|
[ Home ] [ Up ] [ Drug Reactions ] [ Lost Health Freedom ] [ Alternative Medicine Inquiry ] [ The Pan Crisis, The Codex, & the TGA ] [ Codex in Australia ] [ Modern Medicine & Codex ]
 |
Cutting Through The Codex Smokescreen
Is the government trying to restrict the availability of
alternative medicines?
ACT NOW BEFORE IT IS
TOO LATE!
For an update, click
here. |
The following article has been kindly supplied by Eve
Hillary.
http://www.evehillary.org
DoCS
– Stealing Our Children for Medicine?
One Australian Family’s Nightmare Loss of Health Freedom
An Article By Eve Hillary
Last Revised 3/1/2004
eve@evehillary.org
Important: This
information is not to be construed as medical advice.
It is one family’s experience and it is sourced and referenced
with additional information. For legal reasons the names
of the child and parents have been changed. This is a revised edition which further de-identifies the
family’s details-not by request of the family but rather by request of
DoCS having applied to the Court for suppression orders. However, they
succeeded only in winning minor concessions, now made. No other
information has been changed. The facts in this article are true and stand
as logically probative facts derived from affidavits, legal documents,
medical records, interviews and independent research. This revised edition
complies with court orders issued in the NSW Supreme Court on 8/12/03.
Pursuant to these orders the author is hereby legally entitled to
publish this revised article. The author gives permission for this revised
article to be freely distributed for non commercial purposes.
(If you have a previous version of this article, please replace it
with this revised edition and you may pass it on.)
Lisa
was a red cheeked, athletic eleven-year-old when she complained of feeling
unwell in late November 2002. She
had been robustly healthy all her life, and had never experienced any
serious illness. She was born
and raised in an Australian rural community where the family has a farm.
Lisa enjoyed helping her parents with gathering eggs, planting organic
vegetables and tending to the cows. Her
father, James, worked nearby to supplement the family income and her
mother Elizabeth attended to Lisa and her siblings at home.
Lisa’s grandparents lived on an adjacent parcel of the family
landholding near a scenic river frontage, where Lisa, her siblings and
their cousins were frequent visitors.
The older children spent enjoyable days swimming in the river, and
helping their grandmother with chores including homemade butter making.
The extended family formed a close and cooperative unit that gathered
regularly. At those times Lisa’s favourite activity was babysitting for
the younger cousins while her parents, uncles and aunts spent the day
pitching in with some of the heavier farm chores.
Every
Parent’s Nightmare
Lisa
was normally a lively girl with a keen sense of fun, but in November 2002
her parents became concerned that she had seemed unwell over the previous
few days. Late that evening
they noticed a lump in her upper abdomen and James decided to take her to
the local hospital some distance away while Elizabeth planned to stay home
with the other children. By
the time preparations were made, Lisa was asleep. The next morning the
lump was still there and James took her to the local hospital where the
family doctor examined Lisa. He thought it was her bladder but
catheterisation did not alleviate the problem. James was advised to take
Lisa to another hospital some distance away where blood tests were taken.
The duty doctor returned to tell James that the tests indicated 11
year-old Lisa was 14 weeks pregnant. James, as the father of a number of
children, thought this was not the case for a variety of reasons, and told
the doctor that he had never seen a pregnancy originate from “so high up
in the abdomen”. He gave permission for further tests including a
Doppler test to check for a foetal heartbeat and an abdominal ultrasound,
scheduled for the following day. The
doctor however was so convinced Lisa was pregnant that he had already
contacted the local office of DoCS, the Department of Community Services
(child protection). He was
determined to question Lisa about sexual matters. In the interim, the Doppler test revealed no hint of a foetal
heartbeat. Meanwhile,
Elizabeth had arrived at the hospital, and with both parents present, Lisa
underwent an abdominal ultra sound the following morning, when a tumour
was found. James had refused
to allow the staff to question Lisa about sexual matters until more
conclusive tests could be done, but they had questioned the child anyway.
It is not known what effects this added stress had on the child.
She had by that time undergone a number of uncomfortable procedures
and was faced with a serious, possibly life-threatening diagnosis. To Lisa
it would have appeared that her life had taken a turn toward uncertainty
from the relatively carefree life she’d had on the farm.
Shaken
to the core, but struggling to remain calm for Lisa’s sake, James and
Elizabeth drove their daughter to John Hunter Children’s hospital in
Newcastle. The next morning,
following a CT scan, oncologist Dr. A. and surgeon, Dr. Cassey, told Lisa
and her parents that urgent surgery was necessary to remove the tumour. James and Elizabeth agreed and signed the consent form after
Lisa told them she “wanted it out”.
Dr.
John Cassey finished operating on Lisa at 3pm on Wednesday, November 27th.
The tumour had been the size of a small football and extended the height
of the abdomen from the pelvis to the diaphragm. Dr. Cassey removed the
mass, along with the left ovary and four lymph nodes. He explained that
Lisa had felt off colour because the mass had cut off its own blood supply
and was breaking down. He reassured James and Elizabeth that all went well
even though they were alarmed at the length of time Lisa had been in
recovery after surgery. Both
parents were momentarily relieved and felt Lisa was in good hands with Dr.
Cassey.
Three
days later the John Hunter Children’s oncologist, Dr. A. told the family
that the histopathology report had returned. The result indicated a rare
ovarian mixed germ cell tumour consisting of various types of malignant
cells, resulting from cancerous changes of various ovarian cell lines.
These cells secreted hormonal substances and tumour markers into her
bloodstream. He expressed concern about any residual tumour cells and told
James and Elizabeth that their daughter would die with certainty if she
did not receive chemotherapy. With chemo, Dr. A. claimed, Lisa had an
“85% chance of being cured”. They
asked the doctor how chemo worked. James
reports, the doctor “could not describe it as anything other than deadly
poison and that it was indiscriminate in the way that it killed both
cancer and healthy cells.” Dr.
A. recommended three chemotherapeutic agents to be given over three days,
bleomycin, carboplatin and etoposide.
This was to be repeated four or five times at 21-28 day intervals.
Impossible
Choices – “For my eyes only”
Lisa
and her parents returned to the farm to reunite with the other children
and their grandparents. Meanwhile
Lisa, clearly delighted to be back home, made a remarkably quick recovery
surrounded by her family. Before
the next visit to the hospital four days later James and Elizabeth studied
as much information as possible about chemotherapy.
They
discovered that Chemotherapy originated from mustard gas from which the
first family of cytotoxic (cell killing) drugs were synthesized. Nitrogen
mustard is still listed on schedule one of the Chemical Weapons
Convention. (1,2) Since
then, many other equally toxic chemical agents have been developed and
used as chemotherapeutic agents. Because of its high toxicity, staff using
protective clothing, goggles, boots and specialised rubber gloves
administers chemotherapy. The
floor below the preparation area and intra venous stand is protected from
accidental spills, as just a few drops of concentrate are so corrosive
that it can damage surfaces and cause chemical burns to human skin.
An accidental spill kit is located on the wall of chemotherapy
rooms. Staff mopping up spills carefully handle the hazardous material and
dispose of it as toxic waste. The
chemotherapy is infused into the patient and it immediately kills
fast-dividing cells including cancer cells, but also cells forming bone
marrow, immune system, digestive system, hair follicles and reproductive
cells of the testes and ovary. It also kills healthy cells throughout the
body, including liver, kidney and brain cells. Parents of children having
chemo are cautioned to wear gloves when bathing their children or coming
into contact with their urine. The chemicals saturate the body tissues,
killing red blood cells, which carry oxygen to body cells. This
causes fatigue, anaemia, and shortness of breath.
Low white blood cell count occurs due to the death of white blood
cells, the cells responsible for fighting infection.
The patient develops a severely compromised immune system incapable
of fighting off infection. The immune system’s natural killer cells are
destroyed by the chemicals, and unable to continue seeking out and
destroying cancer cells. Platelets are destroyed and with them the
body’s blood clotting ability. This causes nosebleeds and the
potentially fatal risk of haemorrhage into lungs, intestines, brain or
other organs, depending on how low the platelet count falls. Most patients
retch, vomit and experience diarrhoea shortly after chemo starts.
In some cases chemotherapy has to be stopped or the patient will
die. Three percent of patients die from the therapy. Many others die later
from longer-term complications, when the deaths are attributed to cancer
and not to the treatment. Some 67% of people who do not survive the course
of treatment die because of their weakened immune system’s failure to
overcome infection, directly attributable to the chemotherapy. Those that
survive the treatment often experience longer-term sequelae. Chemotherapy
drugs are often in themselves carcinogenic chemicals that break and damage
DNA. This creates a seed for a new cancer that may emerge years later as a
direct effect of the treatment. The most common cancers that are caused by chemotherapy are
leukaemia and lymphoma. Apart
from the relatively temporary effects of hair loss, this type of therapy
most often causes permanent damage to ovaries and testes causing sexual
dysfunction and permanent inability to have children.
Considering the significant risks of chemotherapy, this treatment
would be expected to deliver considerable efficacy.
However, 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.”
James
and Elizabeth went on to research the three cancer drugs the oncologist
intended to use and discovered a number of facts they had not been told.
Bleomycin is a toxic agent that is known to cause permanent lung
damage and precludes the medical use of oxygen.
This side effect would make any future resuscitation attempts or
anaesthetic increasingly likely to cause severe, permanent and possibly
fatal lung damage. The other
chemotherapy drugs were Carboplatin and Etoposide.
The former has a high incidence of causing deafness in children.
In recent studies it was found that hearing loss was found in 79%
of patients treated with Carboplatin. (3)
Etoposide is known to be associated with further cancers including
leukaemia following its use. Both
chemicals are also toxic to bone marrow, kidneys, skin and liver.
Platinum containing chemotherapeutic agents are known to leave
residual platinum in the body for years.
The long-term toxicity of this substance is unknown. And according
to the manufacturer’s instructions, none of the three chemicals have
sufficient information available to recommend their use in children.
The
family then researched other cancer therapies and found a number of
wholistic treatment approaches conducted by researchers both in Australia
and in the UK. They came
across Professor C. who conducted interesting work using bioenergetic
medicine, oxygen therapy and other immuno-supportive treatments.
The Professor was a scientist but not a medical doctor, however he
worked with a medical team in Melbourne. The other interesting work James
and Elizabeth found was that of Dr. Kenyon of Dove Clinic in UK, who used
intravenous natural anti cancer therapies and nutritional support on
cancer patients with encouraging results.
In principle James and Elizabeth preferred treatment modalities
that aimed to support the immune system in order to strengthen the
body’s ability to scavenge the cancer cells. They were keen to preserve
Lisa’s quality of life instead of risking her death from the effects of
the treatment alone. However, they still needed to know more about both
chemo and other treatments before they could make a firm decision.
The
family returned with Lisa to see Dr. A. in early December for blood tests
and a check-up. James asked the doctor about the possible causes of their
daughter’s cancer, as the diagnosis had seemed at odds with their
healthy lifestyle. According
to James, the doctor could not give an answer as to the causes, but told
the parents he wanted to start the chemotherapy on Lisa in the first weeks
of January, some 5 weeks away. That would give her time to recover from
the major surgery she had just endured.
James and Elizabeth asked about any alternatives to chemotherapy
and reported the doctor told them nothing else “has ever worked” and
he “would not consider using anything else”.
It seemed the parents’ line of questioning appeared to irritate
the doctor. By the end of the
consultation he displayed a sudden change from his previous position.
Now he told them it was imperative to start chemotherapy in the
next five days, before he departed on his trip to the US, or Lisa would
die.
The
doctor expected them to consent to chemotherapy. Still actively
researching the various treatment options, James asked for evidence that
such treatment would work. The
doctor left the room and returned some time later with about six papers. James recalls the doctor said; “This is all I have, you
will have to accept it.” James
asked him for a copy of these studies, to which he recalls the doctor
replied, “They are for my eyes only.”
The
parents wondered why there was so much secrecy about the treatment if it
is purported to “cure” Lisa. Dr.
A, clearly annoyed, mentioned that if James and Elizabeth didn’t go
along with his treatment “things could get quite messy.”
In most cases parents caved in when oncologists mentioned the mere
hint that their children would be taken away from them.
Around that time most parents dispensed with any more enquiries and
signed the agreement form for the child to commence chemotherapy
treatment. James and
Elizabeth, however, were the rare exceptions.
They wanted the evidence.
Two
days later the family flew to Melbourne to see Professor C. The Professor showed them his statistics on survival rates
following his treatments, which included vitamins, minerals, ozone (oxygen
therapies), and bioenergetic treatments.
The parents concluded on the evidence that Professor C had
something to offer with his non-toxic, wholistic approach.
This treatment was commenced, with Lisa’s enthusiastic
co-operation for two weeks. Lisa’s
subsequent blood tests indicated the tumour markers had dropped
dramatically since starting Professor C’s treatment.
Conundrum in the Medical
Profession
“…
the NCI (National Cancer Institute) has
effectively blocked funding for research and clinical trials on promising
non-toxic alternative cancer drugs for decades, in favor of highly toxic
and largely ineffective patented drugs developed by the multibillion
dollar global cancer drug industry. Additionally, the cancer
establishment has systematically harassed the proponents of non-toxic
alternative cancer drugs.---Professor Emeritus, Dr. Samuel Epstein
Elizabeth and James
wanted to be supported with the best possible medical care for their
daughter. They sought the
advice of two more doctors. One, an oncologist, agreed with Dr. A, but
could not give a reason for his views.
The other doctor agreed to support them in their choice of
Professor C’s treatments because he was familiar with his work, but he
warned he would disavow all support if the matter went “legal”.
The reason? The
orthodox establishment was powerful enough to cost a doctor his licence
even when there is evidence for the treatment’s efficacy.
If labelled “strictly alternative”, it was a hot potato no
matter what the evidence. James
and Elizabeth soon realised that the treatment of cancer was thick with
politics. They thought they
could decide what was best for their daughter, by merely pursuing the
truth, but now they had to tread through a minefield replete with hidden
agendas that posed new dangers they had not considered before.
They noticed cancer
doctors were divided into different camps: Orthodox oncologists were
utterly convinced, even passionately in favour of chemotherapy and those
few who were not convinced of its curative properties refused to admit
this in public. Orthodox
doctors regularly accuse wholistic doctors of not practicing
evidence-based medicine even if studies support their treatments, while
wholistic doctors question the validity of some of the mainstream medical
“evidence”. To complicate
matters further, the two groups are often at odds with one another. James
and Elizabeth had not yet met a doctor with the courage to speak out in
public.
