme court, it requires correction, but excluding those cases in which the jurisdiction of the court of appeals is made final by statute.
(b) A case over which the court has jurisdiction under Subsection (a) may be carried to the supreme court either by writ of error or by certificate from the court of appeals, but the court of appeals may certify a question of law arising in any of those cases at any time it chooses, either before or after the decision of the case in that court.
(c) An appeal may be taken directly to the supreme court from an order of a trial court granting or denying an interlocutory or permanent injunction on the ground of the constitutionality of a statute of this state. It is the duty of the supreme court to prescribe the necessary rules of procedure to be followed in perfecting the appeal.
(d) The supreme court has the power, on affidavit or otherwise, as the court may determine, to ascertain the matters of fact that are necessary to the proper exercise of its jurisdiction.
(e) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), one court holds differently from another when there is inconsistency in their respective decisions that should be clarified to remove unnecessary uncertainty in the law and unfairness to litigants.
Texas Family Code §161.001
The court may order termination of the parent-child relationship if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence:
(1) that the parent has:
(A) voluntarily left the child alone or in the possession of another not the parent and expressed an intent not to return;
(B) voluntarily left the child alone or in the possession of another not the parent without expressing an intent to return, without providing for the adequate support of the child, and remained away for a period of at least three months;
(C) voluntarily left the child alone or in the possession of another without providing adequate support of the child and remained away for a period of at least six months;
(D) knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the child to remain in conditions or surroundings which endanger the physical or emotional well-being of the child;
(E) engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the child with persons who engaged in conduct which endangers the physical or emotional well-being of the child;
(F) failed to support the child in accordance with the parent's ability during a period of one year ending within six months of the date of the filing of the petition;
(G) abandoned the child without identifying the child or furnishing means of identification, and the child's identity cannot be ascertained by the exercise of reasonable diligence;
(H) voluntarily, and with knowledge of the pregnancy, abandoned the mother of the child beginning at a time during her pregnancy with the child and continuing through the birth, failed to provide adequate support or medical care for the mother during the period of abandonment before the birth of the child, and remained apart from the child or failed to support the child since the birth;
(I) contumaciously refused to submit to a reasonable and lawful order of a court under Subchapter D, Chapter 261;
(J) been the major cause of:
(i) the failure of the child to be enrolled in school as required by the Education Code; or
(ii) the child's absence from the child's home without the consent of the parents or guardian for a substantial length of time or without the intent to return;
(K) executed before or after the suit is filed an unrevoked or irrevocable affidavit of relinquishment of parental rights as provided by this chapter;
(L) been convicted or has been placed on community supervision, including deferred adjudication community supervision, for being criminally responsible for the death or serious injury of a child under the following sections of the Penal Code or adjudicated under Title 3 for conduct that caused the death or serious injury of a child and that would constitute a violation of one of the following Penal Code sections:
(i) Section 19.02 (murder);
(ii) Section 19.03 (capital murder);
(iii) Section 19.04 (manslaughter)
(iv) Section 21.11 (indecency with a child);
(v) Section 22.01 (assault);
(vi) Section 22.011 (sexual assault);
(vii) Section 22.02 (aggravated assault);
(viii) Section 22.021 (aggravated sexual assault);
(ix) Section 22.04 (injury to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual);
(x) Section 22.041 (abandoning or endangering child);
(xi) Section 25.02 (prohibited sexual conduct);
(xii) Section 43.25 (sexual performance by a child); and
(xiii) Section 43.26 (possession or promotion of child pornography);
(M) had his or her parent-child relationship terminated with respect to another child based on a finding that the parent's conduct was in violation of Paragraph (D) or (E) or substantially equivalent provisions of the law of another state;
(N) constructively abandoned the child who has been in the permanent or temporary managing conservatorship of the Department of Family and Protective Services or an authorized agency for not less than six months, and:
(i) the department or authorized agency has made reasonable efforts to return the child to the parent;
(ii) the parent has not regularly visited or maintained significant contact with the child; and
(iii) the parent has demonstrated an inability to provide the child with a safe environment;
(O) failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that specifically established the actions necessary for the parent to obtain the return of the child who has been in the permanent or temporary managing conservatorship of the Department of Family and Protective Services for not less than nine months as a result of the child's removal from the parent under Chapter 262 for the abuse or neglect of the child;
(P) used a controlled substance, as defined by Chapter 481, Health and Safety Code, in a manner that endangered the health or safety of the child, and:
(i) failed to complete a court-ordered substance abuse treatment program; or
(ii) after completion of a court-ordered substance abuse treatment program, continued to abuse a controlled substance;
(Q) knowingly engaged in criminal conduct that has resulted in the parent's:
(i) conviction of an offense; and
(ii) confinement or imprisonment and inability to care for the child for not less than two years from the date of filing the petition;
(R) been the cause of the child being born addicted to alcohol or a controlled substance, other than a controlled substance legally obtained by prescription, as defined by Section 261.001;
(S) voluntarily delivered the child to a designated emergency infant care provider under Section 262.302 without expressing an intent to return for the child; or
(T) been convicted of the murder of the other parent of the child under Section 19.02 or 19.03, Penal Code, or under a law of another state, federal law, the law of a foreign country, or the Uniform Code of Military Justice that contains elements that are substantially similar to the elements of an offense under Section 19.02 or 19.03, Penal Code; and
(2) that termination is in the best interest of the child.
Texas Probate Code §875(a)
If a court is presented with substantial evidence that a person may be a minor or other incapacitated person, and the court has probable cause to believe that the person or person's estate, or both, requires the immediate appointment of a guardian, the court shall appoint a temporary guardian with limited powers as the circumstances of the case require.
IN THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT
In re §
§
Edward Wernecke §
and § CAUSE NO. ____________________
Michele Wernecke, §
§
Relators. §
________________________________________
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT
________________________________________
Submitted by:
James A. Pikl
JAMES A. PIKL, P.C.
P.O. Box 2939
McKinney, Texas 75070
Attorney for Relators
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
Edward Wernecke Relator
Michele Wernecke Relator
James A. Pikl Attorney for Relators (Supreme Court)
JAMES A. PIKL, P.C.
P.O. Box 2939
McKinney, Texas 75070
Luis Corona Attorney for Edward and Michele Wernecke (trial court)
Law Office of Luis J. Corona
P.O. Box 3888
Corpus Christi, Texas 88463
Hon. Carl E. Lewis, Judge, County Court at Law No. 5 Respondent
(Relators are not aware of counsel for Judge Lewis)
Katie Wernecke, a minor child Real Party in Interest
Linda J. Rhodes-Schauer Attorney Ad Litem for Katie Wernecke
615 N. Upper Broadway, Suite 2000
Corpus Christi, Texas 78477
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services Real Party in Interest
Duke Hooten Attorney for Texas Department of Family
701 West 51st Street and Protective Services
Austin, Texas 78751
Annette Sultemeier Co-Guardian Ad Litem for Katie Wernecke
CASA
413 N. Tancahua Street
Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
Lauren C. Ranly Co-Guardian Ad Litem for Katie Wernecke
P.O. Box 900
Corpus Christi, Texas 78403
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Identity of Parties and Counsel ii
Index of Authorities v
Statement of the Case vii
Statement of Jurisdiction viii
Issues Presented ix
Statement of Facts 1
Argument
1. Mandamus is available in this situation to correct abuses of discretion
by the trial court, and because the trial court’s orders infringe fundamental
Constitutional rights of Relators 8
2. Respondent abused his discretion and commit errors of law by
entering his orders dated July 8, 2005 and September 20, 2005 without
holding evidentiary hearings in which he could have found, by clear and
convincing evidence, that Edward and Michele Wernecke were unfit
parents (July 8), or that their possible future communications with Katie
Wernecke were likely to endanger Katie’s health or safety (September 20) 12
1. The “liberty” interests protected by the Due Process clause of the
14th Amendment include parents’ rights to choose the medical care
being provided to their children, and include the rights to refuse unwanted
medical treatment and to get second opinions 13
2. The order dated September 20, 2005 violates the U.S. Constitution
because it deprives the Relators, or some of them, of their fundamental
constitutional rights of freedom of speech (Amendment 1), freedom of
association (Amendment 1), freedom to parent their children (Amendments
5, 14 and penumbra), to be free from illicit government coercion and force
(substantive due process, Amendments 5 and 14), and because the hearing at which the order was entered did not comport with binding rules of procedural due process (Amendments 5 and 14) 20
3. By ordering Michele Wernecke to only speak to Katie using language
approved by the court, the court abused its discretion by mandating
certain speech, which violates Michele’s Constitutional rights 28
Conclusion and Prayer 29
Appendix end
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Cruzan v. Director, Mo. Dept. Of Health,
487 U.S. 261, 110 S.Ct. 2841, 111 L.Ed. 2d 224 (1990) 13
Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. 1985) 8
FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 110 S.Ct. 596, 107 L.Ed. 2d 603 (1990) 23
In re G.M., 596 S.W.2d 846 (Tex. 1980) 11, 19, 21
Matter of Hofbauer, 47 N.Y.2d 648, 419 N.Y.S.2d 936, 393 N.E.2d 1009 (1979) 13
Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) 18
In re J.R., ___ S.W.3d ___, 2005 WL 1771721
(Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet. history) 18
Kilroy v. Kilroy, 137 S.W.3d 780 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.) 8, 9
Low v. King, 867 S.W.2d 141 (Tex. App. – Beaumont 1993, no writ) 9
In re McCoy, 52 S.W.3d 297 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 2001, orig. proc.) vii, 8
In the Matter of Noah Maxin, Case No. JU-124918 (Court of Common Pleas,
Stark County, Ohio, 2002) 14, 16, 19
Neiswander v. Bailey, 645 S.W.2d 835 (Tex. App. – Dallas 1982, no writ) 23
In re Ostrofsky, 112 S.W.3d 925 (Tex. App. – Houston [14ht Dist.] 2003, no pet.) 8
Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 99 S.Ct. 2493, 61 L.Ed.2d 101 (1979) 18
Perry v. Levegood, ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2005 WL 2296716 (E.D. Pa. 9/21/05) 15
San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez,
411 U.S. 1, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 36 L.Ed. 2d 16 (1973) 10
In re S.A.P., ___ S.W.3d ___, 2005 WL 1479007
(Tex. App. – Waco 2005, no pet. history) 24
In re Santos, 2005 WL 2082989 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi, no pet.)
(not designated for publication) 8
In re S.P., 168 S.W.3d 197, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2005 WL 1249304
(Tex. App. – Dallas 2005, no pet. history) 12
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed. 2d 49 (2000) 22, 23
In re Vernor, 94 S.W.3d 201 (Tex. App. – Austin 2002, orig. proc.) 10
State in Interest of E.G., 657 So.2d 1094 (La. App. 1995) 13
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) 8
Walsh v. Ferguson, 712 S.W.2d 885 (Tex. App. – Austin 1986, no writ) 10
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette,
319 U.S. 624, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 87 L.Ed. 2d 1628 (1943) 29
In re W.J.H., 111 S.W.3d 707 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 2003, no pet.) 13
Constitutional Provisions
U.S. Constitution, Amendment 1 21, 26
U.S Constitution, Amendment 5 21
U.S. Constitution, Amendment 14 10
Texas Constitution, art. 1, section 8 9, 25
Texas Constitution, art. 5, sec. 3(a) ix
Statutes
Texas Family Code §161.001 12, 21, 22, 24
Texas Government Code §22.001 ix
Texas Probate Code §875(a) 15
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
(1) Concise Description of the Nature of the Underlying Proceeding.
This case arises out of a proceeding filed by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (“DFPS”) in County Court at Law No. 5, Nueces County, Texas in June 2005. DFPS originally filed the case alleging that Edward and Michele Wernecke were not acting as good parents to their four children.
DFPS sought and obtained a court order dated July 8, 2005 which allowed it to remove Katie from her parents and place her in foster care. Apparently, either on his own motion or at the insistence of counsel for the DFPS, trial court judge Carl E. Lewis, Respondent, also entered an order (in the form or an injunction) dated September 20, 2005, in which he terminated in total Edward Wernecke’s ability to communicate with his daughter, and severely limited Michele Wernecke’s ability to do so. The orders of July 8, 2005 and September 20, 2005 are the subject of this Petition.
(2) Respondent:
Hon. Carl E. Lewis
Judge, County Court at Law No. 5
Nueces County, Corpus Christi, Texas
(3) Concise Description of the Respondent’s Action From Which the Relator Seeks Relief.
Relator seeks a writ of mandamus requiring the trial court to vacate the temporary orders issued by Respondent dated July 8, 2005 and September 20, 2005. These orders impair and destroy the fundamental constitutional rights of the Relators to engage in free speech, free association, family relations, and to be free from illegitimate, governmental coercion and force (substantive due process, equal protection, and liberty). The orders also violate fundamental statutory and constitutional rights of procedural due process in that they were issued without a proper hearing, they are based on the wrong burden or proof, and they are not supported by legally-sufficient evidence.
(4) If Writ of Habeas Corpus is Sought, a Statement Describing How and Where the Relator is Being Deprived of Liberty.
N/A.
(5) If the Petition is Being Filed in the Supreme Court.
