ILNews

Attorney will shave head in honor of son

Jennifer Nelson
February 23, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An attorney hopes people will ask her why she's bald. She's shaving her head next month to raise money for childhood cancer research.

Briget Polichene Chamness is going to shave her brown locks in celebration of the fifth anniversary of her son, Joey, being cancer free. Joey was diagnosed with osteosarcoma, a type of bone cancer, in January 2005 when he was eight years old. He had a year of chemotherapy at Riley Children's Hospital in Indianapolis and surgery to remove the tumor in New York City.

Around that time, her husband learned of St. Baldrick's Foundation, a nonprofit that raises money for childhood cancer research by hosting worldwide head-shaving events. The foundation funds more in childhood cancer research than any other organization except the U.S. government.

Since her son got sick, Chamness said her husband and other family members have shaved their heads, some every year. Even her teenage daughter did it once. She said she's partly shaving her head out of empathy for the young girls she saw losing their hair because of chemotherapy.

"I'm trying to think of it as my gosh, here I am a 50-year-old woman who's not sick, and I'm apprehensive for losing my hair," she said. "It makes me empathetic."

Shaving her head will also open her up to questions from strangers who don't know why she's bald. She'll be wearing headscarves and knows that when people see women who have lost their hair, it's often assumed they are sick.

"St. Baldrick's recognizes that in the case of women, and they give you a big button to wear that says "Ask me why I'm bald," she said.

To raise money for the head-shaving event, Chamness sent e-mails to her college and law school classmates, friends in Indianapolis and Washington, D.C., where she worked before moving to Indiana, and professional colleagues. Chamness first worked at as chief counsel at the Indiana Department of Insurance after moving here. She later practiced at Baker & Daniels and was chief privacy officer at Conseco before joining Citigroup's government relations group, where she works as the liaison between businesses and state lobbyists.

Most people raising money for St. Baldrick's just take pledges and will shave their head no matter what, but some do say that they will only do it if they hit a certain goal. Chamness decided she'd shave her head without a specific dollar amount in mind, although she had a goal of $5,000. She's surpassed that and is up to $7,300. She's part of a team named after Joey, which has 35 people who will shave their heads. The team has raised nearly $40,000, she said.

Everyone will have their heads shaved at the same time on stage at the Northside Knights of Columbus in Indianapolis at 6:30 p.m. March 12. There will be food, beer, and a band playing as well, Chamness said.

She'd like to see more people donate to the cause because of the work St. Baldrick's does. She hopes no one has to go through what she has with her son, but because of his illness, recognizes how wonderful Riley Hospital is. Riley often receives research grants from St. Baldrick's.

"It's a great resource, and I hope that the legal community will continue to be supportive of it in various ways," she said.

Visit Chamness' team's web page, if you'd like more information about St. Baldrick's or want to donate.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT