Abraham Cherrix Case Study

The cancer treatment story that I chose to write about was the case of Abraham Cherrix, a 16 year old boy that was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s Disease. In particular, this cancer has a very high cure rate it is “between 85 and 90 percent after 3 rounds of chemo” (Moore, 2006). However, the young boy, Abraham Cherrix, does not want to continue with his chemotherapy because of the side effects that he has to endure and his parents are in support of his decision. Abraham and his parents want him to try out an alternative treatment in place of chemotherapy. In contrast, the doctors are not satisfied with the family’s decision so they are charging his parents with medical negligence. The doctors are worried that without chemotherapy that he will lose his best chance at survival which

again is very high. Both the family and the doctors are looking out for Abraham's best interests and giving him a high quality life (Moore, 2006).
The case was taken to court and it was decided that Abraham does not have to receive the chemotherapy treatment that he dreads so much.

Instead they compromised on a combination treatment of the herbal treatment the family found and also care from a oncologist that may involve some radiation. This was the best outcome for both the family and the state. In the articles it constantly points out that Abraham is a very “smart and thoughtful” but still his is a minor (Caplan, 2006). Since he is a minor, the parents are left to make the decision of what they think he should do and in this case it was not the treatment that best guaranteed his survival. Future cases like this one I think can only be settled in court, especially when the rate of survival with the medically recommended treatment is so high. The right decision was made from this case and it took the state and the family coming together and working on a compromise to make that happen. I think even though Abraham is a minor he should have a right to say what goes in his body. However, the decision should be made with guidance from the doctors and his family because they both are looking out for the patient best interests (Caplan,

2006).
The policy for minors does not need to be made solely by one individual instead the court should hear both sides and make the decision with input from all sides. Each group has a different perspective on the situation and they need to be equally considered. In this situation, the parents were able to listen to their sons concerns and saw first hand how the chemotherapy made him feel. On the other hand, the medical professionals are able to look at more concrete reasons and take the medical background they have and make an informed decision. When dealing with such different perspectives sometimes a compromise cannot be made without a third party present, in this case the court. The court was able to make the best decisions for the long term and current well being of the patient. Multiple ethical principles are at play in this case but the most important one is Justice. Justice is the act of being fair and treating people equally (Zuber, 2017). The court was able to treat everyone as equals by hearing the reasoning for all the participants involved and this resulted in the best possible outcome for the family, the medical professional, and most importantly Abraham.