A. Date petition was filed in Court of Appeals: September 23, 2005
B. Court and Justices: 13th Court of Appeals;
Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Castillo and Garza
C. Author of any Opinion: The sole “Memorandum Opinion” was issued per curiam.
D. Citation to the court’s opinion: No citation available.
E. Disposition by court of appeals: Writ denied.
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This Court has jurisdiction over this original proceeding in accordance with Texas Government Code §22.001, and Texas Constitution, art. 5, sec. 3(a). See In re McCoy, 52 S.W.3d 297, 301 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 2001, orig. proc.).
ISSUES PRESENTED
3. Is mandamus available in this situation to correct abuses of discretion
by the trial court and because the trial court’s orders infringe fundamental
Constitutional rights?
4. Did Respondent abuse his discretion and commit errors of law by entering his orders dated July 8, 2005 and September 20, 2005 without holding evidentiary hearings in which he could have found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Edward and Michele Wernecke were unfit parents (July 8), or that their possible future communications with Katie Wernecke were likely to endanger Katie’s health or safety (September 20)?
1. Do the “liberty” interests protected by the Due Process clause of the
14th Amendment include parents’ rights to choose the medical care
being provided to their children, and include the rights to refuse unwanted
medical treatment and to get second opinions?
2. Does the order dated September 20, 2005 violates the U.S. Constitution
because it deprives the Relators, or some of them, of their fundamental
constitutional rights of freedom of speech (Amendment 1), freedom of
association (Amendment 1), freedom to parent their children (Amendments
5, 14 and penumbra), to be free from illicit government coercion and force
(substantive due process, Amendments 5 and 14), and because the hearing at
which the order was entered did not comport with binding rules of
procedural due process (Amendments 5 and 14)?
3. By ordering Michele Wernecke to only speak to Katie using language
approved by the court, did the court abuse its discretion by mandating certain
speech and thus violate Michele’s Constitutional rights?
STATEMENT OF FACTS
This statement of facts is supported by the Affidavits of Edward David Wernecke and Michele Wernecke, found in the Appendix at Tabs 5(1) and 5(2). More-detailed facts are contained in those affidavits; the following is a brief summary of the facts germane to the mandamus.
In late 2004, Katie Wernecke, then a 12-year-old girl, became sick. On January 7, 2005, Katie was admitted to Driscoll hospital in Corpus Christi, Texas to determine what was wrong with her. A biopsy was performed, and by January 13, 2005, the doctors diagnosed Katie as having Hodgkin’s Disease.
Beginning on January 15, 2005, at the instance of her parents, Edward and Michele Wernecke, Katie began multiple rounds of chemotherapy for treatment of the cancer. Numerous CT and PET scans were also performed on Katie over the course of the next several months.
On May 12, 2005, Doctor Alter, Katie’s main doctor, talked to Katie without either of the Werneckes being present. He told Katie that she needed radiation treatments or she might die. On May 24, 2005, CPS called and asked the Werneckes what they were going to do about the radiation therapy. The Werneckes told CPS that they wanted to do another PET scan to see if the cancer was still shrinking, and would then determine if the radiation therapy would be authorized.
On May 27, 2005, CPS worker Kim Garcia called the Werneckes. In regard to the Wernecke’s desire for another PET scan and their consequent delay in ordering radiation therapy for Katie, Ms. Garcia refused to approve a new scan, and said: “We’re calling it in as medical neglect. You have ten days to make the radiation appointment.” Michele Wernecke complained about being forced into consenting to this treatment without further testing or an objective second opinion, and said she wanted to talk to a lawyer.
On June 1, 2005, Michele tried to call numerous oncologists to arrange to get a second opinion. She asked Dr. Alter for a referral, but he never gave her one.
On June 1, 2005, the police came to the Wernecke home to pick up Katie. However, on that day, Katie was in Kingsville visiting her grandmother. Not wanting to leave empty-handed, CPS instead absconded with the three Wernecke boys, claiming that their house was in a dangerous condition. To come to this conclusion, CPS workers mistook a watermelon seed for rat feces, and thought that needle-less syringes on the kitchen counter posed some sort of threat to the boys, even though the Werneckes live on a ranch, the boys are around farm and ranch equipment all the time, and the syringes were not even armed or loaded.
On June 4, 2005, without a warrant, law enforcement entered through several ranches and captured Michele and Katie. The police arrested Michele for child endangerment.
At the first hearing in court on June 8, 2005, Judge Lewis told CPS to “give the boys back” to the Werneckes. CPS performed a “face-saving inspection” of the Wernecke home on June 9, 2005, and the boys were returned to them on June 10, 2005. However, Katie was placed in a foster home under the direction of CPS. At this time, the Werneckes lost their right to make medical decisions for Katie and their three sons.
Another hearing took place on June 10, 2005. In this hearing, the doctors produced the results of the PET scan which supposedly showed Katie’s cancer was still alive but was shrinking.
The Werneckes were then back in court on June 15 and 16, 2005. The purpose of this hearing was to decide what to do with Katie. Both Michele and Edward testified. The doctors also testified and said that Katie needed regular chemo and radiation treatment to ensure the cancer was eradicated. The Werneckes both said they would allow and encourage Katie to undergo cancer treatments, including regular chemo and radiation. High-dose chemotherapy was never mentioned at these hearings, and the Werneckes refused to consent to radiation without further study of the alternative treatments that might be available for Katie.
The order dated July 8, 2005 that was issued following the hearings on June 15 and 16, 2005, contains no factual findings regarding safety or health reasons for removing the Werneckes boys from their parents, and contains only conclusory and vague findings that “Edward Wernecke was in great conflict with Katie’s doctors as to her treatment and acted unreasonably in the care and treatment of his daughter Katie Wernecke.” This order stripped the Werneckes of all their parental rights as to medical decisions for Katie and the Werneckes boys until further order of the court. See 7/8/05 Order, Appendix Tab 5, page 6.
On June 20, 2005, more CT and PET scans were done on Katie. On June 22, 2005, a bone marrow scan was done. Both of these tests showed negative as to active cancer. On June 23, 2005, apparently not satisfied with the CT and PET scans, the doctors performed six separate biopsies on Katie. All of these biopsies also showed negative for active cancer.
Katie went back to her foster home on June 24, 2005. On June 29, 2005, Stella Klein with CPS called and said they were going to do a more intense biopsy through Katie’s throat or through her ribs. Michele refused to allow this surgery since all 6 biopsies had come back negative and the PET and CT scans had showed negative for active cancer. CPS then reported to the court that Michele was being “uncooperative.”
June 30, 2005, CPS said the doctors had to go into Katie’s side and deflate her lung in order to do more biopsies. This surgery was done against the Wernecke’s wishes. During this surgery, the doctors removed almost 90% of Katie’s thymus gland. A biopsy on the thymus showed negative for cancer.
On July 8, 2005, the Werneckes first heard about a high-dose chemotherapy and radiation proposal being made for Katie. This occurred at a meeting with Katie, Dr. Nunez (a radiologist), child activists, Dr. Wells, CPS personnel (Stella Klein), and Katie’s foster mom. Contrary to the biopsies and scans, the doctors said in this meeting that Katie’s cancer was positive and they showed some slides. “More aggressive” is how they termed the cancer they said was in Katie’s body. The Werneckes asked a bunch of questions. The doctors explained to the Wernenckes and Katie what they were going to do. The doctors were asked what they would do if the PET scan then came back negative. They said in that instance, they would do only two rounds of chemo, regular dose, but if the PET scan came back positive, they would do four rounds of regular chemo, then high-dose chemo-therapy, and then radiation. They also explained some of the negative side-effects such high-does chemo and radiation would have on Katie’s body, such as possible heart and liver failure, kidney failure, sterilization, higher susceptibility later to cancer.
On July 8, 2005, the order was issued by the trial court following the June 15 and 16, 2005 hearing. However, Katie has been in CPS custody since early June 2005.
On August 23, 2005, Katie’s doctors did another CT scan, followed by another PET scan on August 25, 2005. On August 30, 2005, the Werneckes consulted with Katie’s doctors on the next steps in Katie’s treatments. This meeting was attended by Katie, Dr. Wells, Dr. Nunez, a social worker, and others. The doctors explained high dose chemotherapy in detail, and said it would be needed even though all tests, scans, and biopsies had come back negative. They explained many of the potential side effects of high-dose chemotherapy. Katie was there, hearing everything. Even though Katie’s cancer was dead and shrinking, the doctors still wanted to do this high-risk treatment, remarking when asked the reason: “just in case one cancer cell is left alive.” At the meeting, Katie said: “If they are going to kill the last cell with high dose chemo, why am I doing radiation that is supposed to do the same thing?” No answer was provided to this very insightful question.
On September 6, 2005, everyone was back in court. Doctors testified that Katie would die without the high-dose treatment. The judge said “how long before she dies,” apparently trying to figure out what to do. When the doctors agreed that Katie’s cooperation was essential to her treatment, the judge said: “Sounds to me like you [CPS] don’t have a case, give the child back [to her parents].” CPS then objected, asking the judge not to do that. Daniel Horne, the Werneckes’ other trial counsel, suggested that he would try to get second opinions by Friday, September 9, 2005. CPS also asked the judge to cut off all communications between Katie and her parents, obviously planning to institute a program of brainwashing Katie, and they didn’t want the Werneckes tampering with their plans. The judge refused to cut off contact.
On September 9, 2005, the court had another hearing. There had not been enough time to get the promised second opinion, so no opinion was provided to the court at that time. The judge said to the Werneckes: “You have nothing [no second opinions], you have run out of time.” The court went into recess while the judge again spoke to Katie on the telephone, ex parte and off the record. During the break in the case, Linda Schauer, attorney ad litem for Katie, told the Werneckes: “The court is going cut off all your parental rights unless you cooperate.” The judge came back in from the recess and said he was going to go talk to Katie in person the next week.
Katie called her parents on Sept 16, 2005 and said the judge was there, “What do I do?” They told her: “Calm down, just tell the judge what you want.” On September 16, 2005, an order was signed saying there would be a hearing on September 19, 2005.
There was a hearing on September 19, 2005. That hearing was not completed but was postponed due to Judge Lewis getting sick. The parties were told they would be contacted when the hearing would resume. At this hearing, the Werneckes did not get to testify, and no other testimony was taken or evidence submitted. On September 20, 2005, the parties learned that Judge Lewis had experienced a heart attack or other problem on September 19, and had to have open-heart surgery that night. Apparently just out of surgery, on September 20, 2005, Judge Lewis signed an order terminating virtually all of the Werneckes parental rights, including their right to communicate with or visit Katie, with limited exceptions for Michele being able to communicate with Katie only in person, with CPS personnel permission, and while they were present. The purported reason for terminating their communication with Katie was to prevent the Werneckes from influencing her not to undergo the treatment. However, there is no evidence in the record supporting a finding that either of the Werneckes had ever attempted to influence Katie to refuse treatment.
The Werneckes sought mandamus relief from the July 8 and September 20 orders in the Court of Appeals, but were denied. This Petition followed.
ARGUMENT
1. Mandamus is available in this situation to correct abuses of discretion by the trial court, and because the trial court’s orders infringe fundamental Constitutional rights.
Mandamus is used to correct a trial court’s abuse of discretion. “Interference through the issuance of a writ of mandamus is justified ‘when parties stand to lose their substantial rights.’” Id., citing Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 842 (Tex. 1992). Mandamus relief is available if the trial court abuses its discretion and there is no adequate remedy by appeal. Id. A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts without reference to any guiding rules or principles, or in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner. Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 (Tex. 1985). “Mandamus relief is available if the trial court abuses, either in resolving factual issues or in determining legal principles.” In re Ostrofsky, 112 S.W.3d 925, 928 (Tex. App. – Houston [14ht Dist.] 2003, no pet.). If the argument is that the trial court erred in “resolving factual disputes,” then it must be the case that there are disputed factual issues in the case. Because the DFPS disputes many of the facts set forth herein, mandamus is proper under the circumstances of this case, both specifically and generally.
It is settled law in Texas that temporary orders issued in a family law case are not immediately appealable. They are, however, reviewable by mandamus. See In re McCoy, 52 S.W.3d 297, 301 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 2001, orig. proc.); In re Santos, 2005 WL 2082989 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi, no pet.)(not designated for publication)(“Mandamus is the appropriate vehicle to challenge the trial court’s temporary orders in pending family law litigation, as temporary orders under the Texas Family Code are not subject to interlocutory appeal”).
Mandamus relief is also generally available in circumstances of manifest and urgent necessity, such as we have here. Kilroy v. Kilroy, 137 S.W.3d 780, 784 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.). Mandamus properly lies to correct invalid prior restraints on constitutional rights to freedom of speech. Low v. King, 867 S.W.2d 141, 142 (Tex. App. 00 Beaumont 1993, no writ)(issuing mandamus to require trial court to rescind orders that infringed constitutional free-speech rights granted by Texas Constitution, art. 1, sec. 8).
If the order of September 20 is not set aside, the fundamental constitutional rights of the Werneckes to freedom or speech, of association, and to parent their children, will be irretrievably lost. If the order of July 8 is not set aside, the Werneckes fundamental constitutional rights to parent their children and make critical medical decisions for Katie will be irretrievably lost. These rights cannot be infringed by state action unless the orders infringing them pass strict-scrutiny analysis, which the subject orders cannot do.
Ordinary mandamus is available here. In a typical mandamus proceeding, the issue for the appellate court is whether the trial court orders were made without reference to any guiding rules or principles, or whether they are arbitrary or unreasonable. Naturally, this involves examination of the alleged “guiding rules or principles” under which the trial court supposedly issued its orders, followed by examination of the orders themselves to determine if they are either arbitrary or unreasonable. Here, there are no stated “guiding rules or principles” that could possibly have been employed by the trial court in imposing a full-blown prior restraint on the free speech rights of the Relators following the September 19, 2005 hearing (the full transcript of which is attached hereto, Appendix Tab 5). No facts are stated. No statute is cited. No case law is quoted. Mandamus lies to correct this error.
Constitutional issues allow mandamus here. Mandamus will also lie to correct a trial court’s deprivation of fundamental constitutional rights, such as is happening here. In re Vernor, 94 S.W.3d 201, 209-10 (Tex. App. – Austin 2002, orig. proc.). In constitutional cases, particularly involving prior restraints like the September 20 order, and involving the deprivation of parental rights like the July 8 order, the state’s action comes to this Court under a heavy presumption that it is unconstitutional, and the burden is fully on the state to show that the orders (1) advance or further a (2) compelling state interest, and that the orders were (3) the least-restrictive means for achieving that purpose. U.S. Constitution Amend. 14; San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 17, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 36 L.Ed. 2d 16 (1973). There are thus three required pieces of the analysis: an interest, a means, and a proximate connection (“advance or further” or “achieve”) between the means and the interest.
Relators concede for purposes of this Petition that the protection of children who are abused or neglected is a compelling state interest or goal. But even if Katie Wernecke were “abused or neglected” (which she is not), that is only one-third of the required analysis under the Constitution. The state must also prove that the restraint was the least-restrictive means possible for achieving that goal, and it must prove that the means employed (in this case, a court order) is actually effective to further that goal.
The second and third phases of this burden were never met in this case. The September 20 order has not been shown to be the least-restrictive means available, nor has it been shown that the order is designed to fulfill or effect the state’s interest in preventing any abuse of Katie Wernecke. Surely, the trial court merely claiming that its order does this is not sufficient under the strict-scrutiny analysis this Court must employ here; if that sufficed, strict scrutiny would be a thin barrier indeed. Since these prongs of the test have not been fulfilled, the presumption of unconstitutionality remains, and the September 20 order must be stricken.
Here, for every hour that passes, Edward Wernecke and Michele Wernecke (and their daughter Katie Wernecke) are losing—irreparably and irretrievably—their Constitutional rights to communicate with each other, to exercise their rights of freedom of speech and freedom of association, and to exercise their liberty interests to engage in normal familial relations, including the rights to parent and the right to make intimate, personal medical decisions without undue government interference. These rights are among the most important and pre-eminent in our legal system. It is beyond dispute that the loss of these rights cannot wait until the end of trial or for an ordinary appeal, especially in the situation the Werneckes find themselves in.
Mandamus was made precisely for situations just like this one.
2. Respondent abused his discretion and commit errors of law by entering his orders dated July 8, 2005 and September 20, 2005 without holding evidentiary hearings in which he could have found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Edward and Michele Wernecke were unfit parents (July 8), or that their possible future communications with Katie Wernecke were likely to endanger Katie’s health or safety (September 20).
Basic due process requires that a court hold an evidentiary hearing before deciding disputed matters pending in its court. In re S.P., 168 S.W.3d 197, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2005 WL 1249304 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2005, no pet. history). Under the Texas Family Code, before a person’s parental rights can be terminated—in whole or in part—the court is required to hold an evidentiary hearing, and the proponent must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that specific grounds exist to adversely affect those rights. See Texas Family Code §161.001; In re G.M., 596 S.W.2d 846, 847 (Tex. 1980)(“Hereafter, the ‘clear and convincing evidence’ standard of proof will be required in all proceedings for involuntary termination of the parent-child relationship”).
In this case, it is undisputed that there was no evidentiary hearing whatsoever at which evidence was taken showing facts sufficient to support termination of the Werneckes’ parental rights as was accomplished with the September 20 order—under any burden of proof. In addition, there was insufficient evidence presented to the trial court to support the order entered July 8.
Texas courts have opined on the type and amount of proof that suffices to terminate parental rights. In In re W.J.H., 111 S.W.3d 707 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 2003, no pet.), the court found evidence sufficient to terminate a mother’s parental rights when she knowingly placed her children in conditions that endangered their lives and failed to provide any medical care for them whatsoever. However, in that case, the mother was completely neglecting the children; there was not merely a disagreement with the state about what form of medical care was best for the children. In virtually every case in the country in which parental rights have been terminated for failure to provide adequate medical care, the evidence was that NO care was being provided, not that alternative care was being provided that the state simply disagreed with. See, e.g., State in Interest of E.G., 657 So.2d 1094 (La. App. 1995).
There are no cases in Texas which support what the trial court did in this case. As such, the orders of July 8 and September 20 lack substantive guidelines or principles informing their existence, their entry constitutes an abuse of discretion, and they must be vacated.
3.The “liberty” interests protected by the Due Process clause of the
14th Amendment include parents’ rights to choose the medical care
being provided to their children, and include the rights to refuse unwanted medical treatment and to get second opinions.
In Cruzan v. Director, Mo. Dept. Of Health, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a parent’s constitutional rights to determine medical care for their children includes the right to refuse medical treatment. There would never be an issue on this point to be decided—in this case or any other—unless there existed a state-sponsored, contrary desire that the medical treatment “should be” dispensed. When these types of conflicts exist between what the state says is best and what a fit parent says is best, the question becomes “whose wishes prevail, the state’s or the parent’s?”
In a case directly on point to our situation, the New York Court of Appeals held that parents had the right to decide which medical treatment was right for their children, even where the parents’ decision was contrary to their child’s treating physician’s “mainstream” medical opinion. In Matter of Hofbauer, the parents rejected recommendations that their 8-year-old son undergo “traditional” high-dose chemotherapy and radiation treatment (similar treatment now being recommended for Katie), but instead chose to have their child undergo nutritional and metabolic therapy for Hodgkin’s Disease. The trial court found the child was “neglected” and removed him from his parents’ care, finding them “unfit” to care for him. The intermediate appellate court affirmed. But New York’s highest court reversed, finding that the parents could not be found to be “unfit” since they were pursuing or attempting to pursue some course of treatment, albeit treatment different from that which was recommended by one particular doctor. The Hofbauer case provides compelling and substantial support for the Werneckes’ position in this case.
In another case directly on point to the present dispute, a proper analysis of a parent’s right to choose alternative treatment for their minor children was done by the Court of Common Pleas in Ohio. In Matter of Noah Maxin, Case No. JU-124918 (Court of Common Pleas, Stark County, Ohio, 2002), the court denied the state’s request to declare Noah a “neglected” child just because his parents were electing to pursue alternative cancer treatments rather than subject Noah to the dangers of conventional chemotherapy. This opinion is well worth reading (a copy of the opinion is attached in the Appendix to this brief; Tab 5(5)). It shows a thoughtful and constitutionally-sound analysis of a situation identical to this one, and stands in stark contrast to the superficial analysis reflected in the orders of July 8 and September 20.
The Werneckes have recently obtained a letter from the Center for the Improvement of Human Functioning in Wichita, Kansas. The letter is from Dr. Ronald E. Hunningbake, M.D. It suggests that Katie is a candidate for the ascorbic acid and nutritional therapy provided by the Center. The letter is from a licensed physician. It includes a copy of the study from the PNAS website cited at footnote 35. (Copy attached at Appendix, Tab 5(4)).
These materials were not available to the Werneckes in June 2005, and so they were not presented to the trial court. At the very least, the Werneckes are entitled to pursue this alternative form of treatment for Katie, which the subject trial-court orders are denying them the opportunity to do. By granting this Petition, the Court restore the Wernecke’s constitutional rights and make this possible.
Here, the trial court has apparently decided that the Werneckes are, at least in part, “unfit” based solely on their decision not to adopt or allow the medical treatment being proposed by the state, or because they wanted to get second opinions or pursue alternative treatments for Katie. See order dated July 8. But if mere disagreement with the state’s proposal renders a parent “unfit” to make such decisions, then the right to make such decisions is altogether illusory.
“If you (parents) agree with us (the state), then you are free to make the decision on your child’s medical care. But if you disagree with us, then you are unfit and we will take your children away from you and follow our own decision.”
This is absurd reasoning, but it is the state’s argument in this case. At least, that appears to be the only argument they presented to the trial court before obtaining the July 8 order, since the only “unfitness” specified in that order concerns a “conflict” between Edward Wernecke and Katie’s doctors over treatment decisions. As such, the July 8 order is constitutionally infirm, and will not in any way support the September 20 order.
The logical reach of this case. This case has implications far beyond who makes medical decisions for minors. If any person, including an adult, is declared “incompetent” to make his or her own medical decisions, then a guardian can be appointed for the purpose of making those decision. Imagine the situation where an adult disagrees with a prescribed course of treatment suggested by a doctor. If that disagreement is in and of itself sufficient evidence to render that adult “incompetent” to make his own medical decisions such that a guardian must be appointed to make those decisions for him, then we have finally arrived at the place where the “all-powerful, all-knowing” state government is totally in charge of all medical decisions for all citizens—minors and adults.
Before the Court disregards this logical conclusion, the Court must be able to logically distinguish the case of a disagreeable adult (presumed to be legally entitled to make his or her own medical decisions) from a disagreeable parent (presumed to be legally entitled to make medical decisions for his or her children). Here, the parents and guardians of Katie Wernecke, the people with the ostensible legal right to make medical decisions for Katie, have had a disagreement with the state on a prescribed course of medical treatment. On that basis—and that basis alone—the Werneckes have been stripped of their right to make those medical decisions.
Another logical syllogism is germane to this point: the right to make medical decisions must include the right to refuse medical care, which care must include treatment which is being recommended by a doctor. Cruzan, Maxin, Hofbauer, all supra. The right to refuse treatment, or to choose between alternatives, must also includes the right to gather and analyze sufficient information to intelligently exercise that right. That is, in order to be intelligently informed, one needs to have access to all reasonably-available medical opinions germane to the treatment or condition.
Here, the Werneckes are being deprived of access to Katie (by both orders under review), access which is required to be able to get second opinions about treatment options. By depriving the Werneckes of the ability to get Katie evaluated by other doctors (other than clones of the present doctors), the state is essentially saying “it’s our way or no way.” The state is also cutting off the Werneckes’ ability to intelligently decide, as a family, whether the state-recommended treatment is or is not the best solution for their daughter’s condition.
In our case, not only had the Werneckes provided proper care to Katie for almost five months, but their decision to seek second opinions relating to “follow up” care made while Katie appears to be in remission, cannot be found to be “no care” or “medical neglect” under any principled definition of those terms. Rather, what we have here is a mere disagreement between the state and the Werneckes—not relating to care—but relating to whether there is time to get second opinions and, if discovered, whether those alternative courses of treatment might be profitably followed.
There has been no “neglect” of Katie’s health care by the Werneckes. Indeed, the record in the case affirmatively shows that the Werneckes engaged qualified medical personnel for over five months in treating Katie’s cancer with chemotherapy treatments. The issue now before the Court only arose when the Werneckes—including Katie—wanted to get second opinions as to her “follow up” care and possible alternative treatments once medical scans and biopsies showed the tumor had been killed and was shrinking in size.
The doctors at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center are advocating one regimen of follow up care that they admit is extreme and hazardous. The likely side effects of this purported “cure” include the virtual certainty that Katie will be rendered sterile, great enhancement of her chances of contracting infections, possible irreparable damage to her liver, kidneys, and other vital organs, increase in the possibility of her contracting other forms of cancer, including breast cancer and leukemia, and the statistically-significant possibility that Katie might die from the treatment itself. The state’s recommended “cure” may indeed be worse than the disease in this case.
On the other hand, Katie’s cancer appears to be in remission. Numerous biopsies and scans have revealed that her tumor is dead and shrinking. She appears healthy and on the mend. There is no exigent circumstance under which she must endure the dangerous, life-altering medical regimen recommended by DFPS doctors at this time. Instead, there is time for her to pursue—or at least to investigate—alternative forms of follow-up treatment that do not carry the same predictable and certain side effects that the high-dose chemotherapy and radiation treatments the DFPS doctors insist upon inflicting on her. However, the trial court’s orders are standing in the way of Katie’s examination by other doctors.
The Werneckes want to pursue, or at least consider, using high-dosage, intravenous ascorbic acid and nutritional therapy treatment for Katie at the Center for the Improvement of Human Functioning in Wichita, Kansas. This alternative course of treatment is available to and has been used by persons in Katie’s circumstance, and the procedure is currently undergoing several clinical tests across the country. Therefore, just as in the Hofbauer and Maxin cases, the Werneckes cannot be found to be “neglecting” Katie just because they want to pursue alternative treatment protocols.
Any finding that the Werneckes were hampering or interfering in medical treatment “necessary to save Katie’s life” is completely unsupported by the record. Since this vital part of the state’s proof is missing, the trial court abused its discretion and committed an error of law in terminating in part the Wernecke’s parental rights by the July 8 order.
The orders of July 8 and September 20 are both based on legally-deficient, erroneous, contradictory, and unsupported “findings” that the Werneckes were “neglecting” Katie’s medical care. Since there is no support (insufficient evidence) in the record for those orders, they must be vacated.
