Boys Family Refused Chemo

[El Guapo 8]

To me these people sound crazy, but I am on the fence as to whether or not the government should be allowed to step in here for the child. I am glad I don't have to make this decision. But I was curious as to others thoughts on this, and scenario's like this.http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_he_me/us_med_forced_chemoINNEAPOLIS – A Minnesota judge ruled Friday that a 13-year-old cancer patient must be evaluated by a doctor to determine if the boy would benefit from restarting chemotherapy over his parents' objections.In a 58-page ruling, Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg found that Daniel Hauser has been "medically neglected" by his parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, and was in need of child protection services.While he allowed Daniel to stay with his parents, the judge gave the Hausers until Tuesday to get an updated chest X-ray for their son and select an oncologist.If the evaluation shows the cancer had advanced to a point where chemotherapy and radiation would no longer help, the judge said, he would not order the boy to undergo treatment.The judge wrote that Daniel has only a "rudimentary understanding at best of the risks and benefits of chemotherapy. ... he does not believe he is ill currently. The fact is that he is very ill currently."Daniel's court-appointed attorney, Philip Elbert, called the decision unfortunate."I feel it's a blow to families," he said. "It marginalizes the decisions that parents face every day in regard to their children's medical care. It really affirms the role that big government is better at making our decisions for us."Elbert said he hadn't spoken to his client yet. The phone line at the Hauser home in Sleepy Eye in southwestern Minnesota had a busy signal Friday. The parents' attorney had no immediate comment but planned to issue a statement.Daniel was diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma and stopped chemotherapy in February after a single treatment. He and his parents opted instead for "alternative medicines" based on their religious beliefs.Child protection workers accused Daniel's parents of medical neglect; but in court, his mother insisted the boy wouldn't submit to chemotherapy for religious reasons and she said she wouldn't comply if the court orders it.Doctors have said Daniel's cancer had up to a 90 percent chance of being cured with chemotherapy and radiation. Without those treatments, doctors said his chances of survival are 5 percent.Daniel's parents have been supporting what they say is their son's decision to treat the disease with nutritional supplements and other alternative treatments favored by the Nemenhah Band.The Missouri-based religious group believes in natural healing methods advocated by some American Indians.After the first chemotherapy treatment, the family said they wanted a second opinion, said Dr. Bruce Bostrom, a pediatric oncologist who recommended Daniel undergo chemotherapy and radiation.They later informed him that Daniel would not undergo any more chemotherapy. Bostrom said Daniel's tumor shrunk after the first chemotherapy session, but X-rays show it has grown since he stopped the chemotherapy."My son is not in any medical danger at this point," Colleen Hauser testified at a court hearing last week. She also testified that Daniel is a medicine man and elder in the Nemenhah Band.The family's attorney, Calvin Johnson, said Daniel made the decision himself to refuse chemotherapy, but Brown County said he did not have an understanding of what it meant to be a medicine man or an elder.Court filings also indicated Daniel has a learning disability and can't read.The Hausers have eight children. Colleen Hauser told the New Ulm Journal newspaper that the family's Catholicism and adherence to the Nemenhah Band are not in conflict, and that she has used natural remedies to treat illness.Nemenhah was founded in the 1990s by Philip Cloudpiler Landis, who said Thursday he once served four months in prison in Idaho for fraud related to advocating natural remedies.Landis said he founded the faith after facing his diagnosis of a cancer similar to Daniel Hauser. He said he treated it with diet choices, visits to a sweat lodge and other natural remedies.

[Sheiky 0]

How the hell can anyone even say that this decision isn't 100% correct?Seriously?

[hblask 1]

To me these people sound crazy, but I am on the fence as to whether or not the government should be allowed to step in here for the child. I am glad I don't have to make this decision. But I was curious as to others thoughts on this, and scenario's like this.

To me, this is one of the touchiest areas of the political spectrum. On the one hand, it's ridiculous to think that bureaucrats should be involved in raising children, and on the other hand, since we don't allow children to make their own legal decisions, we have a legal duty to protect them from harm.We can all imagine scenarios on both sides of this where we are sure of the decision -- e.g., one the one hand parents letting a kid die by not treating some easily treated condition, and on the other hand bureaucrats deciding what level of nutrition is legally allowable even though a child is pretty healthy by world standards. (I believe both are real world scenarios).In between, there is a lot of gray. Lots and lots of gray, more ways to be gray than to be black and white.I tend to err on the side of parental rights and keeping distant authority figures out of it.... in this particular case, I think the court did the right thing. But this is one of those slippery slope issues, except the difference is it's slippery in both directions.