A notable exception came
from cancer biostatistician Dr. Ulrich Abel, of Heidelberg, Germany, who
reviewed the scientific literature for cancer statistics in 1990 after
he’d become alarmed that the cancer death rate was escalating despite
almost every patient receiving chemotherapy before dying.
He wrote:
"Even
though toxic drugs often do effect a response, a partial or complete
shrinkage of the tumour, this reduction does not prolong expected
survival…Sometimes, in fact, the cancer returns more aggressively than
before, since the chemo fosters the growth of resistant cell lines.
Besides, the chemo has severely damaged the body's own defences, the
immune system and often the kidneys as well as the liver.” (The Cancer
Chronicles, December, 1990.) (4)
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.
Abel.
And just a few of many
other sources:
"For the majority of the cancers we
examined, the actual improvements (in survival) have been small or have
been overestimated by the published rates...It is difficult to find that
there has been much progress...(For breast cancer), there is a slight
improvement...(which) is considerably less than reported."---U.S.
Federal Government General Accounting Office
"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.
Out
on A Limb
"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 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.
At the
same time as they came across such astonishing information, James and
Elizabeth were starting to feel that they were out on a limb. But by then
they had to accept what was rapidly becoming self evident to all who saw
Lisa. The parents decided to continue with Professor C’s treatment after
they noticed a striking improvement in Lisa’s general health almost
immediately after she’d started treatment.
For the time being Lisa ate more than her father and her hearty
appetite led to her regaining the weight she had lost while in hospital.
Soon she had once again reached her usual weight of 40 kg with a bit of
help from grandma’s homemade butter, bread and jam.
James and Elizabeth regularly took Lisa to the local medical centre
for blood tests to determine the level of tumour markers. In January they
returned to see Dr. A. Still feeling like Lisa could use extra support,
James asked the doctor if he would be willing to monitor Lisa’s progress
on the current treatment modality with scans and blood tests, considering
her obvious good health and their apparent success so far.
(Low levels of tumour markers further supported this).
James reported that Dr. A refused strongly. He had consistently
refused to consider any other but his own treatment recommendations and
refused weeks earlier to send Lisa’s pathology report to Professor C and
Dr. B. in Melbourne.
With no hope of support from the oncologist, James and Elizabeth decided
to continue treatment with Professor C, his team in Melbourne and their
local GP. They resolved to add another local doctor to the team as soon as
possible to monitor Lisa’s progress.
Meanwhile, after consulting with Lisa, the three of them decided
not to see Dr. A at the Hunter Children’s Hospital again.
Their decision, however, was slipping from their hands, since Dr. A was
already set to start a series of events that would draw in government
instrumentalities; the same department that had been told by a doctor
weeks earlier that Lisa was “pregnant” when he’d jumped to the wrong
conclusion. Dr. A was as good as his word.
Things were already on their way towards getting “very messy”.
Part
2
Truth
Isn’t Easy
The
summer of 2003 brought a string of hot days and blazing bushfires, but
Lisa’s family had their own crisis to attend to. Because of their
healthy lifestyle, they had never imagined that any of their children
would suffer from childhood cancer. Suddenly
they were thrust into a position of heavy responsibility, having to decide
what was best for their daughter. Neither
James nor Elizabeth had had much previous medical knowledge but they were
determined for Lisa’s sake to learn all they could. At the time of their
daughter’s surgery the previous November they both agreed that they
could not live comfortably with their choices unless they were solely
guided by the weight of credible evidence and by their own reasoning
ability. They also knew how important it was for Lisa to have informed
choice and a voice in the decision-making.
While
Elizabeth was more involved with the day to day nurturing role of her
other children and providing for Lisa’s special needs, James took the
role of family protector all the more seriously and spent most of his
spare time researching. Out of a pressing need for accurate information,
he barraged the medical professionals with a multitude of questions at
every opportunity. Both parents considered it vitally important to receive
accurate and not conflicting information so they could keep their options
open to several treatment possibilities including chemo if or when the
time came. For the time being Lisa was making astonishing progress and
they decided to continue with the Melbourne Professor’s regimen.
They also stayed in touch with Dr. Kenyon and studied his protocols
and reviewed the studies that had been conducted on his treatments. They
discovered other cancer treatment centres in Germany, USA, Mexico and
Switzerland, which were getting good survival rates using natural
approaches or integrative approaches using a variety of orthodox and
natural treatments. All
they required now was a doctor to advise them without bias on the merits
or shortcomings of any given treatment option, someone who would not
railroad them and who could give them accurate information.
They had heard of a doctor near the NSW Central Coast who practiced
integrative medicine using both orthodox and proven alternative
approaches. They made
arrangements to see him as soon as they could juggle work and domestic
schedules. Lisa’s treatment
and frequent trips to doctors and to Melbourne was demanding most of their
available time.
Getting
“Very Messy”
If Lisa
and her family were under the impression that they had moved on to another
doctor’s care, it was not how Dr. A saw it. The previous December, he
had made a clinical note to the effect that should the family decide to
refuse his treatment that he claimed would bring an 85% probability of a
“cure”, he would consider it a “child protection” matter.
The doctor offered no supporting evidence for his prognosis.
During
February and March, Elizabeth and James kept in regular contact with
Professor C’s clinic in Melbourne. Lisa returned to playing games with
her siblings, which usually amounted to setting them up with various
mischievous pranks, which they took with good humour.
Most of Lisa’s antics were so clever it was difficult to be angry
with her and the family was collectively relieved and happy that her elfin
sense of fun was undiminished. Lisa’s lively presence gave them all an
opportunity to experience their close bond together again as a family.
In
March the John Hunter Hospital social worker, was instructed to organise a
meeting between Dr. V, head of Hunter Children’s Health network, and Dr.
A (the oncologist), due to his concerns that the parents did not return to
him for treatment. The social
worker noted that the “parents’ delay” in agreeing to Dr. A’s
treatment is placing Lisa at increased “risk of harm”.
Back on
the family farm, James, Elizabeth and Lisa’s grandmother had learnt to
administer Professor C’s treatment regimen home.
Lisa enjoyed her treatments and reported that she felt they were
doing her “good”. This
was evidenced by her return to her favourite activities of playing games
with her siblings, riding bikes, going for long walks in the hilly country
and seeing her friends.
On
March 11, Dr. A and Dr. V at John Hunter Children’s Hospital decided to
contact the Department of Community Services (DoCS) regarding their
concerns that Lisa was pursuing treatment other than the one Dr. A had
prescribed.
Meanwhile
Lisa spent the beginning of the new school year being home schooled by her
family, as the 40 km roundtrip to school was deemed to be too much.
Her Grandmother and mother took turns giving her maths, reading and
spelling lessons and her daily treatments. Her parents took her to the
local GP regularly for tumour marker blood tests, and by May they had
risen. Professor C explained that it sometimes happened with the treatment
she was on and his team would keep an eye on it.
Meanwhile, he adjusted the regimen accordingly.
Despite the rise in her blood tests, Grandmother states, “Lisa
responded very well and was able to walk around the cattle with me,
sometimes a journey of over three kilometres, over steep hilly country.”
Lisa enjoyed climbing and swinging from tree branches.
It was impossible to keep her inside for long. She enjoyed the
country air and revelled in playing with her numerous pet dogs, sheep and
calves. She loved watching
nature and even had a pet crab. She was always thrilled to see her friends
especially since she was well enough to stay overnight with friends of the
family. Peter and Lyn recall, “The treatment Lisa has been on has
made such a difference to her, that we can honestly say each time she has
been with us, all have remarked how well and healthy she looked.
Her energy level was high and she has been the liveliest of all
their children. People that
have met Lisa recently have not believed that she has cancer, as she has
responded so well to the treatment.”
In May,
James and Elizabeth took Lisa to see the doctor on the Central Coast.
Dr. Roehrich was a surgeon by training but practiced as a GP with a
special interest in nutritional and environmental medicine. He practiced
an integrative approach to medicine in general.
With cancer treatment, he was comfortable with surgery,
chemotherapy and proven natural or complementary treatments. He states his
primary objective with respect to any medical treatment is to weigh the
risks to benefits and tailor it to the patient’s quality of life.
He regards his role as providing patients with informed choices and
he is an avid reader of the medical literature.
It
wasn’t long before Lisa warmed to Dr. Roehrich’s mild manner, and
jumped around his consultation room while he tried to elicit a history
from her. Finally, he let her twirl around his office chair in order to
test her stamina. To him Lisa
appeared extraordinarily well
considering she had a grade three ovarian tumour (one that had spread to
other areas) removed six months previously.
She did not complain of any pain or discomfort and moved her body
freely while doing her mischievous antics in the surgery. Examination of
Lisa’s abdomen revealed no lumps or clinical abnormalities.
Dr. Roehrich was aware of Lisa’s rising tumour markers.
He took a detailed history and the parents briefed him fully on
Lisa’s history, providing all available test results. He noted that the
parents were health and diet conscious, and keen to discover possible
environmental links to their daughter’s cancer. They were very
knowledgeable about certain chemicals and hormonally active substances in
the environment that were possible triggers of ovarian and testicular
cancers. They were concerned about the escalation of these cancers and
wished to avoid the risks for their other children.
A brief discussion followed about those issues.
For the time being Dr. Roehrich could only include some essential
nutrient supplements that were missing from Lisa’s regimen to strengthen
her immune function, until such time that he had more information.
He noted Lisa’s healthy appearance in his clinical notes and made
a mental note to avail himself of medical studies on both chemotherapy and
the other modalities of treatment for Lisa’s particular problem.
While
the family attended to Lisa’s care back home on the farm, DoCS at Taree
had consulted with their internal legal advisor who issued requests for
information under section 248 of the Children and Young Persons Care and
Protection Act. 1998. The
previous week the department had contacted Lisa’s school with
instructions to answer a list of questions.
The school replied; “Lisa” is always well groomed and cared
for. She is a well mannered
and co-operative student.” DoCS
compiled a dossier on Lisa’s school and medical records, and interviewed
the local GP. Dr. A, the
oncologist prepared a written report to the effect that Lisa has not had
his treatment for several months and purported that she would die without
his treatment.
On May
15, 2003, just before lunch, two caseworkers from the Taree office of DoCS
arrived at the family’s home. Lisa was having her school lessons at her
grandmother’s house nearby, from where she was summoned so the
caseworkers could serve the child with documents.
Meanwhile James explained in great detail the medical treatment
Lisa was currently having. The
women served the father with a notice under Section 173 of the Children
and Young Persons Care and Protection Act. 1998, which forced him to take
Lisa to Dr. A at a specified time later that week. The hospital was a
two-hour drive away. When
Lisa arrived from her grandmother’s house, the two caseworkers were
visibly shocked. One noted in her report later; “The child arrived with
her aunty and her baby cousin. I
observed the child to be tall, slender, she had rosy cheeks, good skin
tone, bright eyes, no visible signs of being ill, bouncy, active and
apparently not incapacitated due to her illness.”
Judging by the tone of Dr. A’s concerns, they evidently expected
to see a neglected and dying child. The
caseworkers took Lisa aside and served the notice on her, explaining to
her that they were there to “make sure children are cared for
properly”. Lisa took
the paper that stated she would be compelled to see Dr. A, whom she and
her family had decided not to see months ago.
Lisa was eleven years and 8 months old. It was the first time she
had ever experienced strangers coming to her home and forcing a course of
action on her and her family.
On May
19th Lisa and her parents were on the road once again. James had managed to get a concession out of DoCS that
they would not be forced to see Dr. A. Instead DoCS made a booking with
another Oncologist, Professor M at the Sydney Children’s Hospital.
Dr. M conducted a clinical examination. In a letter to Dr. A on 30th
May he states; “When I examined “Lisa” on 20.5.03 I could find no
abnormalities”. He ordered
a bone and CT scan for Lisa for the following week.
He ordered no other treatment in the interim. Chemo was discussed.
The hospital social worker consulted with the family.
She later reported back to DoCS that James and Elizabeth had
requested studies (that supported the efficacy of chemotherapy for
Lisa’s type of cancer). The
social worker complained that they seemed quite “strange”.
The Sydney Oncologist was also unnerved by the parents’ request
for information. He reported
back to DoCS that; “The parent’s behaviour and decision making about
basics shows significant departure from normal behaviour in our
society.”
Meanwhile
in the absence of medical evidence the parents did not enter into any
agreements about chemotherapy for Lisa.
The doctor was quite clearly looking for other reasons as to why
the parents were not convinced about chemo.
He noted; “I don’t feel it’s only the family’s decision,
but perhaps the church or influences from grandparents and extended family
members.”
Lisa
and her family were nondenominational.
They had never gone to a church in search of medical information.
The
family returned to see Dr. M, the Sydney Oncologist the following week.
He told them the bone scan was clear, as was the former site of the
original mass. But the CT
scan revealed that Lisa had a plum sized mass attached to the lower pole
of her spleen which did not appear to be a solid tumour mass, but appeared
cystic or fluid filled. The doctor told the parents that Lisa was now in
urgent need of chemotherapy and he wanted to start immediately. James told
Dr. M he would give him an answer in a few days, and the family returned
home. The doctor contacted
DoCS and told them he was concerned that Lisa would drop dead at any
moment.
By now
the family had travelled from home to Sydney to Melbourne for professor
C’s treatment and back home again.
Back on the farm the family’s reunion was held under a cloud. Lisa was quieter than usual as she was forced to reconsider
her treatment options. She
told her parents that she had seen kids who’d had chemo at the hospital
and she had decided that if that were her only choice she would rather die
happy, surrounded by her family and animals.
No sooner had the family settled down from their exhausting trip,
than another visitor arrived from DoCS to question Lisa. She was beginning
to sense the pressure keenly, and it was beginning to show.
Lisa was more reluctant than ever to talk to strangers. Later she
told her father; “I don’t want chemotherapy, Dad, there is no
guarantee that I would live.”
Meanwhile
the department of Community Services (DoCS) intervened swiftly and took
the case to the Supreme Court where Lisa was made a ward of that Court.
In the
week prior and just after the court hearing, James’s car was broken into
twice, the money he had in the glove box was untouched.
Their home had also been entered during the Queen’s Birthday long
weekend. Nothing but important papers had been taken, all of them
pertaining to Lisa’s court case.
Involuntary
chemotherapy was started on June 13, and lasted for three days.
Lisa was so sick during the procedure the hospital staff warned
that she could die from the treatment.
Within days Lisa had brown striped skin discoloration over her body
and her hair began falling out in clumps. She was allowed home to recover.
Two weeks later she presented to Dr. Roehrich, hardly able to
stand. She was pale and listless. She said very little.
The doctor noted that she’d had severe and prolonged nosebleeds,
a sign of a low platelet count, and upper respiratory tract infection,
along with an active chest infection. She’d also had abdominal
discomfort and cramping since the treatment. The doctor recommended a
pro-biotic lactobacillus powder to restore the bowel flora after the
chemo’s massive gut cell kill-off had disturbed bowel function. Lisa
later reported this had helped her “a lot”.
He wrote a medical certificate declaring Lisa as “unfit to
receive another dose of chemotherapy at this time”. In
addition Lisa was still suffering from a heavy chest infection and seemed
unfit for any invasive procedure. The following day her parents were
compelled to bring her to the Sydney Children’s hospital.
The DoCS’ legal representative wrote a letter to his Honour, the
Supreme Court Judge, notifying him of the fact that Lisa would be operated
on forthwith to remove her spleen. As
Lisa was wheeled into the operating room, her parents were told this was a
court order and were given no opportunity to sign a consent form. As James
and Elizabeth waited for Lisa to come out of surgery they were left
wondering why it was that since Lisa had had the chemo, (which was
supposed to decrease tumour size), her splenic lump had doubled in size.
The staff could not give them an adequate explanation. Now their
child was suffering from the post-operative complications of a severe
chest infection for which she could not have oxygen because she had had
Bleomycin as one of her chemotherapeutic agents, which when combined with
therapeutic oxygen, can cause lung damage.
Lisa was in agony for a week post operatively while she tried to
cough and clear her chest without tearing her abdominal sutures.
Ten days after surgery she still had not eaten much.
Hunched and frail, barely able to get out of bed, she received a
visit from the DoCS legal personnel and caseworkers.
They sent her grandmother out of the room and when they were alone
with her, they impressed upon Lisa that she was a ward of the Court and
without chemotherapy, they claimed, she would certainly die. DoCS social
workers were determined to make Lisa aware of her “rights”. Lisa had never in her life heard so much about death as
she had since the people from DOCS had come into her life.
Dr.
Roehrich visited Lisa at the hospital. He was shocked at Lisa’s
emaciated state and the large amount of weight she had lost.
He noticed that the child was unusually quiet and withdrawn, hardly
bothering to look up, even at her mother and grandmother. Since he had
seen the parents last he had investigated a number of clinics in various
countries that had had quite surprising success with integrative and
natural cancer treatments, but it seemed a mute point at the time.
He was also in the process of conducting a search of the medical
literature about chemotherapy treatment for Lisa’s cancer, and what he
found was beginning to surprise him.
But for the time being he decided to keep it to himself.
His concern was with Lisa’s emotional wellbeing, which had
clearly suffered since she was forced to undergo treatment.
Most of all he suspected her main suffering came from the fact that
the Court was now her parent. And
there was another hearing scheduled.
Dr. Roehrich decided to address the court directly with the
following plea on Lisa’s behalf:
July 23, 2003
To His Honour Judge (name deleted),
Re: My patient; (name and date of birth deleted)
I, Dr. Eckard Roehrich am a registered medical doctor, having practiced
medicine in New South Wales since 1982. Prior to that time I practiced
medicine and surgery in Hamburg, Germany where I was board certified in
general surgery and trauma surgery. In
addition to my medical degree I hold a PhD in Experimental Medical
Physiology from the University of Kiel. Please refer to my CV for further
professional details.
I
can confidently say that I am well grounded in conventional medical
approaches to cancer such as surgery and chemotherapy.
However during the last 20 years of medical practice, I have also
undertaken further professional training in environmental and nutritional
medicine, which includes nutritional and complementary and alternative
approaches. I have practiced
an integrated approach to medicine for over 20 years, encompassing both
orthodox as well as alternative treatments for a variety of conditions
including cancer. I currently use a variety of modalities and integrate
them according to the patient’s needs. This includes: pharmaceutical
approaches, nutritional medicine, surgery, acupuncture, diet,
orthomolecular medicine, hormone therapies (where required), intra-venous
therapies and counselling. I
have found many positive outcomes using this integrated approach with few
side effects. It can also be tailored to individual needs and tolerances.
I have read all available legal material and medical records pertaining
to (“Lisa”), to this current time.
I
first saw (Lisa) on 19.5.03 at my surgery at which time she had been
recovering from surgery to remove a left ovarian tumour in November 2002.
Despite rising tumour markers at the time she looked remarkably well. She
had been undergoing treatment under (Professor
C.) at the time and the treatment regimen was in the process of
being reassessed when the Department of Community Services (DoCS)
intervened, as I understand it, at the behest of (Dr. A) who had formed
the opinion that Lisa would die if she did not undergo his recommended
treatment consisting of high dose chemotherapy.
As a result of this action (Lisa) became a ward of the Court and
subsequently underwent further surgery and a cycle of chemotherapy, under
the supervision of Dr. A’s nominated colleague (Dr.M).
(Lisa) tolerated the chemotherapy very poorly with major side
effects, which I documented at the time of her visit to my surgery on
3.7.03. During her
involuntary hospitalisation and treatment I noted that (Lisa) had become
very despondent, refused to eat and suffered significant weight loss.
I
understand that in the interim Mr. and Mrs. (deleted) have sought medical
advice from Dr. Kenyon, a physician in the UK with an integrated approach. I am familiar with the regimen Dr. Kenyon proposes and would
be happy to oversee his protocol. I
would be equally willing to continue monitoring (Lisa’s) treatment and
be involved in administering other integrated approaches, should the court
so decide. My preference is
to brief a specialist oncologist who is versed in both orthodox and
integrative approaches. I would be happy to treat or monitor (Lisa) under
his supervision.
It
is not my intention at this time to argue the merits or shortcomings of
either approach to treatment of (Lisa’s) condition.
And in my opinion it is most unfortunate that the family has been
caught in the crossfire between medical opinions, when it is obvious to me
that they had widely researched the available treatment options and were
trying to provide their daughter with a range of therapeutic options up
until the time (Lisa) became a ward of the Court by way of DoCS
intervention.
I can state with
absolute certainty the fact that (Lisa) is a very intelligent girl. She
has heard a great deal of discussion from staff about her care, and about
the “likelihood” of her “death” if she does not pursue Dr. M’s
and Dr. A’s treatment. She is aware that Dr. A and Dr. M have
recommended to DoCS that her parents have limited access to her.
Furthermore (Lisa) is aware of their advice that she be entirely
removed from her family and placed in foster care and furthermore that she
involuntarily undergoes another 3 to 4 cycles of chemotherapy such as the
first course which caused severe side effects. I have closely monitored
(Lisa’s) progress since before she became a ward of the Court.
It is my opinion that removing (Lisa) from her closely-knit family
would be tantamount to collapsing this child’s life and removing from
her all that she knows and holds dear. Placing her into an alien
environment and severing bonds between (Lisa), her parents and her sisters
and brothers, would cause her such excruciating emotional pain and stress
that this cataclysmic event alone can be reasonably expected to shorten
her life expectancy even if the forced treatment she undergoes is
guaranteed to work, which it is not.
Indeed, as I had occasion to observe recently, the mere threat of
this possibility, while (Lisa) is forced to languish in the hospital
environment, is already deeply distressing to her, and is set to undermine
her chances of recovery, no matter what modality is used.
Children
undergoing chemotherapy are at considerable risk of developing
post-traumatic stress disorder, even when supported by a loving family. It is difficult to imagine how (Lisa) would endure this
extremely unpleasant procedure after she has been virtually orphaned by
the persistent actions of the department of community services claiming to
act in her best interests.
So
far (Lisa) has not been consulted about her management. Her only way to
register her disapproval has been her periodic refusal to eat in the
hospital. She will be 12 years old in [deleted] weeks. With the utmost
respect, my recommendation is to allow (Lisa) her voice.
I also respectfully recommend she be allowed to return home to a
family environment while the merits or shortcomings of her management are
argued elsewhere but at her bedside.
If you will allow me to make one further suggestion, I would
request that the court considers allowing two oncologists with integrative
approaches to be briefed on (Lisa’s) condition.
I would be happy to assist with this.
I
would be happy to provide Your Honour with further and better particulars
if required.
Sincerely
Yours,
Signed
Dr.
Eckard Roehrich MBBS PhD
What
About the Side Effects?
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 (NCI Journal 87:10)."— Dr.John Diamond MD
Lisa
lurched from crisis to crisis as each court hearing decided the next
traumatic event in her life. She seemed to be forever waiting on a ruling
from a Judge somewhere in Sydney who had nothing but papers before him and
who had never met her. Her fate was in a stranger’s hands and Lisa had
found it difficult to be in hospital for weeks on end without seeing her
brothers and sisters. And she
missed her pets. Now the State of New South Wales (DoCS) was her parent
and all she knew of them was the women and men who came around in their
suits and handed pieces of paper to her and talked about her “rights”
and told her she would die if she did not have chemo.
She well remembered the last dose she had five weeks previously and
it was the first time since her illness began that she had felt close to
death. The treatment made her
feel worse than she had ever felt in her life.
“I don’t want that stuff in me, Mum,” she’d said after the
first treatment. “Can’t I
just undo it and let it go on the floor?”
Had Lisa decided to carry out her idea, the hospital staff would
have been required to carry out the following manufacturer’s
instructions regarding spills and disposal:
“If spills occur, restrict access to the affected area.
Wear two pairs of gloves (latex rubber), a respirator mask, a
protective gown and safety glasses.…spills to be treated with sulfuric
acid with potassium permanganate…cytotoxic waste should be regarded as
hazardous or toxic and clearly labelled…and should be incinerated at
1,100 degrees C.” (49)
Far
from being able to reassure Lisa and her family with solid evidence of the
safety and efficacy of the treatment, the oncology staff had already made
the decision that any obstacle to its administration would be removed.
The hospital staff was always on the lookout for signs of
non-compliance. It was of
great importance that Lisa learnt to like her chemotherapy treatments and
regard the fatigue, retching, body aches, bloating, nosebleeds and
abdominal pain as a sign that it was doing her good.
Both oncologists had already petitioned DoCS and the Court to order
a full psychological assessment into Lisa’s and her family’s
attitudes. Far from being
independent, the nominated psychologist was closely affiliated with Dr. M
from the Children’s hospital and had done much DoCS work in the past.
Lisa
was hastily discharged from Sydney Children’s Hospital when Dr. M felt
the case was too troublesome. The
family’s questions were now becoming somewhat difficult when asked in
front of other parents. He
discharged Lisa on the grounds that her case was preventing him from
treating those patients who wanted his treatment.
He said he would not undertake any more hands-on treatment but he
and Dr. A both petitioned the court and DoCS asking for Lisa to be removed
from her parents and confined to the Hunter Children’s hospital for
extensive chemotherapy treatments. The
doctors further recommended Lisa be placed in a foster home. They
requested that the parent’s access to the child be severely restricted.
In a
ruling handed down by the Supreme Court in July Lisa was returned to the
care of Dr. A at the John Hunter Children’s hospital.
Her access to her parents was to be limited to two hours only.
DoCS did not consult Dr. Roehrich’s opinion as Lisa’s primary
care doctor. And the Judge
evidently took no account of Dr. Roehrich’s recommendations for the
child’s health and wellbeing.
The
questions about the side effects were never answered.
“Children
who are successfully treated [with chemotherapy] for Hodgkin's disease are 18 times more likely later to
develop secondary malignant tumours. 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 tumours remained high and
approached 30 per cent at 30 years (New Eng J Med, March 21, 1996)”
Part
Three
Lisa’s
New “Parents”
Prisoners shall
have opportunities for taking physical exercise, including sports and
games, and for being out of doors. Sufficient open spaces shall be
provided for this purpose in all camps.
Article
38 Geneva Convention
Lisa’s
shrunken little body seemed further dwarfed by the large empty room she
solely occupied at the John Hunter Children’s hospital. She would be
twelve years old in a few weeks, normally a joyful occasion when her
family would put on a celebration for her. Now the thought held only a
painful reminder that she had lost her family, possibly indefinitely.
The recent events also claimed 20 percent of her body weight since
she last weighed herself at home. She now weighed just over 30 kg. Most of the day, she sat on her bed gazing out of the
airtight and screened window at the trees on the hospital grounds. She was
a little farm girl and it was the only bit of nature she had seen for
weeks. Her mother had asked
the staff’s permission to take Lisa for a walk outside but the request
was refused. By then Lisa had not had fresh air or sunshine for weeks.
Her head was entirely bald and she only managed a smile when her
parents were there. Lisa did not know why the judge had restricted her
parents from seeing her. She
was allowed to see her parents or sisters for only two hours a day and the
hospital staff had included the time she had spent on the phone to them as
being counted as visiting time.
Lisa was twisted into anxious despair most of the day waiting for
her family to come, her limbs folded up into a protective posture.
Food trays came and went, laden with milk, ice-cream custard,
coloured jelly and bacon. She
did not eat those foods. She
had been used to fresh fruits and vegetables, rice, whole-grains, chicken
and fish at home. Her trays went back untouched and her weight steadily
declined. Dr. Roehrich had
requested that Dr. A allow Lisa to eat the nutritious foods that she was
accustomed to. He mentioned
that Lisa appeared nutritionally deficient and in all probability was
suffering from the early effects of mal-nutrition. He also recommended
Lisa continue taking the minerals and vitamins he had prescribed for her
earlier, to promote her recovery, and to correct the deficiencies.
Dr. A explained that he had decided on an ordinary hospital diet
for Lisa and nothing else. Evidently the oncologist felt strongly that only
chemotherapy was indicated for her condition and that did not include
fresh air, sunshine or adequate nutrition.
Dr. Roehrich was also deeply concerned about Lisa’s emotional
welfare. She had been a happy and carefree child when he’d first
seen her, despite her diagnosis. She was mischievous and engaging.
She adored her parents, sisters and brothers, and they clearly
adored her. Her mother was a
wholesome woman, a nurturing type and father was clearly the family
protector. Now the family was
broken and Lisa appeared anxious and despairing at the thought of being
placed into a foster home and not seeing her family again.
Dr. Roehrich mentioned his concerns to Dr. A.
Meanwhile
Dr A had also become concerned about Lisa’s mental and emotional
wellbeing. Lisa had told him
“I hate you,” earlier. Now
he was determined to find out why. He
expected the psychologists report would clear up the mystery as to
Lisa’s attitude towards him. The
report written by Dr. Lucy Blunt stated that neither parent was suffering
from any auditory or visual hallucinations, a fact that they were
undoubtedly pleased to hear after they had been sleep deprived for several
months since DoCS came into their lives, and sent virtually broke with
legal bills. Dr. Blunt
had given Lisa a complex intelligence test just a few days after Lisa’s
major surgery and at a time when the child was beside herself with worry
about what would become of herself and her family.
Lisa’s performance was below par for her age, which Dr. Blunt
thought would affect “the degree to which her wishes should be taken
into account [as to] decisions to be made in her best interests.”
Evidently Lisa did not pass the test that would entitle her too much of an
opinion about what should be done to her.
The psychologist felt duty bound to tell Lisa that she would die if
she did not have chemo, and she probed the child on what it might be like
to die. After this lengthy (and unhappy-sounding) cross-examination, Dr.
Blunt noted that “given the right foster parent (preferably a childless
woman or a childless couple), foster care may be able to provide a more
‘normal’ environment” for Lisa.
It is difficult to understand why the doctor would match Lisa with
a childless single woman when the child came from a large farming family
with a number of children. Unfortunately
Dr. Blunt did not define what was her understanding of the word
‘normal’. Dr. Blunt, a
psychologist, then went on to recommend that Lisa should have
chemotherapy.
On one
July evening, just after the new order restricting the family’s access,
it was time for Lisa’s parents to leave after their two-hour visit. Lisa
was due to have another round of enforced chemotherapy soon, and felt so
upset at the prospect that she threatened to kill herself. This had hardly
crossed the staff’s mind, as Dr. Blunt had reported that Lisa did not
appear to be suffering from depression. The parents were in turmoil but
the terms of the court order compelled them to leave promptly. Worried and
uncertain they stopped at the hospital café before embarking on the
two-hour trip back home. Dr.
Roehrich had also visited and joined them on his way out. The group looked
up to see a conundrum. It was Lisa, running towards the hospital exit in
search of her family, pursued by two hospital staff. Lisa’s older sisters went over to talk with her.
James was cautious about approaching his daughter because of the
court orders. Dr.
Roehrich also went over to attempt to calm her. The staff had summoned two
burley security guards who promptly arrived, intent on manhandling her
back to the ward. Dr.
Roehrich stopped them and assured the staff that he would convince her
return to the ward. He spoke
to her reassuringly and the group slowly wound their way back.
The scene was played out in the front lobby of the hospital in
front of a mural that had been painted by an Iraqi woman refugee artist.
It depicted a scene of despairing and emaciated children in a
prison camp surrounded by barbed wire.
Article 26
The basic daily
food rations shall be sufficient in quantity, quality and variety to keep
prisoners of war in good health and to prevent loss of weight or the
development of nutritional deficiencies. Account shall also be taken of
the habitual diet of the prisoners.
The Geneva Convention
Part
4
"Keep in mind that the 5 year mark is
still used as the official guideline for "cure" by mainstream
oncologists. Statistically, the 5 year cure makes chemotherapy look good
for certain kinds of cancer, but when you follow cancer patients beyond 5
years, the reality often shifts in a dramatic way."—Dr.
John Diamond MD
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
Dr
Roehrich was on his way to the John Hunter Children’s Hospital to visit
Lisa and to have a conference with her treating oncologist Dr. A.
The last court order had stated that Dr. Roehrich had visiting
rights to Lisa as her primary care doctor.
However, the last time he tried to visit, he was told he would have
limited access to her and a hospital staff member would supervise his
visits. This was by order of
Dr. A, who had also refused to allow Dr. Roehrich access to Lisa’s
pathology results. Today
however, he had finally been successful in getting an appointment with Dr.
A to discuss a matter that was becoming of increasing concern to him.
Dr.
Roehrich’s appearance was that of a kindly 59-year-old doctor,
bespectacled and conservative. His
mild mannered demeanour, however, belied the fact that he was a board
certified specialist general surgeon and trauma surgeon, which he’d
practiced in a busy European teaching hospital until 1982 when he opened
his practice near the NSW Central Coast.
He also held a Ph.D in Medical Physiology and was particularly
knowledgeable in biochemistry and the role of nutrients in disease.
In his
medical practice he was used to liasing with specialists and found it
important for the sake of all concerned, to maintain good relationships
with colleagues. That was the basis for a multidisciplinary approach,
where a team worked together for a good patient outcome.
But Lisa’s case was unusual for a number of reasons. And now he
had a new role as arbitrator between Lisa’s treating doctor and the
parents. By now, the family was clearly upset about what they
considered a heavy handed approach and lack of convincing information
about the chemotherapy treatment Lisa was forced to undergo.
World’s
Best Practice
According to the National Cancer Institute, about
one-third of all cancer deaths are related to malnutrition. For cancer
patients, optimal nutrition is important. Cancer can deplete your body's
nutrients and cause weight loss. Cancer and cancer treatment can also have
a negative effect on your appetite and your body's ability to digest
foods. These factors may leave you in a vulnerable condition - high
nutrient need, and low nutrient intake.
Dr.
Roehrich had many patients in his own practice who were undergoing
chemotherapy and some of them came to him for additional complementary
treatments such as nutritional support and acupuncture. This was called
integrative medicine and it combined orthodox medicine with proven
complementary and alternative approaches. More recently he had done
post-graduate studies in orthomolecular (nutritional) medicine, which he
employed successfully in his practice on patients with a variety of
conditions. (50) In
combining these approaches he was in keeping with best practices in major
cancer treatment centres around the world including the Memorial
Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre which states on its website: “The
Integrative Medicine service at Memorial Sloan Kettering was established
in 1999 to complement mainstream medical care and address the emotional,
social and spiritual needs of patients and families…Integrative medicine
combines the discipline of modern science with the wisdom of ancient
healing.”
The
world’s largest cancer institutions have had to integrate their
approaches because too many people were opting for the proven benefits of
complementary and alternative medicine.
To ignore those approaches would have meant a loss of trust on the
part of discriminating patients who want every possible opportunity for
recovery. A US study
at M.D. Anderson Cancer Centre showed that 83% of cancer patients
used alternatives. The Huston Texas based cancer centre is the world’s
largest with over 13,000 patients and offers a wide variety of orthodox,
alternative and complementary treatments.
Like
top cancer treatment centres Dr. Roehrich’s experience also showed that
cancer is a complex disorder that requires a multidisciplinary approach.
He believed that a patient’s survival was dependent on being able
to have faith and trust in their caregivers and in the treatments they
were receiving. That meant
patients needed to have a choice in their treatment so they could
participate in the process of recovery.
He doubted a positive outcome could be achieved if a particular
treatment was forced on a patient.
So far,
Dr. Roehrich was very impressed with the skill of both surgeons, Dr.Cassey
and Dr. Dilley, who had operated on Lisa.
As a surgeon, he realised how successful skilled cancer surgery
could be in producing good survival rates. Following the surgery Lisa
reverted back to the control of the oncologists, Dr. A and Dr. M whose
treatment modality is chemotherapy. As far as Dr. Roehrich was aware, the
parents also felt grateful to the surgeons, but the chemotherapy, mandated
by the oncologists was another matter and it had become the sticking point
for them. In his role as peacemaker, he found it ironic that he was now in
a position of defending the use of chemotherapy and explaining its use to
Lisa’s family so they could be reassured. Being their doctor he was
keenly aware of the sleepless nights they were having, and he felt they
needed help in dealing with Lisa’s treatment.
However,
in order to help the family understand the basis for Dr. A’s prescribed
chemotherapy for Lisa, he felt duty bound to first review the medical
literature himself. Not long
after Lisa’s attempt to flee the hospital, Dr. Roehrich took some time
one evening to conduct a search of the world’s scientific studies on
outcomes for treatment of Lisa’s type of cancer using the chemicals she
had been prescribed. The
most prominent study was the same UK study, (UK CCSG (GC2), that both Dr.
M and Dr. A cited was the basis for their decision to implement Lisa’s
present chemotherapy by Court order.
Apart
from his medical degree and specialist qualifications Dr. Roehrich had
spent several years conducting scientific research.
He was versed in strict laboratory protocols and statistical
language. He became immersed
in the scientific study the oncologists cited and soon was troubled by
what he saw. Both oncologists
claimed that Lisa would have an 85% chance of a cure from cancer if she
had their chemotherapy treatment. Both based this on the UK CCSG (GC2)
study (51)
On
December 12th 2002, Dr. A had made a note in Lisa’s medical
records that she had “0% chance” of survival if she did not have his
treatment. The abovementioned study he based this on did not have
a control group to compare other treatments, which meant there was no
evidence in that study to support Dr. A’s assertions that she would die
without his treatment. As to
the claim of an 85% cure rate with this treatment, the figures given in
the study pertained to a five-year survival rate only.
In the science of epidemiology the word “cure” means an event
free normal lifespan comparable to a healthy peer group.
A five-year survival rate does not by any standard support the
oncologists assertions of a cure. Dr.
Roehrich came to realise that those unsubstantiated claims had formed the
basis for the DoCS intervention and Court order to treat Lisa against her
will. This compounding error had had a devastating effect on all
concerned. The family was broken up by DoCS. The parents were facing
mounting and crippling legal costs to defend themselves against the
relentless legal battering from DoCS. Their medical costs were escalating.
James had missed months of work, which further worsened their financial
situation. Lisa’s health
was deteriorating. She was
beside herself with worry. Since
shortly after the last court order Lisa was put on suicide watch.
Dr.
Roehrich arrived at the hospital Wednesday August 6th at 4:30
pm. Dr. A had allowed
him 20 minutes with Lisa. The hospital had a list of people who could
visit or phone her. Lisa
could not see her friends, as they were not on the list of people allowed
to visit. Only immediate family, and only for two hours.
It was done for Lisa’s “protection”.
Dr. Roehrich was not prevented access to Lisa’s records by court
order but rather by the order of Dr. A.
He sat
at Lisa’s bedside and a nurse sat on the other side of the bed, watching
closely. Conversation was
difficult. Lisa seemed
reluctant to say anything at all, a far cry from the elfin pranksterism
she’d displayed around the doctor before she was made a ward of the
Court. She’d had her room
searched previously and staff had confiscated from her carry case, the
vitamins Dr. Roehrich had prescribed for her two months previously.
She seemed keenly aware of her lack of privacy and had made no
notations in her journal. The doctor asked if she had gone to play
therapy. She said “no” and indicated she doesn’t feel like it. She
had not participated in music or art therapy.
Once an excellent student, she told him she attended hospital
school occasionally, but did not seem interested in the subject.
She played with her key ring and fingernails and ignored the nurse,
making no attempt to interact with her.
Dr. Roehrich made a mental note that Lisa seemed anxious at times
but appeared primarily shut down emotionally.
He did not know how she would tolerate another few months under
these conditions of captivity. He
had on a previous visit asked the nurse’s permission for the three of
them to go for a supervised walk around the hospital grounds so Lisa could
get some fresh air and sunshine, not only to lift her spirits but also to
provide her with adequate vitamin D from the sunshine.
However, this was refused. He
noted that Lisa looked frail. She
had lost 20% of body weight since she had had the first chemotherapy
treatment, which placed her significantly underweight for her height and
age.
Dr. A
and Dr. V, director of Hunter Children’s Health Network, came to collect
Dr. Roehrich after his 20-minute allotted visit and took him to a private
conference room. The hospital doctors both expressed their surprise that
Dr. Roehrich, as the family GP had taken such a keen interest in the case
of Lisa. Dr. Roehrich agreed
that the case is indeed unusual. He usually did not feel the need to get
involved with a patient’s hospital treatment. And though he was not part
of the specialist team, he had never felt so disturbed by a case before.
Dr. A explained the reason for the strict supervision was that they
were intent on preventing any alternative therapy from being administered.
Dr. Roehrich assured him he had no intention of administering
complementary or alternative therapy at this time, let alone on the sly,
(despite the fact that major cancer centres all over the world integrate
these modalities). Dr.
Roehrich’s concern however was the fact that Lisa suffered from major
nutritional deficiencies owing to her illness and two operations, the
present stress, a diet that is foreign to her, her refusal to eat due to
her unhappiness, and her very significant weight loss. This could diminish
her chances of survival due to malnutrition alone.
Dr. Roehrich explained that this could be rectified by allowing her
to have the essential supplements to correct this, and to allow her to eat
the diet to which she is accustomed. This required only a phone call to
the dietician. Dr. A declined this suggestion. “You may talk to my
dietician,” he said. “But she will report to me, and right now we want
Lisa on the hospital diet.”
Dr.
V was mostly silent throughout. Dr. Roehrich decided to broach the subject
that made him feel most uneasy about the matter.
He said he’d reviewed the scientific literature upon which Dr. A
is basing his treatment and prognosis, and upon which DoCS has intervened
with such force, and upon which the Court has made its decision to uphold
these plans. Dr. Roehrich
told him of the lack of evidence for his assertions that Lisa would die
without his treatment and with them she would be “cured”.
Dr. A replied, “Well that’s all we’ve got.”
Dr.
Roehrich spent the next hour’s drive home immersed in his thoughts. He
could not imagine what medical reason the doctors had for keeping Lisa
confined for months in the hospital when other children are allowed to go
home between cycles of chemotherapy.
He could not imagine how any doctor could sleep at night knowing
there was a child under his “care” who was a captive of his treatment;
a treatment whose scientific basis he had misrepresented. Was his
colleague not perturbed by a child who wanted to take her own life because
she could not imagine living without her family?
Dr. Roehrich could not imagine, even in war torn countries, that
children would deliberately be denied essential nutrients to prevent the
effects of malnutrition. He
could not account for a reason why Dr. A would insist on a treatment that
is so far outside the best practice of mainstream cancer treatments, as to
be at odds with not only good medical practice, but that also denies this
child her most basic human rights.
Dr.
Roehrich had petitioned the court to allow him to brief an oncologist with
an integrated approach, to address Lisa’s debilitating health problems.
A number of colleagues had already expressed an interest and many doctors
have expressed their concern as to the way this matter has been handled.
On
Friday the 8th of August the DoCS legal representative met with
James and Elizabeth. He told
them that they would never have another opportunity of giving their
daughter vitamin or mineral supplements again.
He told them she could be placed into a foster home. Permanently.
Contact
Parents: (e-mail Deleted not because of parents’ wishes but DoCS’ by
Court order)
| 