4. The order dated September 20, 2005 violates the U.S. Constitution because it deprives the Relators, or some of them, of their fundamental constitutional rights of freedom of speech (Amendment 1), freedom of association (Amendment 1), freedom to parent their children (Amendments 5, 14 and penumbra), to be free from illicit government coercion and force (substantive due process, Amendments 5 and 14), and because the hearing at which the order was entered did not comport with binding rules of procedural due process (Amendments 5 and 14).
“The natural right that exists between parents and children is one of constitutional dimensions.” In re J.R., ___ S.W.3d ___, 2005 WL 1771721 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet. history)(citing Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18, 20 (Tex. 1985)). Included under this rubric is the nearly-inviolate constitutional right of parents to make medical decisions for their children. This proposition is so well-established in American constitutional law as to be beyond all rational dispute. Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 600, 99 S.Ct. 2493, 61 L.Ed.2d 101 (1979).
This right springs from the 1st Amendment freedom of association and the rights to privacy, liberty, and procedural and substantive due process. This right can be infringed by state action only in the narrowest of circumstances, and only following strict-scrutiny analysis.
Because the termination of parental rights is so serious, termination proceedings should be strictly construed in favor of the parents, and termination is only possible from proof by clear and convincing evidence that conduct prohibited by Texas Family Code §161.001 has occurred, and termination is in the “best interests of the child.” Id; In re G.M., 596 S.W.2d 846, 847 (Tex. 1980). The heightened burden under the Family Code (i.e., clear and convincing evidence; Tex. Fam. Code §161.001) changes the appellate review process:
In conducting such a legal-sufficiency review, a court must look at all the evidence in the light most favorable to the termination findings to determine whether a reasonable trier of fact could have formed a firm belief or conviction that these finding are true. To give appropriate deference to the factfinder's conclusions and the role of a court conducting a legal-sufficiency review, looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment means that a reviewing court must assume that the factfinder resolved disputed facts in favor of its findings if a reasonable factfinder could do so. Furthermore, a reviewing court should disregard all evidence that a reasonable factfinder could have disbelieved or found to have been incredible. This does not mean that a reviewing court must disregard all evidence that does not support the findings in question. Disregarding undisputed facts that do not support the finding could skew the analysis of whether there is clear and convincing evidence. If, after conducting its legal-sufficiency review of the record evidence, a court determines that a reasonable factfinder could not form a firm belief or conviction that the matter that must be proven is true, then that court must conclude that the evidence is legally insufficient. In re J.R., supra (emphasis added).
What the trial court has done is severed the lines of communication and restricted the Wernecke’s rights to freedom of speech and association through which such second opinions might be found and considered. The trial court has set itself up as the final authority on what medical treatment is “right” for Katie, and has made it virtually impossible to challenge that decision—even though there appears to be sufficient time available to pursue other treatment plans or possibilities.
In Troxel v. Granville, the U.S. Supreme Court discussed and affirmed a dozen cases discussing the history and foundational importance of this right:
The liberty interest at issue in this case – the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children – is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court. More than 75 years ago, in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 401, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923), we held that the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right of parents to "establish a home and bring up children" and "to control the education of their own." Two years later, in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534-535, 45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed. 1070 (1925), we again held that the "liberty of parents and guardians" includes the right "to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control." We explained in Pierce that "[t]he child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations." Id., at 535, 45 S.Ct. 571. We returned to the subject in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 64 S.Ct. 438, 88 L.Ed. 645 (1944), and again confirmed that there is a constitutional dimension to the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. "It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder." Id., at 166, 64 S.Ct. 438.
The trial court has not fulfilled even one of the procedural requirements necessary before fundamental constitutional rights such as the right to parent may be infringed. As such, the orders of July 8 and September 20 must be vacated.
Lack of Procedural Due Process. The hearing from which the September 20 order issued was not instigated by a state motion asking that the Wernecke’s parental rights be terminated. The state thus shouldered no burden of proving the criteria under Texas Family Code §161.001. Instead, it appears that Judge Lewis undertook to deprive the Werneckes of their valuable and irreplaceable constitutional rights sua sponte.
With no proponent carrying the burden of proof to support termination of the Wernecke’s parental rights, no proof was submitted and no “burden” was enforced. This means that the Werneckes were essentially faced with a raw exercise of judicial power against which they were powerless to fight. This is the very definition of “violation of due process.” The judge essentially became the Wernecke’s adversary, considered who-knows-what evidence (there is no record of what evidence he supposedly considered, if any), and “found for himself” on the merits which resulted in issuance of the subject order on 9/20/05. There was no real “hearing” in any ordinary sense of that term, no evidence received, and no burden fulfilled.
Since the Werneckes have been deprived of fundamental due process, and because the state has not met its burden of proof under Texas law, the order of September 20 must be vacated.
As for the hearing on June 15 and 16, 2005, not much more can be said. While the Werneckes were afforded the opportunity to testify at that hearing, the state was not required to prove their unfitness as parents by clear and convincing evidence—or at least there is no proof that this standard was employed. In the July 8 order, the trial court never says it employed a clear and convincing evidence standard, nor does it employ the words describing use of such a standard: “whether the evidence is such that a reasonable factfinder could reasonably form a firm belief or conviction about the truth of the State’s allegations.” In re S.A.P., ___ S.W.3d ___, 2005 WL 1479007 (Tex. App. – Waco 2005, no pet. history). No findings of the court contained in the July 8 order show that the Court employed a clear-and-convincing-evidence burden. Therefore, since this critical, statutory burden is not proved by the record, it must be assumed that the court employed only a preponderance standard in derogation of controlling Texas law.
Freedom of Speech and Family Rights. Freedom of speech is guarantied by the Texas and federal constitutions to every citizen. See U.S. Constitution, Amendment 1; Texas Constitution, article 1, section 8.
By ordering Edward and Michele Wernecke not to speak to their daughter, or by depriving them of the ability to freely speak to her, the trial court has issued an order which constitutes a prior restraint of the Wernecke’s speech. Not only is this particular restraint not content-neutral, but any prior restraint is automatically suspect under the constitution. In FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 110 S.Ct. 596, 618 (1990)(emphasis added), the Supreme Court said:
While prior restraints are not unconstitutional per se . . . any system of prior restraint . . . comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity. . . . [A]n ordinance which . . . makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an [government] official – as by requiring [permission] which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official – is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms.
The September 20 order constitutes just such a system of prior restraint. It purports to restrain the future speech of the Werneckes, subject to the whims of the trial judge. As such, it must pass constitutional muster in order to be upheld. And it cannot do so.
The burden is on the state to show that the order is constitutional. The state must show two things: (a) that the restraint promotes a compelling state interest, and (b) that the restraint is the least-restrictive means of fulfilling that interest. This is the so-called “strict scrutiny” analysis.
It is conceded for purposes of this Brief that protecting the health and safety of Texas children from neglectful parents is a compelling state interest. However, the restraint imposed on the Werneckes by the order of September 20 can in no manner be deemed or found to be the “least restrictive means for fulfilling that interest.”
First, there is no evidence in this record—none—that the Werneckes had previously attempted to influence Katie not to undergo the cancer treatments presently being recommended by DFPS. Then, there is no evidence, circumstantial or direct, that if allowed to speak to Katie either of the Werneckes are likely to engage in any such influence on Katie in the future. The “evidence” the trial court must necessarily have considered before rendering an order of the magnitude of the September 20 order is wholly absent from the record.
Second, even if we were to assume, arguendo, that Edward Wernecke were inclined to verbally attempt to influence Katie not to undergo life-threatening cancer treatments, the restraint imposed on Edward Wernecke by the September 20, 2005 order is not narrowly tailored to fulfill that goal. Instead, it is a complete and total injunction preventing any and all communications whatsoever between Katie and her father, not merely any such “influencing.” A “narrowly tailored” injunction may at times be difficult to precisely describe, but it is certainly somewhat shy of the complete gag order invoked by the September 20 order.
Last but not least, there is no evidence in this record that preventing communication between the Werneckes and Katie will or is likely to serve as a means (least-restrictive or otherwise) to fulfill the court’s ultimate goal: preserving Katie’s health. Indeed, just the opposite is probably true if the Court accepts the possibility that stress is a debilitating condition, and that being far from home and unable to speak to your parents may cause stress to a 13-year-old girl facing life-threatening cancer treatments. From all appearances, Katie is making up her own mind on this issue, influenced by no one including the judge , the doctors, or her parents. However, the only possible reasoning Judge Lewis employed here must be that if he cut Katie off from communicating with those she loved and trusted the most, that would psychologically torture her and beat her down, and if he then told her she could once again speak with them “if only” she would just agree to the treatment, that would somehow influence her—along with the overanxious, professional, and efficient assistance of the experts employed by DFPS—into changing her mind.
This conclusion, while difficult to swallow and arrived at very reluctantly, is the only conclusion supported by the totality of the circumstances, including other language in the order in which the judge tells Michele Wernecke that he expects her to coerce Katie into agreeing to the treatment, and if she fails to do so—in writing—she like Edward will also suffer complete loss of her ability to speak with Katie. See 9/19/05 Transcript and September 20 order, Appendix Tab 1. State personnel have also been threatening Katie with deprivation of contact with Michele and Katie’s friends unless Katie began to cooperate with state-mandated instructions. See Affidavit of Michele Wernecke, Appendix Tab 5(2), ¶¶ 14-18. No other conclusion fits all the facts. There is no nice way to say this: if this was in fact Judge Lewis’s plan—to psychologically beat Katie into submission—it utterly shocks the conscience and constitutes an abuse of discretion rarely if ever before seen in U.S. jurisprudence.
5. By ordering Michele Wernecke to only speak to Katie using language
approved by the court, the court has abused its discretion by mandating certain speech, which violates Michele’s Constitutional rights.
According to the September 20 order under review, Michele Wernecke is being forced to make specific, content-based communications with Katie on the threat of losing her ability to communicate with her daughter at all. Specifically, the September 20 order requires Michele, when she speaks to Katie, to “encourage” her to have the dangerous medical treatment the court apparently believes is necessary. The order leaves no room for Michele to speak her true feelings to Katie, and in fact, threatens Michele and Katie with complete loss of all communications between them unless Michele abides by the order.
The state may not lawfully mandate that a person engage in particular speech or speak any particular words. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that “freedom of speech” is not only the freedom to speak, but includes the freedom not to speak—to be free from governmental coercion to speak particular words or ideas. In West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the high Court held that a student’s first amendment rights to freedom of speech are violated if the student is required, by government fiat, to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, salute the flag, or in some other way express a particular belief (citing numerous cases).
Here, Michele Wernecke is being forced—by court order—to “encourage” Katie Wernecke to submit to medical treatment which Michele does not agree with and which Katie herself has repeatedly rejected. Michele is being threatened with losing her ability to communicate with her young daughter if she does not go along with the state-imposed script, and she is even required to go along with that script in writing. See the September 20 order.
This restraint on Michele’s free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution must pass strict scrutiny analysis. However, the state in this case cannot show that the order is sufficiently narrowly-tailored to advance any compelling state interest. Not only is there no “compelling state interest” being advanced by the restriction, but even if one were to stretch to find the order is meant to somehow protect Katie Wernecke’s health, the order is not the least-restrictive means of advancing that interest. The September 20 order thus cannot withstand the strict scrutiny which the law applies to such restraints, and it must be stricken.
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
In this case, we have an emergency situation where a little girl is poised on the brink of having her will destroyed for purposes of getting her to “agree” to have life-threatening, irreversible, and non-essential cancer treatment. The only facts on which the trial court made this decision are illusory: that Katie’s parents are somehow endangering her health by influencing her not to have the treatment. In order to force Katie into “agreeing” to have this care, the court has used the infringement of both Katie’s and her parents’ constitutional rights as a bludgeon for coercing them into accepting the treatment. Such action is not only an abuse of discretion, but shocks the conscience of every thinking person, regardless of the “good intentions” behind the action. The end does not justify these means.
Our precious civil rights were not created or designed to be used by the state as levers to pressure us into doing what the state wants us to do. And our civil rights cannot lawfully be held ransom to secure our “agreement” to go along with what the state wants us to do. Yet, that is the net effect of the orders under review in this case.
If our rights are that fragile, if they are subject to manipulation in that manner, and if a trial court can so readily invalidate and disregard them on the record we see before us in this case, then our country is in deep, deep trouble.
Relators seek the following relief:
A. A writ of mandamus compelling the judge of the County Court at Law to immediately vacate the trial court’s order dated July 8, 2005.
B. A writ of mandamus compelling the judge of the County Court at Law to immediately vacate the trial court’s order dated September 20, 2005.
C. Remand for further proceedings.
D. Such other and further relief as is just.
Respectfully submitted,
JAMES A. PIKL, P.C.
_________________________________
James A. Pikl
State Bar No. 16008850
P. O. Box 2939
McKinney, Texas 75070
(214) 544-7000
Fax (214) 544-7001
Email jimpikl@flash.net
ATTORNEY FOR RELATORS EDWARD AND MICHELE WERNECKE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 4th day of October 2005, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS was served on the following by hand delivery, telefax, and/or certified mail, return receipt requested:
Linda J. Rhodes-Schauer
615 N. Upper Broadway, Suite 2200
Corpus Christi, Texas 78477
Duke Hooten
701 West 51st Street
Austin, Texas 78751
____________________________________
James A. Pikl
_______________________________________________________
APPENDIX
_______________________________________________________
1. Certified or sworn copies of any orders complained of, or any other document showing the matter complained of.
See attached.
2. Any orders or opinions of the court of appeals, if the petition is filed in the Supreme Court.
See attached.
3. Unless voluminous or impracticable, the text of any rule, regulation, ordinance, statute, constitutional provision, or other law (excluding case law) on which the argument is based.
See attached.
4. If a writ of habeas corpus is sought, proof that the relator is being restrained.
N/A (no tab in Appendix).
5. Optional contents:
(1) Affidavit of Edward David Wernecke
(2) Affidavit of Michele Wernecke
(3) Transcript of Hearing, In re Wernecke, September 19, 2005, County Court at Law No. 5, Nueces County, Texas
(4) Letter dated 9/27/05 from Dr. Hunningbake, M.D., to Edward D. Wernecke (includes report from the PNAS—Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences)
(5) Opinion: In the Matter of Noah Maxin, Case No. JU-124918, Court of Common Pleas, Stark County, Ohio (2002)
U.S. Constitution, Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
U.S. Constitution, Amendment 5
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
U.S. Constitution, Amendment 14
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Texas Constitution, art. 1, sec. 8
Every person shall be at liberty to speak, write or publish his opinions on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege; and no law shall ever be passed curtailing the liberty of speech or of the press. In prosecutions for the publication of papers, investigating the conduct of officers, or men in public capacity, or when the matter published is proper for public information, the truth thereof may be given in evidence. And in all indictments for libels, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.
Texas Constitution, art. 5, sec. 3(a)
(a) The Supreme Court shall exercise the judicial power of the state except as otherwise provided in this Constitution. Its jurisdiction shall be co-extensive with the limits of the State and its determinations shall be final except in criminal law matters. Its appellate jurisdiction shall be final and shall extend to all cases except in criminal law matters and as otherwise provided in this Constitution or by law. The Supreme Court and the Justices thereof shall have power to issue writs of habeas corpus, as may be prescribed by law, and under such regulations as may be prescribed by law, the said courts and the Justices thereof may issue the writs of mandamus, procedendo, certiorari and such other writs, as may be necessary to enforce its jurisdiction. The Legislature may confer original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to issue writs of quo warranto and mandamus in such cases as may be specified, except as against the Governor of the State.
"(b) The Supreme Court shall also have power, upon affidavit or otherwise as by the court may be determined, to ascertain such matters of fact as may be necessary to the proper exercise of its jurisdiction.
Texas Government Code §22.001
(a) The supreme court has appellate jurisdiction, except in criminal law matters, coextensive with the limits of the state and extending to all questions of law arising in the following cases when they have been brought to the courts of appeals from appealable judgment of the trial courts:
(1) a case in which the justices of a court of appeals disagree on a question of law material to the decision;
(2) a case in which one of the courts of appeals holds differently from a prior decision of another court of appeals or of the supreme court on a question of law material to a decision of the case;
(3) a case involving the construction or validity of a statute necessary to a determination of the case;
(4) a case involving state revenue;
(5) a case in which the railroad commission is a party; and
(6) any other case in which it appears that an error of law has been committed by the court of appeals, and that error is of such importance to the jurisprudence of the state that, in the opinion of the supreme court, it requires correction, but excluding those cases in which the jurisdiction of the court of appeals is made final by statute.
(b) A case over which the court has jurisdiction under Subsection (a) may be carried to the supreme court either by writ of error or by certificate from the court of appeals, but the court of appeals may certify a question of law arising in any of those cases at any time it chooses, either before or after the decision of the case in that court.
(c) An appeal may be taken directly to the supreme court from an order of a trial court granting or denying an interlocutory or permanent injunction on the ground of the constitutionality of a statute of this state. It is the duty of the supreme court to prescribe the necessary rules of procedure to be followed in perfecting the appeal.
(d) The supreme court has the power, on affidavit or otherwise, as the court may determine, to ascertain the matters of fact that are necessary to the proper exercise of its jurisdiction.
(e) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), one court holds differently from another when there is inconsistency in their respective decisions that should be clarified to remove unnecessary uncertainty in the law and unfairness to litigants.
Texas Family Code §161.001
The court may order termination of the parent-child relationship if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence:
(1) that the parent has:
(A) voluntarily left the child alone or in the possession of another not the parent and expressed an intent not to return;
(B) voluntarily left the child alone or in the possession of another not the parent without expressing an intent to return, without providing for the adequate support of the child, and remained away for a period of at least three months;
(C) voluntarily left the child alone or in the possession of another without providing adequate support of the child and remained away for a period of at least six months;
(D) knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the child to remain in conditions or surroundings which endanger the physical or emotional well-being of the child;
(E) engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the child with persons who engaged in conduct which endangers the physical or emotional well-being of the child;
(F) failed to support the child in accordance with the parent's ability during a period of one year ending within six months of the date of the filing of the petition;
(G) abandoned the child without identifying the child or furnishing means of identification, and the child's identity cannot be ascertained by the exercise of reasonable diligence;
(H) voluntarily, and with knowledge of the pregnancy, abandoned the mother of the child beginning at a time during her pregnancy with the child and continuing through the birth, failed to provide adequate support or medical care for the mother during the period of abandonment before the birth of the child, and remained apart from the child or failed to support the child since the birth;
(I) contumaciously refused to submit to a reasonable and lawful order of a court under Subchapter D, Chapter 261;
(J) been the major cause of:
(i) the failure of the child to be enrolled in school as required by the Education Code; or
(ii) the child's absence from the child's home without the consent of the parents or guardian for a substantial length of time or without the intent to return;
(K) executed before or after the suit is filed an unrevoked or irrevocable affidavit of relinquishment of parental rights as provided by this chapter;
(L) been convicted or has been placed on community supervision, including deferred adjudication community supervision, for being criminally responsible for the death or serious injury of a child under the following sections of the Penal Code or adjudicated under Title 3 for conduct that caused the death or serious injury of a child and that would constitute a violation of one of the following Penal Code sections:
(i) Section 19.02 (murder);
(ii) Section 19.03 (capital murder);
(iii) Section 19.04 (manslaughter)
(iv) Section 21.11 (indecency with a child);
(v) Section 22.01 (assault);
(vi) Section 22.011 (sexual assault);
(vii) Section 22.02 (aggravated assault);
(viii) Section 22.021 (aggravated sexual assault);
(ix) Section 22.04 (injury to a child, elderly individual, or disabled individual);
(x) Section 22.041 (abandoning or endangering child);
(xi) Section 25.02 (prohibited sexual conduct);
(xii) Section 43.25 (sexual performance by a child); and
(xiii) Section 43.26 (possession or promotion of child pornography);
(M) had his or her parent-child relationship terminated with respect to another child based on a finding that the parent's conduct was in violation of Paragraph (D) or (E) or substantially equivalent provisions of the law of another state;
(N) constructively abandoned the child who has been in the permanent or temporary managing conservatorship of the Department of Family and Protective Services or an authorized agency for not less than six months, and:
(i) the department or authorized agency has made reasonable efforts to return the child to the parent;
(ii) the parent has not regularly visited or maintained significant contact with the child; and
(iii) the parent has demonstrated an inability to provide the child with a safe environment;
(O) failed to comply with the provisions of a court order that specifically established the actions necessary for the parent to obtain the return of the child who has been in the permanent or temporary managing conservatorship of the Department of Family and Protective Services for not less than nine months as a result of the child's removal from the parent under Chapter 262 for the abuse or neglect of the child;
(P) used a controlled substance, as defined by Chapter 481, Health and Safety Code, in a manner that endangered the health or safety of the child, and:
(i) failed to complete a court-ordered substance abuse treatment program; or
(ii) after completion of a court-ordered substance abuse treatment program, continued to abuse a controlled substance;
(Q) knowingly engaged in criminal conduct that has resulted in the parent's:
(i) conviction of an offense; and
(ii) confinement or imprisonment and inability to care for the child for not less than two years from the date of filing the petition;
(R) been the cause of the child being born addicted to alcohol or a controlled substance, other than a controlled substance legally obtained by prescription, as defined by Section 261.001;
(S) voluntarily delivered the child to a designated emergency infant care provider under Section 262.302 without expressing an intent to return for the child; or
(T) been convicted of the murder of the other parent of the child under Section 19.02 or 19.03, Penal Code, or under a law of another state, federal law, the law of a foreign country, or the Uniform Code of Military Justice that contains elements that are substantially similar to the elements of an offense under Section 19.02 or 19.03, Penal Code; and
(2) that termination is in the best interest of the child.
Texas Probate Code §875(a)
If a court is presented with substantial evidence that a person may be a minor or other incapacitated person, and the court has probable cause to believe that the person or person's estate, or both, requires the immediate appointment of a guardian, the court shall appoint a temporary guardian with limited powers as the circumstances of the case require.
posted by Katie W. @ Monday, October 10, 2005
Friday, October 07, 2005
Supreme Court of Texas Rules on Emergency Motion for Stay
The Supreme Court of Texas stayed in part and modified in part the order of September 20, 2005 as follows:
1. The paragraph beginning "IT IS ORDERED that Edward Wernecke is to have no contact with his daughter until further order of the court" is stayed until further order of this Court;
2. The sentence "Further, Michele Wernecke's access with Katie is to be terminated if she does not encourage Katie in writing to comply with the treatment plan" is stayed until further order of this Court;
3. The paragraph beginning "IT IS ORDERED that Michele Wernecke is to have no contact with her daughter, Katie Wernecke, except as supervised by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services" is modified as follows:
4. The sentence "IT IS ORDERED that Katie Wernecke is to have no contact with her parents Edward and Michele Wernecke by any means except contact with her mother as provided for Michele Wernecke" is modified as follows:
5. The sentence "IT IS ORDERED that Michele Wernecke is to have no further contact with Katie Wernecke if it is determined that she is instructing Katie to not comply with the treatment plan or is delivering the same from Edward Wernecke" is modified as follows:
6. Except as herein stayed and modified, Order Following Emergency Hearing issued September 20, 2005, remains in full force and effect.
7. The parties have not challenged and this order shall have no effect on the Temporary Order Following Adversary Hearing, issued by County Court at Law No. 5, Nueces County, on July 8, 2005, including the order that the Department of Family and Protective Services be appointed Temporary Managing Conservator and have "absolute control of all medical treatment and medical decisions for Katie Wernecke."
8. The real party in interest is requested to respond to relator's petition for writ of mandamus on or before 3:00 p.m. October 17, 2005.
Done at the Ciry of Austin, this Octber 7, 2005.
Adrew Weber, Clerk
Supreme Court of Texas
COMMENT: The Supreme Court stayed late on Friday to reach this decision. Thank you all so much. This is a small victory in the legal battle. I now can visit or talk to Katie by phone, albeit very limited, under the supervision of CPS. I just want to tell her how much I love her and have missed her. I want her to know we are still battling for her to be returned home and for our rights to make the medical decisions for our daughter. Edward END COMMENT
1. The paragraph beginning "IT IS ORDERED that Edward Wernecke is to have no contact with his daughter until further order of the court" is stayed until further order of this Court;
2. The sentence "Further, Michele Wernecke's access with Katie is to be terminated if she does not encourage Katie in writing to comply with the treatment plan" is stayed until further order of this Court;
3. The paragraph beginning "IT IS ORDERED that Michele Wernecke is to have no contact with her daughter, Katie Wernecke, except as supervised by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services" is modified as follows:
IT IS ORDERED that Michele and Edward Wernecke are to have no contact with their daughter, Katie Werncke, except as supervised by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. Specifically, Michele and Edward Wernecke are ordered to have no contact with Katie Wernecke, except as scheduled ahead of time in cooperation with the department. During any contact by Michele or Edward Wernecke, a department representative or a department designee shall be present by telephone or in person.
4. The sentence "IT IS ORDERED that Katie Wernecke is to have no contact with her parents Edward and Michele Wernecke by any means except contact with her mother as provided for Michele Wernecke" is modified as follows:
IT IS ORDERED that Katie Wernecke is to have no contact with her parents Edward and Michele Wernecke by any means except as provided by this order.
5. The sentence "IT IS ORDERED that Michele Wernecke is to have no further contact with Katie Wernecke if it is determined that she is instructing Katie to not comply with the treatment plan or is delivering the same from Edward Wernecke" is modified as follows:
IT IS ORDERED that either Michele or Edward Wernecke is to have no further contact with Katie Wernecke if it is determined that either of them is instructing Katie to not comply with the treatment plan.
6. Except as herein stayed and modified, Order Following Emergency Hearing issued September 20, 2005, remains in full force and effect.
7. The parties have not challenged and this order shall have no effect on the Temporary Order Following Adversary Hearing, issued by County Court at Law No. 5, Nueces County, on July 8, 2005, including the order that the Department of Family and Protective Services be appointed Temporary Managing Conservator and have "absolute control of all medical treatment and medical decisions for Katie Wernecke."
8. The real party in interest is requested to respond to relator's petition for writ of mandamus on or before 3:00 p.m. October 17, 2005.
Done at the Ciry of Austin, this Octber 7, 2005.
Adrew Weber, Clerk
Supreme Court of Texas
COMMENT: The Supreme Court stayed late on Friday to reach this decision. Thank you all so much. This is a small victory in the legal battle. I now can visit or talk to Katie by phone, albeit very limited, under the supervision of CPS. I just want to tell her how much I love her and have missed her. I want her to know we are still battling for her to be returned home and for our rights to make the medical decisions for our daughter. Edward END COMMENT
posted by Katie W. @ Friday, October 07, 2005
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Please Note:
The publishing of other viewpoints on this blog does not mean we agree with everything said or quoted. Such material is included to show that their are alternative viewpoints on the treatment of cancer and alternatives to conventional medicine. We do not necessarily endorse or approve of the content of these posts. Our own posts are signed by us.
Edward & Michele Wernecke
Edward & Michele Wernecke
posted by Katie W. @ Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Vitamin C and Heart and Artery Diseases
Judge Carl Lewis could have prevented his torn aorta by simply supplementing his diet with Vitamin C. I sent the Judge the following scientific article as proof: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 97, Issue 2, 841-846, January 18, 2000 Aortic wall damage in mice unable to synthesize ascorbic acid by Nobuyo Maeda*,, Hiroyuki Hagihara*,, Yukiko Nakata*, Sylvia Hiller*, Jennifer Wilder*, and Robert Reddick§ * Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7525, and § Department of Pathology, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, TX 78284-7750. The article conludes that: "The most striking effects of the marginal dietary vitamin C were alterations in the wall of aorta,..." I hope he has taken it to heart! I bet his doctor and surgeon didn't tell him that. We are continuing to pray for his full recovery.
Meanwhile closer to my heart, Michele's mother is having open heart surgery to repair a defective heart valve. So Michele is in Wisconsin. Please pray for her mother's full recovery. I suffer from torn retinas in my eyes and blood sugar problems of Type II diabetes. Now I am beginning to see the cause of all the problems mentioned above.
Some doctors that study nutrition contend that humans need 6 to 8 grams a day of oral Vitamin C in divided doses, a figure much higher than the RDA, but a level that is comparable to other animals when adjusted for weight. High oral doses of Vitamin C can prevent ruptered aorotas, arterosclerosis, and type II diabetes. You also need to supplement with lysine and omega 3 oils like flax seed to get maximum benefit and usage of the Vitamin C. Linus Pauling first discovered this over thirty years ago. We ignored it, others wanted to hide the information, and now we are reaping the consequences. Perhaps I will include more on this later. I hope that others will benefit from the information in this blog.
Edward
Meanwhile closer to my heart, Michele's mother is having open heart surgery to repair a defective heart valve. So Michele is in Wisconsin. Please pray for her mother's full recovery. I suffer from torn retinas in my eyes and blood sugar problems of Type II diabetes. Now I am beginning to see the cause of all the problems mentioned above.
Some doctors that study nutrition contend that humans need 6 to 8 grams a day of oral Vitamin C in divided doses, a figure much higher than the RDA, but a level that is comparable to other animals when adjusted for weight. High oral doses of Vitamin C can prevent ruptered aorotas, arterosclerosis, and type II diabetes. You also need to supplement with lysine and omega 3 oils like flax seed to get maximum benefit and usage of the Vitamin C. Linus Pauling first discovered this over thirty years ago. We ignored it, others wanted to hide the information, and now we are reaping the consequences. Perhaps I will include more on this later. I hope that others will benefit from the information in this blog.
Edward
posted by Katie W. @ Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Monday, October 03, 2005
HOSPITAL GROUP QUESTIONS VALUE OF CHEMOTHERAPY
LifeForce Hospitals
Chemotherapy Report
Do We Need a New Approach to Cancer?
In 1971 Richard Nixon announced the War on Cancer, and promised a cure by the 1977 bicentennial. In each of the 28 years since, more Americans have died of cancer than the year before.
The failure of chemotherapy to control cancer has become apparent even to the oncology establishment. Scientific American featured a recent cover story entitled: "The War on Cancer -- It's Being Lost." In it, eminent epidemiologist John C. Bailar III, MD,Ph.D., Chairman of the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at McGill University cited the relentless increase in cancer deaths in the face of growing use of toxic chemotherapy. He concluded that scientists must look in new directions if they are ever to make progress against this unremitting killer.
Adding its voice, the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet, decrying the failure of conventional therapy to stop the rise in breast cancer deaths, noted the discrepancy between public perception and reality. "If one were to believe all the media hype, the triumphal ism of the (medical) profession in published research, and the almost weekly miracle breakthroughs trumpeted by the cancer charities, one might be surprised that women are dying at all from this cancer" it observed. Noting that conventional therapies -- chemotherapy, radiation and surgery -- had been pushed to their limits with dismal results, the editorial called on researchers to "challenge dogma and redirect research efforts along more fruitful lines."
John Cairns, professor of microbiology at Harvard University, published a devastating 1985 critique in Scientific American. "Aside from certain rare cancers, it is not possible to detect any sudden changes in the death rates for any of the major cancers that could be credited to chemotherapy. Whether any of the common cancers can be cured by chemotherapy has yet to be established."
In fact, chemotherapy is curative in very few cancers -- testicular, hodgkins, choriocarcinoma,childhood leukemia. In most common solid tumors -- lung, colon, breast, etc. -- chemotherapy is NOT curative.
In an article entailed "Chemotherapy: Snake-Oil Remedy?" that appeared in the Los Angeles Times of 1/9/87, Dr. Martin F. Shapiro explained that while "some oncologist inform their patients of the lack of evidence that treatments work...others may well be misled by scientific papers that express unwarranted optimism about chemotherapy. Still others respond to an economic incentive. Physicians can earn much more money running active chemotherapy practices than they can providing solace and relief.. to dying patients and their families."
Dr. Shapiro is hardly alone. Alan C. Nixon, Ph.D., Past President of the American Chemical Society wrote that "As a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incomprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good."
In 1986, McGill Cancer Center scientists sent a questionnaire to 118 doctors who treated non-small-cell lung cancer. More than 3/4 of them recruited patients and carried out trials of toxic drugs for lung cancer. They were asked to imagine that they themselves had cancer, and were asked which of six current trials they themselves would choose. 64 of the 79 respondents would not consent to be in a trial containing cisplatin, a common chemotherapy drug. Fifty eight found all the trials unacceptable. Their reason? The ineffectiveness of chemotherapy and its unacceptable degree of toxicity.
Famed German bio statistician Ulrich Abel Ph.D. also found in a similar 1989 study that "the personal views of many oncologist seem to be in striking contrast to communications intended for the public."Breast cancer activist Rose Kushner wrote that by 1981 "indiscriminate, automatic adjuvant chemotherapy was replacing the Halsted radical mastectomy as therapeutic overkill in the United States." Thomas Nealon MD, Professor of Surgery at NYU School of Medicine,Concluded in 1990 that "The treatment of this tumor now has slipped from too much surgery to too much adjuvant therapy."
Why so much use of chemotherapy if it does so little good? Well for one thing, drug companies provide huge economic incentives.
In 1990, $3.53 billion was spent on chemotherapy. By 1994 that figure had more than doubled to $7.51 billion. This relentless increase in chemo use was accompanied by a relentless increase in cancer deaths.
Oncologist Albert Braverman MD wrote in 1991 that "no disseminated neoplasm (cancer) incurable in 1975 is curable today..Many medical oncologists recommend chemotherapy for virtually any tumor, with a hopefulness undiscouraged by almost invariable failure."
Why the growth in chemotherapy in the face of such failure? A look at the financial interrelationships between a large cancer center such a Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and the companies that make billions selling chemo drugs is revealing. James Robinson III, Chairman of the MSKCC Board of Overseers and Managers, is a director of Bristol-Myers Squibb, the world's largest producer of chemotherapy drugs. Richard Gelb,Vice-Chairman of the MSKCC board is Bristol-Myers Chairman of the Board. Richard Furlaud, another MSKCC board member, recently retired as Bristol Myers' president. Paul Marks MD, MSKCC's President and CEO, is a director of Pfizer.
Copyright © 1999 LifeForce Hospitals
Chemotherapy Report
Do We Need a New Approach to Cancer?
In 1971 Richard Nixon announced the War on Cancer, and promised a cure by the 1977 bicentennial. In each of the 28 years since, more Americans have died of cancer than the year before.
The failure of chemotherapy to control cancer has become apparent even to the oncology establishment. Scientific American featured a recent cover story entitled: "The War on Cancer -- It's Being Lost." In it, eminent epidemiologist John C. Bailar III, MD,Ph.D., Chairman of the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at McGill University cited the relentless increase in cancer deaths in the face of growing use of toxic chemotherapy. He concluded that scientists must look in new directions if they are ever to make progress against this unremitting killer.
Adding its voice, the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet, decrying the failure of conventional therapy to stop the rise in breast cancer deaths, noted the discrepancy between public perception and reality. "If one were to believe all the media hype, the triumphal ism of the (medical) profession in published research, and the almost weekly miracle breakthroughs trumpeted by the cancer charities, one might be surprised that women are dying at all from this cancer" it observed. Noting that conventional therapies -- chemotherapy, radiation and surgery -- had been pushed to their limits with dismal results, the editorial called on researchers to "challenge dogma and redirect research efforts along more fruitful lines."
John Cairns, professor of microbiology at Harvard University, published a devastating 1985 critique in Scientific American. "Aside from certain rare cancers, it is not possible to detect any sudden changes in the death rates for any of the major cancers that could be credited to chemotherapy. Whether any of the common cancers can be cured by chemotherapy has yet to be established."
In fact, chemotherapy is curative in very few cancers -- testicular, hodgkins, choriocarcinoma,childhood leukemia. In most common solid tumors -- lung, colon, breast, etc. -- chemotherapy is NOT curative.
In an article entailed "Chemotherapy: Snake-Oil Remedy?" that appeared in the Los Angeles Times of 1/9/87, Dr. Martin F. Shapiro explained that while "some oncologist inform their patients of the lack of evidence that treatments work...others may well be misled by scientific papers that express unwarranted optimism about chemotherapy. Still others respond to an economic incentive. Physicians can earn much more money running active chemotherapy practices than they can providing solace and relief.. to dying patients and their families."
Dr. Shapiro is hardly alone. Alan C. Nixon, Ph.D., Past President of the American Chemical Society wrote that "As a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incomprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good."
In 1986, McGill Cancer Center scientists sent a questionnaire to 118 doctors who treated non-small-cell lung cancer. More than 3/4 of them recruited patients and carried out trials of toxic drugs for lung cancer. They were asked to imagine that they themselves had cancer, and were asked which of six current trials they themselves would choose. 64 of the 79 respondents would not consent to be in a trial containing cisplatin, a common chemotherapy drug. Fifty eight found all the trials unacceptable. Their reason? The ineffectiveness of chemotherapy and its unacceptable degree of toxicity.
Famed German bio statistician Ulrich Abel Ph.D. also found in a similar 1989 study that "the personal views of many oncologist seem to be in striking contrast to communications intended for the public."Breast cancer activist Rose Kushner wrote that by 1981 "indiscriminate, automatic adjuvant chemotherapy was replacing the Halsted radical mastectomy as therapeutic overkill in the United States." Thomas Nealon MD, Professor of Surgery at NYU School of Medicine,Concluded in 1990 that "The treatment of this tumor now has slipped from too much surgery to too much adjuvant therapy."
Why so much use of chemotherapy if it does so little good? Well for one thing, drug companies provide huge economic incentives.
In 1990, $3.53 billion was spent on chemotherapy. By 1994 that figure had more than doubled to $7.51 billion. This relentless increase in chemo use was accompanied by a relentless increase in cancer deaths.
Oncologist Albert Braverman MD wrote in 1991 that "no disseminated neoplasm (cancer) incurable in 1975 is curable today..Many medical oncologists recommend chemotherapy for virtually any tumor, with a hopefulness undiscouraged by almost invariable failure."
Why the growth in chemotherapy in the face of such failure? A look at the financial interrelationships between a large cancer center such a Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and the companies that make billions selling chemo drugs is revealing. James Robinson III, Chairman of the MSKCC Board of Overseers and Managers, is a director of Bristol-Myers Squibb, the world's largest producer of chemotherapy drugs. Richard Gelb,Vice-Chairman of the MSKCC board is Bristol-Myers Chairman of the Board. Richard Furlaud, another MSKCC board member, recently retired as Bristol Myers' president. Paul Marks MD, MSKCC's President and CEO, is a director of Pfizer.
Copyright © 1999 LifeForce Hospitals
posted by Katie W. @ Monday, October 03, 2005
Sunday, October 02, 2005
HighDose Intravenous Vitamin C - Effective Treatment for Cancer
High Dose Intravenous Vitamin C (IVC)
Let me start with an article by Bill Sardi:
"Recall how hydrogen peroxide is poured on wounds to kill germs. Well now researchers clearly show high-dose vitamin C, when administered intravenously, can increase hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) levels within cancer cells and kills them. I.V. vitamin C was also demonstrated to kill germs and may be an effective therapy for infectious disease.
With a growing body of evidence mounting, National Institutes of Health (NIH) researchers conceded today that intravenous vitamin C may be an effective treatment for cancer. Last year the same researchers reported a similar study but the news media failed to publish it.
The latest study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, confirms the work of Nobel-Prize winner Dr. Linus Pauling who conducted cancer research in the 1970s with vitamin C. Dr. Pauling's studies were discredited at the time by poorly conducted research studies at the Mayo Clinic.
Unlike cancer drugs, I.V. vitamin C selectively killed cancer cells, but not healthy cells, and showed no toxicity. The ability of intravenous vitamin C to kill lymphoma cells was remarkable – almost 100% at easily achievable blood serum concentrations.