[Balloon guy 158]

I agree with Henry here. This example is easy to side with courts, but what about the next time?Should the courts be allowed to take away a child who is raised by white seperatist? But in all other respects good parents?What about a parent who thinks dentist x-rays are too dangerous, or refuse to get their child immunized because of the 1970s swine flu immunizations that killed 25 people?Of course this 'perfect' case of a 90% prolonging of life with chemo seems a little too convient to me.I also see the irony of the govenrment who says that if a woman says the fetus in to be killed, they could care less, but once it's born the government has veto power over the raising of the child because the life of a child is too important.

[Sheiky 0]

I agree with that too. However, in my mind, there's just absolutely no question or room for debate in this scenario. I just cannot see how anyone in their right mind could honestly believe that letting the child be taken of chemotherapy because he had the grave mis fortune to be born to the parents he did is the right decision.

[CaneBrain 95]

I agree with Henry here. This example is easy to side with courts, but what about the next time?Should the courts be allowed to take away a child who is raised by white seperatist? But in all other respects good parents?What about a parent who thinks dentist x-rays are too dangerous, or refuse to get their child immunized because of the 1970s swine flu immunizations that killed 25 people?Of course this 'perfect' case of a 90% prolonging of life with chemo seems a little too convient to me.I also see the irony of the govenrment who says that if a woman says the fetus in to be killed, they could care less, but once it's born the government has veto power over the raising of the child because the life of a child is too important.

this is why our justice system has numerous appeals processes and safeguards. Because at some point, as you and Henry pointed out, there will be a next time where the decision is not so clear. That is the beauty of our justice system.....we are set up to decide things like this on a case by case basis. This ruling will not give government precedent to override parents at every turn.But I think we all agree these parents are insane.....this is neglect, plain and simple. This is not veto power....we dont let parents endanger their children. This is endangerment....they are letting him die. And all the court did here was an order a chest x-ray.....we are so far away from dental x-ray refusal. Lets not be chicken little. There is religious freedom and then there is insanity. The court did the right thing here. Many cancers have high survival rates if treated early with proper medical methods. I doubt most of those people find it convenient.....I am not sure what you are trying to say? The fact that this is a treatable form of cancer just highlights why the court system needed to intercede.

[dapokerbum 0]

The parents were not neglecting treatment to the child. They just don't happen to believe in western medicine. So basically you are saying that the government can tell you how and where you should get treated for disease. It's not like the parents were sitting back and saying oh he has cancer ... better not give him treatment so he can die. They were saying we don't like chemo thus we are going to try a holistic approach to the problem. Apparently the kid agreed with them (although I really don't like that portion of it as an argument).

[CaneBrain 95]

The parents were not neglecting treatment to the child. They just don't happen to believe in western medicine. So basically you are saying that the government can tell you how and where you should get treated for disease. It's not like the parents were sitting back and saying oh he has cancer ... better not give him treatment so he can die. They were saying we don't like chemo thus we are going to try a holistic approach to the problem. Apparently the kid agreed with them (although I really don't like that portion of it as an argument).

If he gets chemo he will live, if he doesnt he will die. The government should be able to tell you not to let your kid die. Holistic approach = not giving him treatment as far as I am concerned.edit: went back and read the whole article. the mother testified under oath in court that her son "was not in any medical danger at the moment." This one decision may not be neglect.....but letting someone that dumb have children is negligence.

[Sheiky 0]

The parents were not neglecting treatment to the child. They just don't happen to believe in western medicine. So basically you are saying that the government can tell you how and where you should get treated for disease. It's not like the parents were sitting back and saying oh he has cancer ... better not give him treatment so he can die. They were saying we don't like chemo thus we are going to try a holistic approach to the problem. Apparently the kid agreed with them (although I really don't like that portion of it as an argument).

In my opinion, being that retarded = neglect

[dapokerbum 0]

If he gets chemo he will live, if he doesnt he will die. The government should be able to tell you not to let your kid die. Holistic approach = not giving him treatment as far as I am concerned.

That's probably where I will differ with most people on this subject.I just think it sets a bad precedent. So next are they going to tell me that I have to use Benadryl for a cold and I want to use probiotics (sp). Where is the line drawn? So when there is a chance of death is the line. Okay, well how many people die from the flu each year. So if you get the flu the government can tell you what medicine and how you are to be treated? I don't think that any parent wants to see their child die.

[CaneBrain 95]

That's probably where I will differ with most people on this subject.I just think it sets a bad precedent. So next are they going to tell me that I have to use Benadryl for a cold and I want to use probiotics (sp). Where is the line drawn? So when there is a chance of death is the line. Okay, well how many people die from the flu each year. So if you get the flu the government can tell you what medicine and how you are to be treated? I don't think that any parent wants to see their child die.

See my edit above. This woman is too stupid to be a parent. She does not want her child to die....I know....but every action she takes and words she speaks confirms that what she is doing will result in his death (even if she doesnt believe that). Again, we have a court system set up to try cases on individual basis. The doctors in this one case said that chemo = 90% chance of survival and no chemo = 5% chance of survival. No one has accused them of making those stats up (other than BG's convenience theory). This is a no-brainer.Also, this is a 13 year old. If you are 33 and want to try holistic approaches to treat cancer, go with god (because you will be in the after-life soon enough). Until you are 18, you dont have the right to make those decisions. And if your parents are letting you basically kill yourself, then child services can step in and file suit.Remember, to step in the government has to follow procedure and file a lawsuit. If they tried to do that for cold or flu treatment, they would be laughed out of court. Child services is just trying to save this kid's life. I think we are so wrapped up in a hot, divisive political environment that we are seeing agendas where they do not exist. The government does not have an agenda here.....other than they are trying to make sure this kid does not die.

[Sheiky 0]

That's probably where I will differ with most people on this subject.I just think it sets a bad precedent. So next are they going to tell me that I have to use Benadryl for a cold and I want to use probiotics (sp). Where is the line drawn? So when there is a chance of death is the line. Okay, well how many people die from the flu each year. So if you get the flu the government can tell you what medicine and how you are to be treated? I don't think that any parent wants to see their child die.

Would you rather the courts did nothing and this child died because of his nut job parents?

[dapokerbum 0]

edit: went back and read the whole article. the mother testified under oath in court that her son "was not in any medical danger at the moment." This one decision may not be neglect.....but letting someone that dumb have children is negligence.

Yes that quote definitely favors your argument... What can I say about it. I guess she really is retarded and is probably following the holistic method because she got brainwashed by someone.

[Balloon guy 158]

Would you rather the courts did nothing and this child died because of his nut job parents?

With parents like that, his genes aren't really in high demand in the gene pool are they?

[Balloon guy 158]

That's probably where I will differ with most people on this subject.I just think it sets a bad precedent. So next are they going to tell me that I have to use Benadryl for a cold and I want to use probiotics (sp). Where is the line drawn? So when there is a chance of death is the line. Okay, well how many people die from the flu each year. So if you get the flu the government can tell you what medicine and how you are to be treated? I don't think that any parent wants to see their child die.

At the root, chemo is actually poison and many responsible adults refuse chemo for themselves because of the side effects.But at least we have the government there to step in and tell us to give our children poison.BTW, who is going to pay for this expensive treatment?

[hblask 1]

This case is interesting because it is the intersection of so many really difficult decisions. Even for an adult you get into questions of "more chemo, or some other approach?" So for a kid, how much treatment is enough? How much better or worse does one treatment have to be before the state can override parental wishes? I'm not sure we can do any better than CaneBrain's "case by case" scenario, but it's certainly scary to just trust a system designed to self-aggrandize to do the right thing all the time. Maybe it works "most" of the time, but what if you were the case where it didn't? (Again, I guess that's an argument that could be made from either side.)

[Balloon guy 158]

This case is interesting because it is the intersection of so many really difficult decisions. Even for an adult you get into questions of "more chemo, or some other approach?" So for a kid, how much treatment is enough? How much better or worse does one treatment have to be before the state can override parental wishes? I'm not sure we can do any better than CaneBrain's "case by case" scenario, but it's certainly scary to just trust a system designed to self-aggrandize to do the right thing all the time. Maybe it works "most" of the time, but what if you were the case where it didn't? (Again, I guess that's an argument that could be made from either side.)

so would it be better to have the government not be allowed to make these decisions, or hope they make the right one everytime?"Sorry Mr. Johnston, but even though you have issues with radical chemotherapy which will cost you your life savings, and you don't trust that the doctors aren't going the 'safe' route for fear of being sued, we have decided that we know what is best medical decision without a day of medical training and we also know what's the best for the raising of your child.Btw, try to pay the bills in a timely manner, as we are hoping to not have to bail out the hosptials next"

[hblask 1]

so would it be better to have the government not be allowed to make these decisions, or hope they make the right one everytime?

I don't know the answer to that, and I'm not sure anyone else does. We can all have opinions, and like I said, I tend to lean toward "parents know best", but certainly the line can be drawn in many different places.You have to answer all these questions:1. How direct does the endangerment have to be for the state to step in?2. How much is parental freedom worth?3. What is the error rate of parents?4. What is the error rate of the state?5. If you go against the parent's wishes, what rights and responsibilities to they retain?6. How much is the psychological trauma to parents and children worth?This is definitely an area where federalism is necessary, because basically, we need to figure out what we have a stomach for, and the answer in each state or even community may be different than somewhere else.My biggest worry is that we live in a country of cowards and sissies who really seem to enjoy bending over to the will of government, so I'm more worried about sliding that way than the other, since "caring for kids the best way possible" is programmed into our genes.

[Nimue1995 1]

See my edit above. This woman is too stupid to be a parent. She does not want her child to die....I know....but every action she takes and words she speaks confirms that what she is doing will result in his death (even if she doesnt believe that). Again, we have a court system set up to try cases on individual basis. The doctors in this one case said that chemo = 90% chance of survival and no chemo = 5% chance of survival. No one has accused them of making those stats up (other than BG's convenience theory). This is a no-brainer.Also, this is a 13 year old. If you are 33 and want to try holistic approaches to treat cancer, go with god (because you will be in the after-life soon enough). Until you are 18, you dont have the right to make those decisions. And if your parents are letting you basically kill yourself, then child services can step in and file suit.Remember, to step in the government has to follow procedure and file a lawsuit. If they tried to do that for cold or flu treatment, they would be laughed out of court. Child services is just trying to save this kid's life. I think we are so wrapped up in a hot, divisive political environment that we are seeing agendas where they do not exist. The government does not have an agenda here.....other than they are trying to make sure this kid does not die.

I have to say that I don't believe Child Services has the manpower to take on parents treatment or non-treatment of colds or the flu. They have way too many cases where there is actual danger of immediate physical harm. But there are many that don't agree with modern methods of treatment. I don't know much about the Amish people but since they reject most other modern conveniences, I have to believe they wouldn't be much into modern hospitals. So are we going to take their kids from them and force treatment on them? What about Jehovah's Witness' who don't believe in blood transfusions? We going to force transfusions on their kids? It IS a very difficult dilemma and like H I would tend to err on the side of the parents.

[blakheart 3]

The slippery slope already exists. If as a parent I do not want my child to be vaccinated for chicken pox I can not send him to school. I am not endangering his life by refusing to give him a chicken pox vaccine. There are many examples where the government already tells people how to raise their children. This particular case is tough, I would think the child should receive chemo since it seems to be a clear cut situation. But I think the concern about slippery slope is very valid.

[El Guapo 8]

The slippery slope already exists. If as a parent I do not want my child to be vaccinated for chicken pox I can not send him to school. I am not endangering his life by refusing to give him a chicken pox vaccine. There are many examples where the government already tells people how to raise their children. This particular case is tough, I would think the child should receive chemo since it seems to be a clear cut situation. But I think the concern about slippery slope is very valid.

This is not true. You can send your kids to school if they have not been vaccinated.

[Nimue1995 1]

This is not true. You can send your kids to school if they have not been vaccinated.

Not here in Montana unless you can prove religious prohibitions. And we're about the most libertarian state in the union.

[vbnautilus 48]

The slippery slope already exists. If as a parent I do not want my child to be vaccinated for chicken pox I can not send him to school. I am not endangering his life by refusing to give him a chicken pox vaccine. There are many examples where the government already tells people how to raise their children. This particular case is tough, I would think the child should receive chemo since it seems to be a clear cut situation. But I think the concern about slippery slope is very valid.

This is somewhat of a different issue since not vaccinating your child endangers the health of other children.

[Sheiky 0]

The slippery slope already exists. If as a parent I do not want my child to be vaccinated for chicken pox I can not send him to school. I am not endangering his life by refusing to give him a chicken pox vaccine. There are many examples where the government already tells people how to raise their children. This particular case is tough, I would think the child should receive chemo since it seems to be a clear cut situation. But I think the concern about slippery slope is very valid.

Oh noes, how horrific, I truly feel sorry for you that the evil government is taking away all your rights as a parent and, heaven forbid, saving your child from chicken pox. I can only hope to imagine how horrible that must feel.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Oh noes, how horrific, I truly feel sorry for you that the evil government is taking away all your rights as a parent and, heaven forbid, saving your child from chicken pox. I can only hope to imagine how horrible that must feel.

Did you know that they put fluoride in the water too ?( Yes I know that too much fluoride can be harmful just like a very small percentage of people have an adverse reaction to vaccinations. )