Judge forces family to do chemotherapy

[Don't Tread on Mike]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_he_me/us_med_forced_chemo

MINNEAPOLIS – 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.

[Don't Tread on Mike]

The boy and his parents dont want to undergo chemo for religious reasons but i guess they don't have the freedom of choice now.

[ChaosControl]

That judge should be shot, but then most judges should be.

[0zzy]

I guess this brings up a good question.

Can the state, at any time, intervene in such cases? If some child was dieing and could be saved quite easily but wasn't because the parents didn't believe in it for some odd reason, should the state overrule the parents?

Not necessarily talking about this case, heck, I would assume he wouldn't want to do chem therapy cause it just worsens life and doesn't necessarily help. but ya.

[torchbearer]

I guess this brings up a good question.

Can the state, at any time, intervene in such cases? If some child was dieing and could be saved quite easily but wasn't because the parents didn't believe in it for some odd reason, should the state overrule the parents?

Not necessarily talking about this case, heck, I would assume he wouldn't want to do chem therapy cause it just worsens life and doesn't necessarily help. but ya.

Do you believe in the philosophy of "King as Father"?

[torchbearer]

THis page explains a little about King as Father: http://books.google.com/books?id=jrkh_ceqbXIC&pg=PA205&lpg=PA205&dq=government+taking+care+of+children+%22king+as+f ather%22&source=bl&ots=i54eqWfdMz&sig=qex_SFNjpZ0X_uPLMqp3iqB6SFs&hl=en&ei=XNANSprsOJauMcCE9MQG&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8

This is how the state can take your kids, etc.
You are not the parent- the government is.
You are day care for the government.

[paulitics]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_he_me/us_med_forced_chemo

MINNEAPOLIS – 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.


In bold is bullshit. Chemotherapy does not cure cancer, and there is not a 90% chance that it is going to be effective. The only way to cure cancer is through natural remedies, like an extremely alkaline diet high in alkaline fruits and vegetables. With Chemo, it destroys the patients immune system, and if not every bit of cancer is gone, it will strike back harder on a weakened patient.

There is risk involved in either decision, but with Chemo there are so many side effects discussed that it is not a simple black and white decision. With going the natural route, there may be a greater chance of death, but there is a much greater chance of killing the disease completely, and living a normal life after killing the cancer.

If the patient were to go the natural route, they would have to be extremely disciplined with their diet and take years off of work or school to destroy it. It is not for everyone, but for those who want to take that risk, it is their decision or the parent's decision, not big daddy government.

[ClayTrainor]

Do you believe in the philosophy of "King as Father"?

that looks like one frustrating book to read, i must say.

[UtahApocalypse]

State of Utah was in a similar incident a few years back. The family ended up winning and suing the State for the medical delays getting Millions

[nbhadja]

If the kid has a serious chance of survival it would be religiously wrong not to seek medical help, anyway the judge is probably right in this case. It has nothing to do with religion or state, and everything to do with a life of a child.

There are natural cures to cancer like the Ozone therapy. Chemotherapy is dangerous and very ineffective.
The judge is wrong.

I agree with the above poster, the judge should be shot. All tyrants should.

[UtahApocalypse]

If the kid has a serious chance of survival it would be religiously wrong not to seek medical help, anyway the judge is probably right in this case. It has nothing to do with religion or state, and everything to do with a life of a child.

you disappoint me

[rockandrollsouls]

If the kid has a serious chance of survival it would be religiously wrong not to seek medical help, anyway the judge is probably right in this case. It has nothing to do with religion or state, and everything to do with a life of a child.

Wrong. The STATE is FORCING him to do something against HIS will. I'm offended by your statement that it was the "right" decision. You might want to consider reading the Constitution and examining the true role of the courts.

[Jeremy]

Read the declaration of independence, he has the right to LIFE.

How is that the same as a judge having his right to life?

[t0rnado]

Read the declaration of independence, he has the right to LIFE.
That means that no one else can take his life because that would be impeding upon his rights, but he can choose whatever he wants. He chose not to take chemotherapy because of his stupid beliefs.

[silverhandorder]

That means that no one else can take his life because that would be impeding upon his rights, but he can choose whatever he wants. He chose not to take chemotherapy because of his stupid beliefs.

He is 13 years old. His parents made the decision for him. At 13 you are not grown enough to be able to make such a decision. You don't know what facts he knows and what facts he does not. The state is preventing the parents from making a bad decision for the kid.

[PlzPeopleWakeUp]

nt

[rockandrollsouls]

Read the declaration of independence, he has the right to LIFE.

You don't know what you're talking about. And you somehow managed to get a scholarship based on liberty and freedom? What strings did you pull and how much did you lie to grab that, because you sound like a nazi now.

Where in the Constitution does it grant the courts the authority to rule on matters like this? I don't see anything that says a court can mandate someone to do something when there isn't a civil or criminal charge.

[rockandrollsouls]

He is 13 years old. His parents made the decision for him. At 13 you are not grown enough to be able to make such a decision. You don't know what facts he knows and what facts he does not. The state is preventing the parents from making a bad decision for the kid.

Get lost. Way to hide under the veil that the parents are making "the wrong decision." The state doesn't have ANY say in this matter.

[silverhandorder]

Get lost. Way to hide under the veil that the parents are making "the wrong decision." The state doesn't have ANY say in this matter.

When it is a matter of life it does. You would intervene if a parent was beating his child to death in front of you. This is the same.