For inexplicable reasons, NIH researchers continue to maintain high-dose oral vitamin C can produce a limited increase in serum vitamin C concentrations. However, their earlier study published in 2004 clearly showed oral-dose vitamin C can achieve three times greater blood concentration than previously thought possible, a fact which negates the current Recommended Dietary Allowance for vitamin C. [Annals Internal Medicine 140:533–7, 2004] NIH researchers refuse to issue a retraction of their earlier flawed research which mistakenly claimed humans cannot benefit from high-dose oral vitamin C supplements.
The NIH also offered no explanation why it has taken 35 years to confirm the work of Dr. Linus Pauling.
Bill Sardi, Consumer Advocate, September 14, 2005
The study of two-time Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling, referred to above, was done with Dr. Ewan Cameron, MD, in Scotland. In this study these two men proved that Vitamin C given intravenously to terminal cancer patients, at 10 grams a day, allowed them to live six times longer than those given chemotherapy.
I have written an article on the suppression of this study:
Article on Pauling/Cameron Study Suppression
There is currently an entire field of research called orthomolecular medicine which is devoted to natural treatments and their affect on disease.
A Dr. Wassell wrote: "Vitamin C is thought to act as a prooxidant inside the cell in high concentration, and some hydrogen peroxide is formed which is rapidly disposed of by catalase in a normal cell. Since cancer cells have a deficiency or lack entirely of catalase the peroxides kill the [cancer] cell." The only clinic I know of in the United States that uses this treatment is Bright Spot Clinic, a large research clinic. It is in Wichita, Kansas that the treatment was largely perfected by the late Dr. Hugh Riordon.
"In cancer, Riordan et al. (1995) demonstrated the likelihood that vitamin C was an effective anti-tumor therapy as long as high enough concentrations of it could be achieved inside the tumor(s). These researchers also concluded that oral vitamin C supplementation was unlikely to produce blood levels of vitamin C high enough to have a direct killing effect on a given tumor.
Later, in studying a certain line of cancer cells and the ability of vitamin C to kill those cancer cells, Casciari et al. (2001) elegantly demonstrated this point. They showed that the rapid intravenous infusion of vitamin C as sodium ascorbate in combination with alpha lipoic acid was effective in reaching vitamin C levels that were toxic to the cancer cells. They also showed that a fat soluble analogue of vitamin C, phenyl-ascorbate, was able to kill cancer cells effectively at a dose roughly three times lower than seen with unaltered vitamin C."
http://tomlevymd.com/archiveissue6.htm
Here is web page of the Bright Spot Clinic in Kansas: http://www.brightspot.org/
Let me start with an article by Bill Sardi:
"Recall how hydrogen peroxide is poured on wounds to kill germs. Well now researchers clearly show high-dose vitamin C, when administered intravenously, can increase hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) levels within cancer cells and kills them. I.V. vitamin C was also demonstrated to kill germs and may be an effective therapy for infectious disease.
With a growing body of evidence mounting, National Institutes of Health (NIH) researchers conceded today that intravenous vitamin C may be an effective treatment for cancer. Last year the same researchers reported a similar study but the news media failed to publish it.
The latest study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, confirms the work of Nobel-Prize winner Dr. Linus Pauling who conducted cancer research in the 1970s with vitamin C. Dr. Pauling's studies were discredited at the time by poorly conducted research studies at the Mayo Clinic.
Unlike cancer drugs, I.V. vitamin C selectively killed cancer cells, but not healthy cells, and showed no toxicity. The ability of intravenous vitamin C to kill lymphoma cells was remarkable – almost 100% at easily achievable blood serum concentrations.
For inexplicable reasons, NIH researchers continue to maintain high-dose oral vitamin C can produce a limited increase in serum vitamin C concentrations. However, their earlier study published in 2004 clearly showed oral-dose vitamin C can achieve three times greater blood concentration than previously thought possible, a fact which negates the current Recommended Dietary Allowance for vitamin C. [Annals Internal Medicine 140:533–7, 2004] NIH researchers refuse to issue a retraction of their earlier flawed research which mistakenly claimed humans cannot benefit from high-dose oral vitamin C supplements.
The NIH also offered no explanation why it has taken 35 years to confirm the work of Dr. Linus Pauling.
Bill Sardi, Consumer Advocate, September 14, 2005
The study of two-time Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling, referred to above, was done with Dr. Ewan Cameron, MD, in Scotland. In this study these two men proved that Vitamin C given intravenously to terminal cancer patients, at 10 grams a day, allowed them to live six times longer than those given chemotherapy.
I have written an article on the suppression of this study:
Article on Pauling/Cameron Study Suppression
There is currently an entire field of research called orthomolecular medicine which is devoted to natural treatments and their affect on disease.
A Dr. Wassell wrote: "Vitamin C is thought to act as a prooxidant inside the cell in high concentration, and some hydrogen peroxide is formed which is rapidly disposed of by catalase in a normal cell. Since cancer cells have a deficiency or lack entirely of catalase the peroxides kill the [cancer] cell." The only clinic I know of in the United States that uses this treatment is Bright Spot Clinic, a large research clinic. It is in Wichita, Kansas that the treatment was largely perfected by the late Dr. Hugh Riordon.
"In cancer, Riordan et al. (1995) demonstrated the likelihood that vitamin C was an effective anti-tumor therapy as long as high enough concentrations of it could be achieved inside the tumor(s). These researchers also concluded that oral vitamin C supplementation was unlikely to produce blood levels of vitamin C high enough to have a direct killing effect on a given tumor.
Later, in studying a certain line of cancer cells and the ability of vitamin C to kill those cancer cells, Casciari et al. (2001) elegantly demonstrated this point. They showed that the rapid intravenous infusion of vitamin C as sodium ascorbate in combination with alpha lipoic acid was effective in reaching vitamin C levels that were toxic to the cancer cells. They also showed that a fat soluble analogue of vitamin C, phenyl-ascorbate, was able to kill cancer cells effectively at a dose roughly three times lower than seen with unaltered vitamin C."
http://tomlevymd.com/archiveissue6.htm
Here is web page of the Bright Spot Clinic in Kansas: http://www.brightspot.org/
posted by Katie W. @ Sunday, October 02, 2005
Saturday, October 01, 2005
Chemo Success with Hodgkin's is a Lie says Doctor
A study of over 10,000 patients shows clearly that chemo’s supposedly strong track record with Hodgkin’s disease (lymphoma) is actually a lie. Patients who underwent chemo were 14 times more likely to develop leukemia and 6 times more likely to develop cancers of the bones, joints, and soft tissues than those patients who did not undergo chemotherapy (National Cancer Institute Journal 87:10).” John Diamond M.D.
Children who are successfully treated for Hodgkin’s disease are 18 times more likely later to develop secondary malignant tumors. Girls face a 35 per cent chance of developing breast cancer by the time they are 40—-which is 75 times greater than the average. The risk of leukemia increased markedly four years after the ending of successful treatment, and reached a plateau after 14 years, but the risk of developing solid tumors remained high and approached 30 per cent at 30 years (New Eng J Medicine)
Children who are successfully treated for Hodgkin’s disease are 18 times more likely later to develop secondary malignant tumors. Girls face a 35 per cent chance of developing breast cancer by the time they are 40—-which is 75 times greater than the average. The risk of leukemia increased markedly four years after the ending of successful treatment, and reached a plateau after 14 years, but the risk of developing solid tumors remained high and approached 30 per cent at 30 years (New Eng J Medicine)
posted by Katie W. @ Saturday, October 01, 2005
Friday, September 30, 2005
KATIE TO RECEIVE CHEMO TREATMENTS AGAIN
CPS has apparently lied to, threatened, manipulated, brainwashed, and coercised Katie into receiving chemo treatments again against Katie's own voiced objection on television on September 19, 2005 to anymore chemo treatments. Katie said at that time that no matter what CPS did or say she would not change her mind. So what horrible things did CPS do to get her to submit?
CPS had shut off all communication and visitation between Katie and her parents with a court order since September 20, 2005. I am not a lawyer, but if you get someone to agree to something under threats, coercision, and falsehood, than that document or agreement is invalid. So I believe they are now treating Katie against her consent and that constitutes an assault and battery.
Of course they will counter with Katie is a minor and can't consent or refuse treatment. But if determined to be a mature minor Katie can consent or refuse treatment. CPS was presented with an offer by our attorney to determine if Katie was a mature minor and an offer for an alternative treatment acceptable to Katie. CPS has repeatedly told her "Katie you will die without this treatment." CPS brought in tons of friends to reinforce that statement. Talk about emotional abuse and stress! Putting a cancer patient through this and separating her from her parents and family has got to be the most inhuman horrible crime. This sure seems like a hate crime because of our religion or ethnic background.
The only persons who have the right to make medical decisions for Katie are her parents. That right was taken away by a court order with no real evidence or proof of any kind. Yes, courts can do that in an emergency situation where someone might die. This was never an emergency situation so the court was not justified in acting. The court acted on an inaccurate and misleading affidavit signed by CPS worker Linda Kim Garcia, which until proven in court is only heresay.
Meanwhile the damage that this has caused to Katie, both mentally and physically is tremendous and irrepairable. The stress and emotional trauma that this has caused to myself and Michele and the boys is immense. The expense is unimaginable and devastating to my family. It is no wonder everyone loses to CPS as no one can afford to defend themselves.
Edward
CPS had shut off all communication and visitation between Katie and her parents with a court order since September 20, 2005. I am not a lawyer, but if you get someone to agree to something under threats, coercision, and falsehood, than that document or agreement is invalid. So I believe they are now treating Katie against her consent and that constitutes an assault and battery.
Of course they will counter with Katie is a minor and can't consent or refuse treatment. But if determined to be a mature minor Katie can consent or refuse treatment. CPS was presented with an offer by our attorney to determine if Katie was a mature minor and an offer for an alternative treatment acceptable to Katie. CPS has repeatedly told her "Katie you will die without this treatment." CPS brought in tons of friends to reinforce that statement. Talk about emotional abuse and stress! Putting a cancer patient through this and separating her from her parents and family has got to be the most inhuman horrible crime. This sure seems like a hate crime because of our religion or ethnic background.
The only persons who have the right to make medical decisions for Katie are her parents. That right was taken away by a court order with no real evidence or proof of any kind. Yes, courts can do that in an emergency situation where someone might die. This was never an emergency situation so the court was not justified in acting. The court acted on an inaccurate and misleading affidavit signed by CPS worker Linda Kim Garcia, which until proven in court is only heresay.
Meanwhile the damage that this has caused to Katie, both mentally and physically is tremendous and irrepairable. The stress and emotional trauma that this has caused to myself and Michele and the boys is immense. The expense is unimaginable and devastating to my family. It is no wonder everyone loses to CPS as no one can afford to defend themselves.
Edward
posted by Katie W. @ Friday, September 30, 2005
War on Cancer Is a Failure - Untreated Victims Live Four Times Longer
The New England Journal of Medicine Reports— War on Cancer Is a Failure: Despite $30 billion spent on research and treatments since 1970, cancer remains "undefeated," with a death rate not lower but 6% higher in 1997 than 1970, stated John C. Bailar III, M.D., Ph.D., and Heather L. Gornik, M.H.S., both of the Department of Health Studies at the University of Chicago in Illinois. "The war against cancer is far from over," stated Dr. Bailar. "The effect of new treatments for cancer on mortality has been largely disappointing."
"My studies have proved conclusively that untreated cancer victims live up to four times longer than treated individuals. If one has cancer and opts to do nothing at all, he will live longer and feel better than if he undergoes radiation, chemotherapy or surgery, other than when used in immediate life-threatening situations."---Prof Jones. (1956 Transactions of the N.Y. Academy of Medical Sciences, vol 6. There is a fifty page article by Hardin Jones of National Cancer Institute of Bethesda, Maryland. He surveyed global cancer of all types and compared the untreated and the treated, to conclude that the untreated outlives the treated, both in terms of quality and in terms of quantity. Secondly he said, "Cancer does not cure". Third he said "There is a physiological mechanism which finishes off an individual".)
Copyrighted Chemotherapy Quotes at
http://www.ghchealth.com/chemotherapy-quotes.html
"My studies have proved conclusively that untreated cancer victims live up to four times longer than treated individuals. If one has cancer and opts to do nothing at all, he will live longer and feel better than if he undergoes radiation, chemotherapy or surgery, other than when used in immediate life-threatening situations."---Prof Jones. (1956 Transactions of the N.Y. Academy of Medical Sciences, vol 6. There is a fifty page article by Hardin Jones of National Cancer Institute of Bethesda, Maryland. He surveyed global cancer of all types and compared the untreated and the treated, to conclude that the untreated outlives the treated, both in terms of quality and in terms of quantity. Secondly he said, "Cancer does not cure". Third he said "There is a physiological mechanism which finishes off an individual".)
Copyrighted Chemotherapy Quotes at
http://www.ghchealth.com/chemotherapy-quotes.html
posted by Katie W. @ Friday, September 30, 2005
The Truth About Chemotherapy and Radiation from Doctors
Success of most chemotherapy is appalling…There is no scientific evidence for its ability to extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancer…chemotherapy for malignancies too advanced for surgery which accounts for 80% of all cancers is a scientific wasteland.”—Dr Ulrich Abel
75 percent of oncologists said if they had cancer they would not participate in chemotherapy trials due to its “ineffectiveness and its unacceptable toxicity. - Dr. Ulrich Abel.
Oncologist. John Robbins M.D.
• “Percentage of cancer patients whose lives are predictably saved by chemotherapy - 3%
• Conclusive evidence (majority of cancers) that chemotherapy has any positive influence on survival or quality of life - none.
• Percentage of oncologists who said if they had cancer they would not participate in Chemotherapy trials due to its “ineffectiveness and its unacceptable toxicity” - 75%
• Percentage of people with cancer in the U.S. who receive chemotherapy - 75%.
“Chemotherapy and radiation do not make the body well. They destroy, they do not heal. The hope of the doctor is that the cancer will be destroyed without destroying the entire patient. These therapies do kill cancer cells, but they kill a lot of good cells too including the cells of the immune system, the very system that one NEEDS to get well. If a cancer patient survives the treatment with enough immune system left intact, the patient may appear to get well at least temporarily, but he will have sustained major damage to his body and his immune system. How much better it is to nourish the immune system directly by the use of natural therapies to assist it in getting you well instead of destroying it by the use of these therapies. Then the immune system itself can kill the cancer cells without any side effects and heal your body at the same time.” Dr. Lorraine Day, M.D.
Dr. Day is an internationally acclaimed orthopedic trauma surgeon and best selling author was for 15 years on the faculty of the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine as Associate Professor and Vice Chairman of the Department of Orthopedic Surgery. She was also Chief of Orthopedic Surgery at San Francisco General Hospital. In 1992, Dr. Day developed breast cancer, biopsy-proven, that become so severe it was eventually diagnosed as terminal. But she refused chemotherapy, radiation and mutilating surgery because of their dangerous side effects and chose, instead, to get well by a totally natural Ten Step Health Plan. She continues to be totally well and cancer-free a full twelve years later.
“I look upon cancer in the same way that I look upon heart disease, arthritis, high blood pressure, or even obesity, for that matter, in that by dramatically strengthening the body’s immune system through diet, nutritional supplements, and exercise, the body can rid (24) itself of the cancer, just as it does in other degenerative diseases. Consequently, I wouldn’t have chemotherapy and radiation because I’m not interested in therapies that cripple the immune system, and, in my opinion, virtually ensure failure for the majority of cancer patients.” Dr Julian Whitaker, M.D.
“As a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incomprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good.”— Alan Nixon, Ph.D., Past President, American Chemical Society.
The MD Anderson Comprehensive Cancer Center was sued in August 1998, for making unsubstantiated claims that it cures “well over 50% of people with cancer.” – Professor Emeritus Dr. Samuel Epstein
(Perhaps that is why M.D. Anderson won't quote a cure rate for Katie. They lied.)
75 percent of oncologists said if they had cancer they would not participate in chemotherapy trials due to its “ineffectiveness and its unacceptable toxicity. - Dr. Ulrich Abel.
Oncologist. John Robbins M.D.
• “Percentage of cancer patients whose lives are predictably saved by chemotherapy - 3%
• Conclusive evidence (majority of cancers) that chemotherapy has any positive influence on survival or quality of life - none.
• Percentage of oncologists who said if they had cancer they would not participate in Chemotherapy trials due to its “ineffectiveness and its unacceptable toxicity” - 75%
• Percentage of people with cancer in the U.S. who receive chemotherapy - 75%.
“Chemotherapy and radiation do not make the body well. They destroy, they do not heal. The hope of the doctor is that the cancer will be destroyed without destroying the entire patient. These therapies do kill cancer cells, but they kill a lot of good cells too including the cells of the immune system, the very system that one NEEDS to get well. If a cancer patient survives the treatment with enough immune system left intact, the patient may appear to get well at least temporarily, but he will have sustained major damage to his body and his immune system. How much better it is to nourish the immune system directly by the use of natural therapies to assist it in getting you well instead of destroying it by the use of these therapies. Then the immune system itself can kill the cancer cells without any side effects and heal your body at the same time.” Dr. Lorraine Day, M.D.
Dr. Day is an internationally acclaimed orthopedic trauma surgeon and best selling author was for 15 years on the faculty of the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine as Associate Professor and Vice Chairman of the Department of Orthopedic Surgery. She was also Chief of Orthopedic Surgery at San Francisco General Hospital. In 1992, Dr. Day developed breast cancer, biopsy-proven, that become so severe it was eventually diagnosed as terminal. But she refused chemotherapy, radiation and mutilating surgery because of their dangerous side effects and chose, instead, to get well by a totally natural Ten Step Health Plan. She continues to be totally well and cancer-free a full twelve years later.
“I look upon cancer in the same way that I look upon heart disease, arthritis, high blood pressure, or even obesity, for that matter, in that by dramatically strengthening the body’s immune system through diet, nutritional supplements, and exercise, the body can rid (24) itself of the cancer, just as it does in other degenerative diseases. Consequently, I wouldn’t have chemotherapy and radiation because I’m not interested in therapies that cripple the immune system, and, in my opinion, virtually ensure failure for the majority of cancer patients.” Dr Julian Whitaker, M.D.
“As a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incomprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good.”— Alan Nixon, Ph.D., Past President, American Chemical Society.
The MD Anderson Comprehensive Cancer Center was sued in August 1998, for making unsubstantiated claims that it cures “well over 50% of people with cancer.” – Professor Emeritus Dr. Samuel Epstein
(Perhaps that is why M.D. Anderson won't quote a cure rate for Katie. They lied.)
posted by Katie W. @ Friday, September 30, 2005
How Chemotherapy Works and Why It Ultimately Fails
According to U.S. physician and author Dr. Cynthia Foster MD:
"Cytotoxic chemotherapy kills cancer cells by way of a certain mechanism called "First Order Kinetics." This simply means that the drug does not kill a constant number of cells, but a constant proportion of cells. So, for example, a certain drug will kill 1/2 of all the cancer cells, then 1/2 of what is left, and then 1/2 of that, and so on. So, we can see that not every cancer cell necessarily is going to be killed. This is important because chemotherapy is not going to kill every cancer cell in the body. The body has to kill the cancer cells that are left over after the chemotherapy is finished. This fact is well known by oncologists.
Now, how can cancer patients possibly fight even a few cancer cells when their immune systems have been disabled and this is yet another stress on the body, and they're bleeding because they have hardly any platelets left from the toxic effects of the chemotherapy? This is usually why, when chemotherapy is stopped, the cancer grows again and gets out of control. We have now created a vicious cycle, where doctors are trying to kill the cancer cells, and the patient is not able to fight the rest, so the doctors have to give the chemotherapy again, and then the patient can't fight the rest of the cancer cell, and then the doctors give the chemotherapy again, and so on."
"Cytotoxic chemotherapy kills cancer cells by way of a certain mechanism called "First Order Kinetics." This simply means that the drug does not kill a constant number of cells, but a constant proportion of cells. So, for example, a certain drug will kill 1/2 of all the cancer cells, then 1/2 of what is left, and then 1/2 of that, and so on. So, we can see that not every cancer cell necessarily is going to be killed. This is important because chemotherapy is not going to kill every cancer cell in the body. The body has to kill the cancer cells that are left over after the chemotherapy is finished. This fact is well known by oncologists.
Now, how can cancer patients possibly fight even a few cancer cells when their immune systems have been disabled and this is yet another stress on the body, and they're bleeding because they have hardly any platelets left from the toxic effects of the chemotherapy? This is usually why, when chemotherapy is stopped, the cancer grows again and gets out of control. We have now created a vicious cycle, where doctors are trying to kill the cancer cells, and the patient is not able to fight the rest, so the doctors have to give the chemotherapy again, and then the patient can't fight the rest of the cancer cell, and then the doctors give the chemotherapy again, and so on."
posted by Katie W. @ Friday, September 30, 2005
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Parents Fighting State Over Girl's Care Want New Judge
09/28/2005
By LYNN BREZOSKY / Associated Press
An Agua Dulce couple fighting the state over their daughter's cancer care wants the judge who cut off family contact removed because of questions about his impartiality after he visited the girl in the hospital.
Corpus Christi Juvenile Court Judge Carl Lewis signed the order cutting off the contact from his hospital bed on Sept. 20, the day after a heart condition interrupted an emergency hearing in the case. Before he took ill, he said his visit with Katie Wernecke at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston convinced him her parents were influencing her to refuse care.
Katie, 13, stalled high-dose chemotherapy for her Hodgkin's disease by ripping out catheters and refusing to cooperate with nurses and doctors. Her father, Edward Wernecke, has said the treatment is extremely dangerous and could be more harmful than helpful.
Attorney James A. Pikl filed a motion Monday seeking the judge's recusal or disqualification. The motion contends that Lewis' private visit with Katie was improper and put his impartiality in question.
"If we are going to allow judges to conduct their own "investigation" into the merits of cases they are adjudicating and then still remain as judge of the case, then our system of law requiring a fair, impartial judiciary will become a joke," the motion says.
The 13th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied a request on Tuesday to to overturn Lewis' order.
Ed Wernecke said the judge's decision to cut the contact was "cruel" and Katie had made up her own mind about treatment.
"She knows that there's other alternatives they could be choosing," he said, citing weaker chemotherapy and high-dose vitamin C.
"The hearing was never completed," he added. "On the day of the hearing there was no testimony. ... They have to have evidence of us interfering or doing something, and we're not allowed ever to testify."
A flurry of motions, expanding legal team and "collateral" approach caused attorney Daniel Horne to withdraw from the case.
"I believe the Werneckes have a right to have their daughter home and make the decisions, but they want to look at in terms of a collateral attack on it and I was looking at it in terms of the merits," he said. "The strangest irony in all this is that everybody really, really does want to do the best for Katie. We certainly don't want to be legally right and then Katie dies."
He said family court code may have allowed the judge's visit because Linda Rhodes-Schauer, Katie's court-appointed attorney, requested it.
Thomas Stuckey, representing Nueces County, said he hoped to file a response to the recusal motion by Friday. Katie was removed from her parents in June after a doctor told social workers the family was refusing medical treatment and endangering her life. She has been with a foster family in Houston.
By LYNN BREZOSKY / Associated Press
An Agua Dulce couple fighting the state over their daughter's cancer care wants the judge who cut off family contact removed because of questions about his impartiality after he visited the girl in the hospital.
Corpus Christi Juvenile Court Judge Carl Lewis signed the order cutting off the contact from his hospital bed on Sept. 20, the day after a heart condition interrupted an emergency hearing in the case. Before he took ill, he said his visit with Katie Wernecke at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston convinced him her parents were influencing her to refuse care.
Katie, 13, stalled high-dose chemotherapy for her Hodgkin's disease by ripping out catheters and refusing to cooperate with nurses and doctors. Her father, Edward Wernecke, has said the treatment is extremely dangerous and could be more harmful than helpful.
Attorney James A. Pikl filed a motion Monday seeking the judge's recusal or disqualification. The motion contends that Lewis' private visit with Katie was improper and put his impartiality in question.
"If we are going to allow judges to conduct their own "investigation" into the merits of cases they are adjudicating and then still remain as judge of the case, then our system of law requiring a fair, impartial judiciary will become a joke," the motion says.
The 13th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied a request on Tuesday to to overturn Lewis' order.
Ed Wernecke said the judge's decision to cut the contact was "cruel" and Katie had made up her own mind about treatment.
"She knows that there's other alternatives they could be choosing," he said, citing weaker chemotherapy and high-dose vitamin C.
"The hearing was never completed," he added. "On the day of the hearing there was no testimony. ... They have to have evidence of us interfering or doing something, and we're not allowed ever to testify."
A flurry of motions, expanding legal team and "collateral" approach caused attorney Daniel Horne to withdraw from the case.
"I believe the Werneckes have a right to have their daughter home and make the decisions, but they want to look at in terms of a collateral attack on it and I was looking at it in terms of the merits," he said. "The strangest irony in all this is that everybody really, really does want to do the best for Katie. We certainly don't want to be legally right and then Katie dies."
He said family court code may have allowed the judge's visit because Linda Rhodes-Schauer, Katie's court-appointed attorney, requested it.
Thomas Stuckey, representing Nueces County, said he hoped to file a response to the recusal motion by Friday. Katie was removed from her parents in June after a doctor told social workers the family was refusing medical treatment and endangering her life. She has been with a foster family in Houston.
posted by Katie W. @ Thursday, September 29, 2005
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Werneckes want Judge Lewis removed from case
Attorney has filed motion to that end on couple's behalf
by Kathryn Garcia
Caller Times
An attorney for the parents of 13 year old cancer patient Katie Wernecke has filed a motion requesting that Juvenile Judge Carl Lewis step aside as judge in Katie's custody case.
Mc Kinney attorney James Pikl, who represents Katie's parents, Edward and Michele Werncke, state in a motion filed Tuesday that Lewis' Sept 16 visit to Katie at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston was inappropriate because it was conducted alone without court officials. The motion says that Lewis no longer can be impar
by Kathryn Garcia
Caller Times
An attorney for the parents of 13 year old cancer patient Katie Wernecke has filed a motion requesting that Juvenile Judge Carl Lewis step aside as judge in Katie's custody case.
Mc Kinney attorney James Pikl, who represents Katie's parents, Edward and Michele Werncke, state in a motion filed Tuesday that Lewis' Sept 16 visit to Katie at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston was inappropriate because it was conducted alone without court officials. The motion says that Lewis no longer can be impar