A Battle over Cancer Care

Should state or parents decide?

On a Pacific beach near Tijuana, Mexico, Chad Green, a frail but lively three-year-old American boy, was happily digging into the sand last week and laughing at squirrels scampering near by, quite unaware that he is the subject of a dramatic medical and legal controversy. Chad is suffering from leukemia, and an argument is raging over who has the right to decide how he should be treated: his parents, Gerald and Diana Green, or state officials in Massachusetts responding to the advice of doctors.

A blond child with a winning smile, Chad began chemotherapy at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in his home town of Omaha when he was 21 months old. Doctors there claimed that he was improving rapidly under their care and that the leukemia was in remission. But when they suggested radiation treatment for further protection, Green, who is a welder, and his wife moved to Massachusetts and placed Chad with Dr. John Truman, a noted specialist in pediatric hematology at Massachusetts General Hospital. Truman continued the chemotherapy.

The Greens, however, had found that the chemotherapy was a painful ordeal for Chad. The injections turned him at times into "a wild animal," his mother declared. Truman then gave her the chemicals in the form of pills, to be taken at home. When leukemia was again found in Chad's blood early in 1978, Mrs. Green reluctantly admitted that she had not been giving Chad his pills. "Chemotherapy doesn't cure," said Diana Green in desperation. Instead, the parents had been giving the boy Laetrile, a drug which is illegal for use in cancer treatment in Massachusetts, and which repeated medical studies have found useless for that purpose.

When the Greens refused to resume chemotherapy, despite warnings from Truman that Chad would die without it, a legal battle began. Chad was declared a ward of the state for medical purposes only. The parents retained custody, but chemotherapy was administered at state expense. Chad's health improved. When the Greens asked the state courts for permission to give their son Laetrile as well, it was denied. Last month the Greens fled to Tijuana with Chad, placing him in a clinic headed by Dr. Ernesto Contreras, who advocates Laetrile for its psychological benefits, rather than as a cure for cancer.

Chad last week was taking Laetrile, together with vitamins and health foods, as well as his chemotherapy pills. Massachusetts doctors warned, however, that Laetrile was incompatible with regular chemotherapy and had, in fact, caused signs of cyanide poisoning in Chad's body. After considering a possible kidnaping charge against the Greens, Massachusetts Attorney General Francis X. Bellotti instead sought a court order demanding that the Greens return Chad to Massachusetts for treatment. Judge Guy Volterra granted the order. Last week he held the parents in contempt of court for disobeying it, but gave them another week to comply before assessing any penalty.

This legal pressure is not expected to have much impact on the Greens. They were getting financial support from the National Health Federation, a right-wing California organization that also opposes fluoridation of water, and from private citizens who contend that the state has no business telling parents how to care for their children. With these contributions, the Greens hope to get by while they are in Mexico. "There is such a loving atmosphere here at the clinic," says Gerald Green. "The doctor, after giving us the test results, tells us, 'We'll be praying with you.' You just don't find that in the U.S."

Obviously the motives of both the parents and the state of Massachusetts are the same: they want Chad to survive. But the essential question for Chad Green is what kind of treatment he finally gets--and how long it keeps him alive.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.