[rockandrollsouls]

When it is a matter of life it does. You would intervene if a parent was beating his child to death in front of you. This is the same.

First and foremost, Chemo isn't a cure and it can actually do you a lot of harm. There are alternatives and the state shouldn't be making the decision of what goes into this kid's body. Both you and the court are wrong here, so don't even call yourself a fighter for liberty any more. You are clearly the opposite.

[silverhandorder]

First and foremost, Chemo isn't a cure and it can actually do you a lot of harm. There are alternatives and the state shouldn't be making the decision of what goes into this kid's body. Both you and the court are wrong here, so don't even call yourself a fighter for liberty any more. You are clearly the opposite.

You are very confrontational. I have to admit that I mixed up my own personal views on chemotherapy with this article. On a personal level I think the kid should go through chemotherapy before they kill him. However I do see and acknowledge how this can be abused. If I had to take a stance on this issue now that I though it through for a while I would support the parents decision.

I honestly think this is a non issue. We are already not allowed to do things with our bodies when we are fully of age. I don't agree with it and the ruling was not a surprise.

[Epic]

Chemo is very dangerous. But that's besides the point. The parents should get to make the decision no matter what. The state should have no claim over anyone's body.

[rockandrollsouls]

You are very confrontational. I have to admit that I mixed up my own personal views on chemotherapy with this article. On a personal level I think the kid should go through chemotherapy before they kill him. However I do see and acknowledge how this can be abused. If I had to take a stance on this issue now that I though it through for a while I would support the parents decision.

I honestly think this is a non issue. We are already not allowed to do things with our bodies when we are fully of age. I don't agree with it and the ruling was not a surprise.

I'm not confrontational; I believe in rights that the state does not have the right to intrude on, no matter what. It is his right to decide what goes into his body, and he was not fighting his parents and his religion.

I may come off as brash, but when the state is intruding into one's life and violating one's rights you bet I'm going to come out against it.

[FreeMama]

There IS a natural cure for cancer. It is called the Gerson Therapy.



HEALTH FREEDOM.


If it were my kid I would leave the country. People who think the state should make decisions over our bodies make me sick!!!!

[satchelmcqueen]

weve been learning about implied consent, expressed consent informed consent in ems class. i think this one could fall under implied consent, but i do not agree with it at all. should be parents choice IF they are of sound and stable mind.

[Smoke the Liberty Tree]

religion..........:confused:

[rockandrollsouls]

weve been learning about implied consent, expressed consent informed consent in ems class. i think this one could fall under implied consent, but i do not agree with it at all. should be parents choice IF they are of sound and stable mind.

"implied" consent is a bunch of BS created by the state. It's used in life or death situations where a life is saved so the one that is saved does not obtain unjust enrichment from the practitioner that saved him, without his consent. In this case the saved must pay for the service. This is a whole other issue that I would view as charity but anyway....

This is not the same thing. Additionally, has anyone looked at the monetary aspect to this? Not only will the chemo most likely not work, especially considering what I've heard of the boys severity of cancer, someone has to pay for it. The family will probably be enslaved by debt that was MANDATED by the state.

[t0rnado]

He is 13 years old. His parents made the decision for him. At 13 you are not grown enough to be able to make such a decision. You don't know what facts he knows and what facts he does not. The state is preventing the parents from making a bad decision for the kid.

For the state to decide at what age a person can make logical decisions, is tyrannical. I agree that it is a dumb decision on the parents and the kid's part, but it's their decision to make, not anyone else's. The government can't usurp the choice of the people for whom it exists.

[Working Poor]

Chemo did not cure my Dad's Hodgkin's lymphoma he died at 45 and I believe it was the chemo that killed him.

[TastyWheat]

Can the state, at any time, intervene in such cases? If some child was dieing and could be saved quite easily but wasn't because the parents didn't believe in it for some odd reason, should the state overrule the parents?
First, they shouldn't extend any benefits to children that they don't extend to adults. If the government won't pay for an adult's chemotherapy then they shouldn't pay for a child's.

Second, I think the parents wishes should be followed unless the child says otherwise. Sure the child may be too young to make an intelligent decision, but the child still owns his or her life. If the parents and doctors can't convince the child to accept treatment or forgo treatment (if that is the parent's wishes) then just accept it. If the child dies it's a tragedy I'm sure, but some people don't wish to be revived if their hearts fail even though they could be saved. Again, it's tragic but we need to respect the decisions of others.

[Ninja Homer]

Throw out everything in this case except for parent's rights. The only way the government can force chemo on the child is to take away parent's rights. The only way the government can take away parent's rights is to prove the parents are being negligent. Were the parents being negligent in this case? I don't think so... they took him to like 5 different doctors, they researched alternative treatment methods, they weighed their options and decided to follow through with alternative treatment. That certainly doesn't sound like negligence to me.

The only reason the state was legally able to find the parents negligent was because there's some Minnesota statute that says "alternative and complementary health care methods aren't enough." That statute is complete BS. What it does is put all parent's medical decisions completely in the hands of the AMA. If you don't follow AMA's decisions for your child, you can be found negligent and your child can be taken away from you. I don't know what the AMA will do with that kind of power, but I certainly don't trust them.

Obviously, this is completely unconstitutional. The judge himself said that "the state's interest in protecting the child overrides the constitutional right to freedom of religious expression and a parent's right to direct a child's upbringing." How the hell is this guy allowed to be a judge? :mad: