Skip to main content.


A Virginia judge has decided that Accomack County, VA is Starchild Abraham Cherrix's daddy. Literally.
Jay and Rose Cherrix of Chincoteague on Virginia's Eastern Shore must continue to share custody of their son with the Accomack County Department of Social Services, as the judge had previously ordered, Stepanovich said.

It is reasonable to think that the standard treatments for his disease have proven to be the most likely course for cure, or, if that is not possible, for the best possible quality of life for whatever time he has left. On the other hand, I've heard this kid on the radio, and he sounds intelligent, thoughtful, and aware of the risks of both his choice of treatment and those involved in the standard treatments, and he makes compelling arguments about the problems he's encountered with the standard treatment, and the quality of life he enjoys with his chosen course.

That would leave a seemingly unsolvable dilemma if it was any of our business. It is not. This is not child abuse, it is not a case of parents exploiting a child for their own gain at the expense of his interests, and Starchild is not incompetent to judge his own interests.

He may indeed die from his disease. It may even be true that he is more likely to die with his chosen course of treatement than with the standard course. But it is his right to weigh the risks and to determine his own standard for quality of life in the meantime. He said on Sean Hannity's show that he will defy the court if they order him to seek standard treatement, so lets hope that he and his family are able to make good on that vow. I hope that his family is now packing their bags for Mexico, with plans for an extended stay so that he can devote his time and energy to fighting his cancer instead of fighting an overreaching court system that has proven itself a threat to each and every one of us.

Addendum: Here's a pretty decent counter argument, based on the premise that the alternative treatment is quackery. I don't argue that it isn't, only that it is completely irrelevant to the argument. The other premise cited is
We as a society expect that the state will step in when parents fail in their duty to act in the best interests of the child.
I've addressed that argument above, though my criteria are slightly different, and, of course, the state should not even exist in such a form where it has the capability, let alone the authority, to so intervene.


No comments yet

Add Comment

This item is closed, it's not possible to add new comments to it or to vote on it