What? Judge Napolitano sticks up for the Gov. in the Chemo Case

[Epic]

Just now on Fox, Judge Napolitano said that the government was right to order that kid to have chemo when both he and his parents didn't want it.

This is absolutely ridiculous. How can the government know what works medically and what doesn't?

And this is out of the mouth of somebody who says "Every individual is more moral than the state."

[Matt Collins]

This is probably in line if the parents are beating the kid an the kid doesn't mind. In other words the kid hasn't reached the age of majority which is where the government has considered the individual legally competent to be able to decide for themselves. The parents could probably be tried for neglect.

[Epic]

The parents aren't "beating the kid".

They want to use a different medical technique. Since when should the government control what medical techniques private citizens can use?

[MRoCkEd]

Here's the story for reference. I'd like to see exactly what Judge said before making judgment.



NEW ULM, Minn. — A Minnesota judge issued an arrest warrant Tuesday afternoon for the mother of a 13-year-old boy who is resisting chemotherapy for cancer after she and her son failed to show up at a court hearing.

Daniel Hauser was diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma in January and received his only chemotherapy and radiation treatment that month. He did not return for a second treatment in February and the family began substituting alternative care, including herbs and vitamins.

His doctors notified child-protection officials, prompting Brown County Attorney James Olson to file a child-neglect petition.

Anthony Hauser, the father of Daniel Hauser, testified that he doesn't know the whereabouts of his son and his wife, Colleen.

Anthony Hauser said he last spoke to his wife at about 4 p.m. Monday as he milked cows at the family's farm in Sleepy Eye, Minn. He said his wife told him she was going to leave and "That's all you need to know."

Tumor grows back

Earlier in the afternoon, the boy's family physician, Dr. James Joyce, said that he took an X-ray of Daniel Monday, which showed that his tumor had grown back to its original size after responding well to treatment in January.

Joyce said he gave Colleen Hauser the names of three oncologists, but she declined to take them. He said that another woman accompanying Daniel and his mother told him they had to leave for another appointment. She was identified in court as California attorney Susan Daya.

A medical report filed with the court noted a "significant worsening" of the boy's tumor since May 13. The doctor said the boy complained of severe pain around a "port" that was placed in his chest in January to administer cancer-fighting drugs, pain probably caused by the tumor pushing at the port.

County Attorney James Olson said the judge's order will allow officers to arrest Colleen Hauser in any state. "We don't know where she is, and we're all pretty concerned about Daniel and getting him into treatment." He said the mother will be jailed when arrested, but "she can get out by producing Daniel."

On Friday, Judge John Rodenberg ordered the parents to take the boy for a chest X-ray to see how his Hodgkin's lymphoma was progressing, and to choose an oncologist for probable treatment.

Testimony at hearing

Colleen Hauser testified at the May 8 hearing that use of chemotherapy, which they regard as a potentially fatal poison, violates the family's religious beliefs. She said they prefer natural remedies such as herbs and vitamins that they began after Daniel's only chemotherapy treatment in January, shortly after he was diagnosed.

Daniel's doctors testified during an hearing May 8 that with chemotherapy and perhaps radiation, his chance of survival was 80 to 95 percent; without it he likely would die within 5 years.

In addition to issuing an arrest warrant today for Colleen Hauser, Rodenberg ordered that Daniel be turned over to Brown County authorities and be placed in foster care.

Once that happens, he ruled, Daniel's condition must be immediately evaluated by a pediatric oncologist.

A court-appointed attorney for the boy had recommended that custody of the boy be transferred to Brown County.

Rodenberg noted that all five doctors who had examined the boy agreed on the recommended course of treatment.

[Kludge]

This is probably in line if the parents are beating the kid an the kid doesn't mind. In other words the kid hasn't reached the age of majority which is where the government has considered the individual legally competent to be able to decide for themselves. The parents could probably be tried for neglect.

This. I don't think it would be too difficult to argue the parents are demonstrating gross neglect for the child's well-being.

[MRoCkEd]

This reminds me of the case where a girl died because her parents chose to pray for her instead of seeking medical help for a treatable form of diabetes.

[BuddyRey]

As owner of his own life, the child himself should be able to make up his own mind what kind of treatment he wants.

[Epic]

I guess you have to venture into the alternative health community to find the principled libertarians.

http://www.naturalnews.com/026305.html

Free Talk Live covered the case yesterday and were shocked by the Judge's order.

[Epic]

This. I don't think it would be too difficult to argue the parents are demonstrating gross neglect for the child's well-being.

The government demonstrates gross neglect for every person's well-being.

[UtahApocalypse]

This is probably in line if the parents are beating the kid an the kid doesn't mind. In other words the kid hasn't reached the age of majority which is where the government has considered the individual legally competent to be able to decide for themselves. The parents could probably be tried for neglect.

You might want to reference this from a case similar in Utah

http://www.patriotsaints.com/MyChildMyChoice/cases/ParkerJensen/

As to Napolitano saying the state was right; he just lost my vote of confidence and I will not be watching the show any longer.

[Epic]

And check out this case which got a lot of national attention a couple years back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._Cherrix

The kid used alternative medicine and now he is all better.

"In Mexico, he underwent the controversial herbal Hoxsey Therapy, which has been illegal in the United States since 1960 because it is known to be ineffective."

The kid DID NOT use poisonous chemo and now he's just fine.

But I digress. The issue is not whether chemo is good or not, that is irrelevant to the principle. The principle is that the state should have no say over medical decisions.

[Icymudpuppy]

I disagree with the Judge on this one, but I understand where he is coming from. He cares about the kid, and knows that an effective treatment is available, and thinks the parents are neglecting the kid.

Now, in a perfect world, the kid would be informed enough to make his own decision, and nobody would question his decision regarding his own personal well-being.

The reality is, Mom is making the decision for him. Her decision may result in a positive outcome, but our knowledge of cancer at this time suggests that the likelyhood is higher that the result will be negative and ultimately the death of the child. If we grant that parents have guardianship over their children and are entrusted with their well-being, then we cannot interfere with that mother's decision, be it good or bad, and she will have to live with the consequences if her decision is wrong.

[mello]

This kinda reminds me of a story from years ago. There was a couple that were
prosecuted for the death of their kid. He had an intestinal blockage & instead of getting a
simple procedure to fix it his parents prayed & laid hands over him (I think they were
Christian Scientists if I remembered correctly). Anyway over a week or two the boy died
with literally 40 lbs. of shit in him. I can't remember if they were prosecuted for murder
or manslaughter but that had to be a brutal way to die.

[KenInMontiMN]

Since death is a question of when, not if, there's nothing wrong with people taking risks that could result in choosing their moment according to existing circumstances and desires. The only troublesome thing here is that this is not an adult, and furthermore he's a learning disabled kid as well, can't read at 13. There's been some speculation that they've holed up on an Indian Reservation somewhere, but that's speculation.

[Working Poor]

I don't like this assumption that there is only one kind of treatment for cancer. It seems like paying for your death I don't like it one bit.

[MRoCkEd]

I don't like this assumption that there is only one kind of treatment for cancer. It seems like paying for your death I don't like it one bit.
"With chemotherapy and perhaps radiation, his chance of survival was 80 to 95 percent; without it he likely would die within 5 years"

Tough call I guess.

[Epic]

This kinda reminds me of a story from years ago. There was a couple that were
prosecuted for the death of their kid. He had an intestinal blockage & instead of getting a
simple procedure to fix it his parents prayed & laid hands over him (I think they were
Christian Scientists if I remembered correctly). Anyway over a week or two the boy died
with literally 40 lbs. of shit in him. I can't remember if they were prosecuted for murder
or manslaughter but that had to be a brutal way to die.

lol that's a pretty bad way to go out....

On the serious side, no amount of anecdotes on either side of the equation really changes the principle. Does the government make medical decisions, or does the family? If the government made people's medical decisions all throughout history, there would be so many negative anecdotes of government doing the wrong thing due to crazy medical techniques.

[Epic]

Oh yeah I almost forgot, when the Judge was talking about the case on TV, he said that when he was a judge, he decided on cases like this "with his heart."

With his heart?

If people governed "with their hearts" they'd all be bleeding-heart do-gooder liberal communists.

[KenInMontiMN]

OK, so you spotted them on the sidewalk 2 minutes ago. Do you call the authorities?

Me: No. Its between them and the court, I want no part in it either way.

So you noticed they climbed into the back seat of your car, scrunching down to hide, in the hotel parking lot- while the authorities are busy at the front desk finding out which room they were in. Do you get in your car and drive them to another town?

Me: No. Its between them and the court, I want no part in it either way. Let the chips fall as they may.

[Matt Collins]

I disagree with the Judge on this one, but I understand where he is coming from. He cares about the kid, and knows that an effective treatment is available, and thinks the parents are neglecting the kid.

Now, in a perfect world, the kid would be informed enough to make his own decision, and nobody would question his decision regarding his own personal well-being.
With rights come responsibilities. Children do not have the maturity or mental capacity to understand the responsibilities that come with those rights. Therefore their rights are limited because their ability to be responsible with those rights are limited.

We don't let children walk around with a hand gun now do we? This is a prime example.

[Working Poor]

"With chemotherapy and perhaps radiation, his chance of survival was 80 to 95 percent; without it he likely would die within 5 years"

Tough call I guess.

My point is chemo is not the only treatment. If he gets the treatment his mom wants him to have he has a pretty good chance of getting well without loosing his hair and being made sick and weak. Chemo has killed plenty of people don't be fooled. Cancer is a very huge scam. I don't like the government interfering with medical choices. This is really sad I think.

[Matt Collins]

As to Napolitano saying the state was right; he just lost my vote of confidence and I will not be watching the show any longer.That's ignorant, imature, and in fact amateurish:rolleyes:.

[Matt Collins]

As owner of his own life, the child himself should be able to make up his own mind what kind of treatment he wants.Except that children do not have the ability to comprehend their responsibilities, so their rights are suppressed.

[UtahApocalypse]

Except that children do not have the ability to comprehend their responsibilities, so their rights are suppressed.

and thus the PARENTS should be able to decide for their child, not the damn state, Anyone saying otherwise does not belong in this movement.

[dannno]

Except that children do not have the ability to comprehend their responsibilities, so their rights are suppressed.

This 13 year old AND his parents ALL wanted to use an alternative treatment. Chemo is poison. Does it get rid of cancer? Yes. Are there other alternatives that are better? Maybe, and in fact I would say probably. There are most certainly other treatments that are less poisonous. You saw in my other thread that my dad got chemo and survived, but he hasn't been the same ever since. My roommate had leukemia and survived.. again.. hasn't been the same since.

There is no reason the government should require people to take specific treatments for specific conditions. That leads to government controlling healthcare. .. in fact this IS most certainly a case of government controlling healthcare which is why so many people in this thread are baffled that Napolitano and others here would side with the government.

[Working Poor]

I'm truly baffled:eek:

[MsDoodahs]

and thus the PARENTS should be able to decide for their child, not the damn state,

This is my belief as well.



Anyone saying otherwise does not belong in this movement.

Can't agree with this statement; if we require people to agree on every point - even major ones like this one - we limit growth of the movement.

[MRoCkEd]

I haven't made my mind up on this issue, but just a question -
What would you do in the situation where a child died because the parents chose to pray for him instead of seeking medical help for a treatable case of diabetes.

[Annihilia]

Where does one draw the line between interfering in those examples where parents decline medical treatment for a dying kid and choose to "pray it out" and instances like this where they wish to use herbal remedies with questionable scientific validity?

[MsDoodahs]

I haven't made my mind up on this issue, but just a question -
What would you do in the situation where a child died because the parents chose to pray for him instead of seeking medical help for a treatable case of diabetes.

Nothing - precisely because the parents are responsible for making the decisions on what healthcare they will/will not use for their kids.

To "prosecute" them for shouldering the responsibility and making the decision - EVEN IF IT TURNS OUT TO HAVE BEEN A BAD DECISION - indicates that they were not really free to make that decision in the first place.

[MsDoodahs]

Where does one draw the line between interfering in those examples where parents decline medical treatment for a dying kid and choose to "pray it out" and instances like this where they wish to use herbal remedies with questionable scientific validity?

At the word INTERFERING.

It is UP TO THE PARENTS.

The STATE is NOT the parents.

[MRoCkEd]

And what if a parent decides not to feed his or her baby?

[mello]

With rights come responsibilities. Children do not have the maturity or mental capacity to understand the responsibilities that come with those rights.


There are parents that also don't have the maturity or mental capacity to understand
their responsibilities, example below:


A vegan family gets life in prison for the death of their baby. A tragedy they didn’t see
coming. They’re hearts are broken, and now they will have to try and heal in prison.
The baby died six weeks after birth after being fed a diet largely made up of soy milk
and organic apple juice. Defence lawyers for Lamont Thomas and Jade Sanders said
they had starved their child unintentionally by adhering to a strictly vegan diet. But
prosecutors in the US city of Atlanta said the couple had deliberately neglected their
child.

"No matter how many times they want to say, 'We're vegans, we're vegetarians,'
that's not the issue in this case," Prosecutor Chuck Boring is quoted by the Associated
Press news agency as saying. "The child died because he was not fed. Period," he said.
Strict vegans adhere to a diet that avoids all animal products.

'I loved my son'

Crown Shakur weighed 3.5lb (1.6kg) at the time of his death in April 2004. The baby
was born in a bathtub in the couple's house. Defense lawyer Brandon Lewis is quoted
by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution newspaper as saying the couple did not take their
child to a doctor because they feared hospitals were full of germs. Defense lawyers said
the couple did not realize the baby's life was in danger until it was too late. A jury
deliberated for seven hours before delivering its verdict on 2 May.

Sentencing the couple, the judge said the murder verdict made the life sentence
mandatory. Jade Sanders told the judge: "I loved my son - and I did not starve him."
According to the AP news agency, Lamont Thomas complained that he had not known
he was being tried for a felony - rather than the lesser offence of a misdemeanor.
"We had no idea involuntary manslaughter was a felony. We were told for three years
this was a misdemeanour," he reportedly said. "It takes money to prove this wasn't a
felony - money we don't have."

[MsDoodahs]

And what if a parent decides not to feed his or her baby?

Is this a normal healthy baby or are you describing a situation with a dying baby and the parents refuse parentarel nutrition?

[UtahApocalypse]

Where does one draw the line between interfering in those examples where parents decline medical treatment for a dying kid and choose to "pray it out" and instances like this where they wish to use herbal remedies with questionable scientific validity?

They want to seek an alternative treatment. they are not just blowing this off as not existing. That is where I draw the line. Just because the family does not choose the treatment that the government would does not make it the wrong treatment.

[Annihilia]

At the word INTERFERING.

It is UP TO THE PARENTS.

The STATE is NOT the parents.

Yes, I get that, however the issue is a bit more complicated when you introduce the prospect of death from parental neglect.

Isn't the supposed role of the government to protect the rights of its citizens? If these parents are killing their kids through neglect or improper treatment, would it not be admissable to interfere?

What if the parent believed adding trace amounts of mercury to the child's food would cure the ailment?

These instances should be analyzed on a case-by-case situation. I don't think there's a one size fits all solution when dealing with children.

[Epic]

I haven't made my mind up on this issue, but just a question -
What would you do in the situation where a child died because the parents chose to pray for him instead of seeking medical help for a treatable case of diabetes.

Absolutely nothing.

[Annihilia]

By the way, I am not saying I agree or disagree with the Judge's verdict. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate since it helps us all to hear all of the arguments for and against the issues.

[MRoCkEd]

Is this a normal healthy baby or are you describing a situation with a dying baby and the parents refuse parentarel nutrition?
A parent holds the religious belief that his perfectly healthy child will survive not on food, but on prayer alone. The child dies of starvation.

[Epic]

Yes, I get that, however the issue is a bit more complicated when you introduce the prospect of death from parental neglect.

Isn't the supposed role of the government to protect the rights of its citizens? If these parents are killing their kids through neglect or improper treatment, would it not be admissable to interfere?

What if the parent believed adding trace amounts of mercury to the child's food would cure the ailment?

These instances should be analyzed on a case-by-case situation. I don't think there's a one size fits all solution when dealing with children.

What about death by government neglect? Is that any better?

[DeadheadForPaul]

This case demonstrates how certain Libertarians are complete loons.

This poor kid can't even read, and I'm sure he isn't that intelligent either. Now he must suffer just because his mother has radical religious ideas. He doesn't even have a chance to grow and become his own individual. This is nothing but neglect, and the state has an obligation to intervene on the part of children suffering from neglect - nothing but neglect

[Anti Federalist]

It's amusing to see the contradictions here.

As is usually the case, it's very simple and being made complicated.

The parents have the right to determine the best for of treatment for underage children.

To bring the state into this, is to bring the state into the home to question every single decision made, since every parent's choices can have ramifications on a child's well being.

The Judge should damn well know this.

But yet for all the hyperventilating this case may cause, an abortion is not considered to be any big deal. (I happen to regard it as a murder)

[Epic]

This case demonstrates how certain Libertarians are complete loons.

This poor kid can't even read, and I'm sure he isn't that intelligent either. Now he must suffer just because his mother has radical religious ideas. He doesn't even have a chance to grow and become his own individual. This is nothing but neglect, and the state has an obligation to intervene on the part of children suffering from neglect - nothing but neglect

And you are certain that the government is incapable of neglect?

Keep in mind this is the same organization that believes in "global warming" science.

[Working Poor]

Feeding is one thing poisoning is an entirely different thing chemo is poison. There is no proof that chemo is better than alternative medicine. I know lots of people who refused chemo and did not die,I know people who refused mainstream HIV treatment and are still alive over 20 years later.


Now he must suffer just because his mother has radical religious ideas. He doesn't even have a chance to grow and become his own individual. This is nothing but neglect, and the state has an obligation to intervene on the part of children suffering from neglect - nothing but neglect

Not taking chemo is not a certain death sentence this is just something big Pharma wants the public to believe. Beware of being a victim of too much insurance make sure the amount of insurance you have does not play a role in what disease you are being diagnosed to have.

[dannno]

I haven't made my mind up on this issue, but just a question -
What would you do in the situation where a child died because the parents chose to pray for him instead of seeking medical help for a treatable case of diabetes.

I would probably wonder how they were smart enough to figure out how to have sex in the first place?

If parents accidentally make bad decisions for their child, then it is unfortunate for the child.. but if the government forces their decision on everybody and it is a mistake, then every child suffers.

[dannno]

This case demonstrates how certain Libertarians are complete loons.

This poor kid can't even read, and I'm sure he isn't that intelligent either. Now he must suffer just because his mother has radical religious ideas. He doesn't even have a chance to grow and become his own individual. This is nothing but neglect, and the state has an obligation to intervene on the part of children suffering from neglect - nothing but neglect

This post demonstrates that you failed to gather the basic facts of the case and have a very poor understanding of the tenets of liberty.

Your have officially discredited your position, way to go.

[Epic]

If parents accidentally make bad decisions for their child, then it is unfortunate for the child.. but if the government forces their decision on everybody and it is a mistake, then every child suffers.

Mandatory Vaccines....

[maqsur]

In this case, the parents initially tried the chemo for one round, then didn't come back for months, right?

They tried herbal/natural remedies for several months, and in the article, it mentions that a repeat x-ray showed regrowth of the tumor. That would mean the natural remedies didn't work, and to continue on the same failing path would be wrong, in my opinion.

I understand wanting the government to stay out of most things, but the things mentioned in the article make a case that there is neglect by continuing to pursue failing policies in the face of a regrowing tumor.

One has to side with the well being of the child at this point, and the parents, by not conceding that the natural stuff isn't working, are acting AGAINST the interests of the child, thereby HARMING the child, and that is a crime, no? So in this specific case, the courts can intervene on the child's behalf in order to prevent continuing harm.

I'm not against medical choice, or any other choice. However, if a particular choice is harmful to another human being, then that is a crime. For those that are talking about "principled libertarianism," you can't harm another human being, right?

Just food for thought. In this case, I am siding with the child and his well being. The herbs aren't working, and in any case there isn't much scientific research to back it up anyhow; he needs to at least try the chemo/radiation which has been evaluated in studies.

[maqsur]

Mandatory Vaccines....

Vaccines have done much good over the years, I don't think that can be dismissed. However, since vaccines are not TREATMENT, but are preventative (at least meant to be), they should not be mandated. However, I am for vaccination.

[dannno]

In this case, the parents initially tried the chemo for one round, then didn't come back for months, right?

They tried herbal/natural remedies for several months, and in the article, it mentions that a repeat x-ray showed regrowth of the tumor. That would mean the natural remedies didn't work, and to continue on the same failing path would be wrong, in my opinion.

I understand wanting the government to stay out of most things, but the things mentioned in the article make a case that there is neglect by continuing to pursue failing policies in the face of a regrowing tumor.

One has to side with the well being of the child at this point, and the parents, by not conceding that the natural stuff isn't working, are acting AGAINST the interests of the child, thereby HARMING the child, and that is a crime, no? So in this specific case, the courts can intervene on the child's behalf in order to prevent continuing harm.

I'm not against medical choice, or any other choice. However, if a particular choice is harmful to another human being, then that is a crime. For those that are talking about "principled libertarianism," you can't harm another human being, right?

Just food for thought. In this case, I am siding with the child and his well being. The herbs aren't working, and in any case there isn't much scientific research to back it up anyhow; he needs to at least try the chemo/radiation which has been evaluated in studies.


Chemo is poison, and some of the natural treatments for cancer don't work effectively when your immune system is completely dysfunctional due to the chemo... so essentially the "herbs" hadn't really had a chance to work. They would need to wait until the poison wears off, so going another round would have set them back.

I don't think you can punish people who make bad decisions like this with good intentions.

Obviously if you have good intentions of driving well, and you hit somebody, you are still responsible for damages, but that is different.

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

This case demonstrates how certain Libertarians are complete loons.

This poor kid can't even read, and I'm sure he isn't that intelligent either. Now he must suffer just because his mother has radical religious ideas. He doesn't even have a chance to grow and become his own individual. This is nothing but neglect, and the state has an obligation to intervene on the part of children suffering from neglect - nothing but neglect

Eventually you will realize how ridiculous you sound. When that happens, I hope you are honorable enough to admit it.
http://www.nemenhah.org/internal/about_us.html
My understanding is that the Nemenhah band was formed as way for natural healing to be conducted without breaking the law by bringing it under first amendment protections. If the government had allowed competition in medicine in the first place instead of handing the AMA a monopoly, highly effective natural remedies (>90% success rate among all cancers and 60% or greater among cases treated and deemed terminal by the medical industry)would not have to be "radical religious ideas".

We have evidence that cornflakes are hazardous to your health; should your parents be arrested for feeding you your Special K? http://www.nourishingourchildren.org/parents/cereal.html

[maqsur]

Chemo is poison, and some of the natural treatments for cancer don't work effectively when your immune system is completely dysfunctional due to the chemo... so essentially the "herbs" hadn't really had a chance to work. They would need to wait until the poison wears off, so going another round would have set them back.

I don't think you can punish people who make bad decisions like this with good intentions.

Obviously if you have good intentions of driving well, and you hit somebody, you are still responsible for damages, but that is different.

Not saying that the parents don't have good intentions. However, they are going against the available science regarding cancer. No doubt, chemotherapy is poison; it inhibits cell replication, thus inhibiting tumor growth (and unfortunately, immune cell growth as well). However, it has been shown to have efficacy, especially depending on the type of cancer. If you really think about it, most medicines are 'poison.' They are developed by man, and most do not occur naturally. That is why every drug, including so-called benign drugs like tylenol, etc., have so many possible side effects. But we use them, because the benefits outweigh the risks.

As for the herbs not having enough time because of chemo, there is no more time really, because the tumor had regrown already. During pediatric residency, we had lots of patients admitted for chemo, and their immune systems gradually recovered once the chemo is finished (not right away obviously), and sometimes with drugs that artificially stimulated the body to produce more immune cells; I feel personally a few months is more than enough time to wait and see what the herbs will do, and now that the tumor has been shown to be unaffected by the past several months of natural therapy, the child really should go back to the 'poison.'

Sometimes poison can be beneficial. After all, several drugs are derived from so-called poisons. If the parents had tried the full chemo protocol (rather than just showing up for one round), and then, if it failed, tried the natural remedies, there wouldn't even be a court case or a discussion. Just my opinion.

[dannno]

However, they are going against the available science regarding cancer.

First of all, tell me where the "available science regarding cancer" comes from.

[dannno]

As for the herbs not having enough time because of chemo, there is no more time really, because the tumor had regrown already. During pediatric residency, we had lots of patients admitted for chemo, and their immune systems gradually recovered once the chemo is finished (not right away obviously), and sometimes with drugs that artificially stimulated the body to produce more immune cells; I feel personally a few months is more than enough time to wait and see what the herbs will do, and now that the tumor has been shown to be unaffected by the past several months of natural therapy, the child really should go back to the 'poison.'

Sometimes poison can be beneficial. After all, several drugs are derived from so-called poisons. If the parents had tried the full chemo protocol (rather than just showing up for one round), and then, if it failed, tried the natural remedies, there wouldn't even be a court case or a discussion. Just my opinion.

No, the point is that a few months is not enough time after you've poisoned yourself. After you recover fully then the herbs can begin to take their natural course, from what I have heard. Are you sure they are using "herbs" ?? I would personally be focusing on apricot seeds while considering other alternative treatments. G. Edward Griffin, whose book "The Creature From Jeckyll Island" that was endorsed by Ron Paul also wrote a book called "A World Without Cancer". I highly recommend checking it out. Apricot seeds contain a molecule that is cyanide bonded to another molecule. When this molecule comes in contact with a cancer wall, the cyanide and the other molecule release each other, and the cyanide poisons the tumor and kills it. If there is no cancer, then the cyanide passes through your system without doing any harm because it is still bonded to the other molecule.

Consider that Federal Agents have raided health food stores in the past for carrying apricot seeds. No, really, consider that for a moment.

[maqsur]

No, the point is that a few months is not enough time after you've poisoned yourself. After you recover fully then the herbs can begin to take their natural course, from what I have heard. Are you sure they are using "herbs" ?? I would personally be focusing on apricot seeds while considering other alternative treatments. G. Edward Griffin, whose book "The Creature From Jeckyll Island" that was endorsed by Ron Paul also wrote a book called "A World Without Cancer". I highly recommend checking it out. Apricot seeds contain a molecule that is cyanide bonded to another molecule. When this molecule comes in contact with a cancer wall, the cyanide and the other molecule release each other, and the cyanide poisons the tumor and kills it. If there is no cancer, then the cyanide passes through your system without doing any harm because it is still bonded to the other molecule.

Consider that Federal Agents have raided health food stores in the past for carrying apricot seeds. No, really, consider that for a moment.

1. From your post previous to this, the research is in several medical journals. I'm open to any articles discussing ANY treatment for any disease. I'm not against one treatment in favor of another just for the sake of who is promoting it. I will go where there is more research, and for now, that deals with current chemotherapy agents. I do encourage more research into other modalities. The more alternatives, the better.

2. If the tumor had not been regrowing, then I would say that the herbs may, in fact, be working to a degree. This was not the case with this child; he had several months without improvement; in fact, there was worsening despite utilizing whatever natural methods they were trying. That's why I think continuing is useless, and probably harmful.

3. The apricot seed angle sounds interesting. Obviously, anything that can deliver a particular medicine/agent/whatever directly to the tumor and have it affect only the tumor cells is the ideal weapon, and is the framework of much research in cancer treatment.

[Ninja Homer]

Does anybody have a link to the video of this yet? I'd really like to see it before I comment on it.

[rockandrollsouls]

With rights come responsibilities. Children do not have the maturity or mental capacity to understand the responsibilities that come with those rights. Therefore their rights are limited because their ability to be responsible with those rights are limited.

We don't let children walk around with a hand gun now do we? This is a prime example.

That's not true; that's simply your opinion. The teenager could make up his mind himself. He was 13...you're not exactly oblivious at that age. Furthermore, you are making the assumption chemo does not have risks and that it would work. There are proven, alternative methods for dealing with cancer. In conclusion, you're way off base and wrong here.

[Reason]

Just now on Fox, Judge Napolitano said that the government was right to order that kid to have chemo when both he and his parents didn't want it.

This is absolutely ridiculous. How can the government know what works medically and what doesn't?

And this is out of the mouth of somebody who says "Every individual is more moral than the state."

I agree with the judge.

This is neglect on the parents part.

[tpreitzel]

The "judge" continues to out himself. The government has absolutely NO business telling parents how to raise, care, or provide for their kids. True, where liberty is, the potential for abuse is also. The situation could be helped by peers, i.e. neighbors, involving themselves personally with the family and assist them in finding alternative sources of treatment.

[Brian4Liberty]

I knew a guy whose father was a high profile doctor. He had cancer and refused all the current medical treatment options. He was an expert and didn't trust the medical profession. He tried some alternative medicine. He died from the cancer within a year. Should the government have forced him to take the treatment?

Had a neighbor that was diagnosed with terminal cancer (a long time ago) and told he had about 3 months to live. He didn't have any treatment, as the medical experts called it untreatable at that time. He died of the cancer, 35 years later...

It's very common for cancer to spontaneously go into remission.

Bottom line: The medical profession doesn't know it all. Most of the time all they (the industry as a whole) are doing is CYA to prevent lawsuits. Should we give doctors the full power of the government every time a patient doesn't agree with them?

[TER]

From my little understanding, the boy is believed to have a cancer which has an 80% cure rate if treated with modern conventional medical treatment. The family in fact did a course of this treatment. Now, after already doing it, they claim that such treatments are against their religious belief (the family are all baptised Catholic members). This weakens their case significantly.

Our society has established children protection laws. Society has done so because it is apparent to those with common sense that in many instances children do not have the maturity of mind or wealth of wisdom and knowledge to cognitively make correct decisions which would be to their well being. Society has also testified that there exist neglectful and evil people amongst the population that would cause suffering and death to immature and naive children for their own selfish purposes.

Will the applications of these laws be justified in every case? Perhaps not. In fact, confidently, I can say no. But the alternative would be horrendous.

[Matt Collins]

That's not true; that's simply your opinion. The teenager could make up his mind himself. He was 13...you're not exactly oblivious at that age.I know many 13 year olds that are indeed oblivious. And when I was a teenager I knew many that were then too.

[Working Poor]

something just occurred to me is how much cancer has increased since vaccine has been around

[0zzy]

something just occurred to me is how much cancer has increased since vaccine has been around

Vaccines = CANCER? WHAT?

Nawwww.

[Epic]

something just occurred to me is how much cancer has increased since vaccine has been around

Try autism/add/adhd/ocd/learning disabilties...

then there's the military secret vaccines

[Working Poor]

Will the applications of these laws be justified in every case? Perhaps not. In fact, confidently, I can say no. But the alternative would be horrendous.



Do you really think laws stop people from abusing and neglecting their children, oh please give me a break...

[angelatc]

This kinda reminds me of a story from years ago. There was a couple that were
prosecuted for the death of their kid. He had an intestinal blockage & instead of getting a
simple procedure to fix it his parents prayed & laid hands over him (I think they were
Christian Scientists if I remembered correctly). Anyway over a week or two the boy died
with literally 40 lbs. of shit in him. I can't remember if they were prosecuted for murder
or manslaughter but that had to be a brutal way to die.

Freedom means that other people have rights too, including to raise their children in the religion of their choice.

I think it's very disappointing to see how many people are willing to allow the government to violate the right of religion in the name of "saving the children."

People are always going to make bad decisions. It isn't the responsibility of the government to raise children.

These type cases set precedents - the entire legal system is a slippery slope. It's only a matter of time before refusing to seek cancer treatment equates to refusing to get vaccines and not feeding your child state-supplied broccoli twice a week.

[american.swan]

There is a razor thin line here that is being discussed.

Example:
Child has some tumor. Ok. It gets found fairly early and the parents try alternative medical treatment. All cool fine and dandy. But there comes a point where this gets touchy. The alternative treatment isn't working. The parents it seems to me come to a point where their personal preference for some alternative medicines have to be either thrown out or used in conjunction with treatment the hospital wants.

This is a very fine line of reasoning, because...this could be used against others in subtle ways.

[cjhowe]

I think the judge is correct in his verdict but not based on the conversation that is being had here.

Does the state have an interest in insuring children are not being neglected (generally speaking)? A: Yes.

Does the state need to investigate claims of neglect? A: Yes.

Can a judge order someone to appear to answer claims of neglect? A: Yes.

If you agree to that point, then the judge was correct in his verdict as the mother did not appear to answer the claims. Had she appeared and answered the claims that she understood the options and risks to her child and chose an alternative way to provide treatment to her child, then the case should have been dismissed and whatever child protective services agency would be vulnerable to harassment charges. But she didn't appear to offer that explanation. Without rebutting the claims, a prosecutor can easily prove a case of neglect.

[american.swan]

Freedom means that other people have rights too, including to raise their children in the religion of their choice.

I think it's very disappointing to see how many people are willing to allow the government to violate the right of religion in the name of "saving the children."

People are always going to make bad decisions. It isn't the responsibility of the government to raise children.

These type cases set precedents - the entire legal system is a slippery slope. It's only a matter of time before refusing to seek cancer treatment equates to refusing to get vaccines and not feeding your child state-supplied broccoli twice a week.

I agree that this situation is really bad. We don't want the child to die, yet we don't want government to come along and use this case against us, which it will.

Perhaps part of the problem here is the legal system and government we have is already way out of control. For example, read For A New Liberty by Rothbard and see what he says about legal power. I think if for example an arbitrator and/or private judge ordered the child to get treatment, perhaps we wouldn't be quite so uptight about it. I don't know. I'd have to review the ideal, which we don't have.

[specsaregood]

Question, who is supposed to pay for this treatment that he is being forced to accept? Is the government forcing these people into a huge debt?

[Ninja Homer]

I think the judge is correct in his verdict but not based on the conversation that is being had here.

Does the state have an interest in insuring children are not being neglected (generally speaking)? A: Yes.

Does the state need to investigate claims of neglect? A: Yes.

Can a judge order someone to appear to answer claims of neglect? A: Yes.

If you agree to that point, then the judge was correct in his verdict as the mother did not appear to answer the claims. Had she appeared and answered the claims that she understood the options and risks to her child and chose an alternative way to provide treatment to her child, then the case should have been dismissed and whatever child protective services agency would be vulnerable to harassment charges. But she didn't appear to offer that explanation. Without rebutting the claims, a prosecutor can easily prove a case of neglect.

They did appear in court previously. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1751042/judge_orders_daniel_hauser_13_to_undergo.html?cat= 17

Daniel was ordered to go to a doctor for updated x-rays, and undergo chemo if the doctor orders it.

Judge Rodenberg wrote: "Brown County (Minnesota) Family services has demonstrated a compelling state interest in the life and welfare of Daniel Hauser sufficient to override the fundamental constitutional rights of both parents and Daniel to the free exercise of religion and the due process right of the parents to direct the religious and other upbringing of the child."

I think a lot of people here don't fully understand the precedent this case sets. You no longer have parental rights. Doctors now get to dictate how you raise your child. If you don't follow doctor's orders, you will be found in neglect, your child will be taken away from you, and then they will do whatever they want to your child.

This has very little to do with religion. I'm sure they just joined the Nemenhah Band of Spiritual Healers just to add another barrier of constitutional rights. People shouldn't have to do that... the right to choose your form of health practice should be protected, even if it isn't specifically mentioned in the bill of rights.

This also has very little to do with what Daniel wants to do. He's 13, and his parents have the right to make all medical decisions for him until he's 18, unless he's emancipated.

The law seems very clear to me. The only way they can override parent's rights and force Daniel to take chemo is if they prove the parents are neglecting Daniel. They took Daniel to 5 different doctors, they researched alternative treatments, and they decided to implement an alternative treatment. That's not neglect, it's just disagreeing with the doctors.

[Ninja Homer]

Question, who is supposed to pay for this treatment that he is being forced to accept? Is the government forcing these people into a huge debt?

Yes, they'll be forced to pay for it. I can't find the source at the moment, but I believe they said it was $91,000 for a round of chemo, and the full treatment is 6 rounds. I may not be remembering correctly though... it may be an estimated $91,000 for the whole treatment. It's still a large chunk of money to force on people that don't want anything to do with chemo in the first place.

[MsDoodahs]

I think a lot of people here don't fully understand the precedent this case sets. You no longer have parental rights. Doctors now get to dictate how you raise your child. If you don't follow doctor's orders, you will be found in neglect, your child will be taken away from you, and then they will do whatever they want to your child.


So....don't have kids.

[specsaregood]

Yes, they'll be forced to pay for it. I can't find the source at the moment, but I believe they said it was $91,000 for a round of chemo, and the full treatment is 6 rounds. I may not be remembering correctly though... it may be an estimated $91,000 for the whole treatment. It's still a large chunk of money to force on people that don't want anything to do with chemo in the first place.

So they will force this huge debt-burden onto this family. Possibly causing them to lose everything they own in the near future if they can't afford it.

I'm sure there is an argument in there somewhere. Something like: they will obviously be forced into "owing" this burden via contract that will only be signed under duress. That would invalidate the contract, no?

[JasonC]

http://sitelife.truebluefanclub.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/1/5/71bfc001-84fa-4993-a5ec-fb80db7bfcaa.Large.jpg

[dannno]

The law seems very clear to me. The only way they can override parent's rights and force Daniel to take chemo is if they prove the parents are neglecting Daniel. They took Daniel to 5 different doctors, they researched alternative treatments, and they decided to implement an alternative treatment. That's not neglect, it's just disagreeing with the doctors.


Exactly.

The problem is people here seem to think that medicine and science is cut and dry. Well, it isn't. I say the tumor was growing from the after effects of the chemo on his immune system, others say it was lack of chemo.

Then there is the money issue that was brought up.. that is one thing about alternative treatments, they are affordable for people. It is amazing that people here, and the Judge, are advocating that people go into massive debt that they will never pay off because a judge ordered a specific medical treatment. I would love to hear him answer to that.

I like the judge, I just don't think he has thought this one through very thoroughly.

[dannno]

So....don't have kids.

Yes, I believe this is a form of eugenics for those who believe in liberty. My roommate said SHE didn't want to have kids because of all of the crap that is going on right now. I'm sure there are plenty American Idol fans that are trying to have kids right now.

American Idol = American Idle?

[Theocrat]

Just now on Fox, Judge Napolitano said that the government was right to order that kid to have chemo when both he and his parents didn't want it.

This is absolutely ridiculous. How can the government know what works medically and what doesn't?

And this is out of the mouth of somebody who says "Every individual is more moral than the state."

The Judge can't be right on all things. I think the central question in that issue is, "Who owns and/or is responsible for the child's immediate well-being?" If the State gave permission to the parents to have their child, it would make sense that the State could step in and order the parents to submit the child to chemotherapy.

However, that is obviously not the case. The parents are ultimately responsible for the health and wealth of their child, and in this case, they have sought an alternative of medical care which fits their beliefs and comforts their consciences. That is the essence of liberty--the freedom to choose one possibility over another.

To me, it's so sad that as we continue to lose the idea of individual property rights that now our government is reaching its hands into the cradles of private homes and usurping the authority of parents. This issue is much different than allowing parents to murder their child(ren). It's based on a philosophical belief that rejects one system of therapy (synthetic) for another system of therapy (organic). The Judge should know better.

[Ninja Homer]

"Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship to restrict the art of healing to one class of men and deny equal privileges to others; the Constitution of the Republic should make a special privilege for medical freedoms as well as religious freedom."
- Benjamin Rush, MD., a signer of the Declaration of Independence and personal physician to George Washington

[misterx]

The mother is an idiot, but I still don't want the state having this kind of control over people's lives. It sounds cruel, but this may be for the best anyway. Isn't this how evolution works? It sounds like the woman's mental abilities are lacking. Well, less intelligent people are supposed to do stupid things so that they or their children don't survive to spawn more unintelligent people. Leave people to their own devices and let nature sort it out.

[RCA]

I have to disagree with the Judge on this one. I think the parent's obviously have no right to kill or assault their child, but allowing the child to die of natural causes or not should be left to the parents regardless of the reason (alternative medicine, religion).

Most likely the extended family, friends and the general community would go along way to prevent a natural death of a child if it were easily preventable. Remember the state is only good at using force.

[NYgs23]

Sounds like there are some people here who--yet again--expect that everyone in the "club" must be right about everything, and if they're not, they must be purged.

[dannno]

Sounds like there are some people here who--yet again--expect that everyone in the "club" must be right about everything, and if they're not, they must be purged.

This is about our basic freedoms, man..

[ClayTrainor]

This is about our basic freedoms, man..

yea, but you don't want to 'purge' an ally like The Judge, when we split on an issue like this. I think that's his point.

[DAaaMan64]

You might want to reference this from a case similar in Utah

http://www.patriotsaints.com/MyChildMyChoice/cases/ParkerJensen/

As to Napolitano saying the state was right; he just lost my vote of confidence and I will not be watching the show any longer.

oh brother. One issue one time?

[Zeeder]

While I disagree with the judge on this one, I'm not going to throw off the freedom boat. That's insane.

Constitutionally speaking, wouldn't the states have the power to do this?

[johnrocks]

Sounds like there are some people here who--yet again--expect that everyone in the "club" must be right about everything, and if they're not, they must be purged.

Exactly, I've read compelling reasons on both sides of this issue, I, like most here it seems, disagrees with the Judge however we can't dismiss on so many singular issues, hell for me, I'd support frigging Oral Roberts for Congress if we were in agreement on economic and foreign policy issues, it's gotten that serious in those two areas for me, I'm not going to allow myself to not support a good man like Chuck Baldwin or others just because I may disagree with them on issues like gay marriage or drugs when I support them on 99% of the major issues of today, call me a traitor to the movement however at times one must be practical and pragmatic about things,imho.

[Pepsi]

Shill

demand Congress fire Janet Napolitano

https://fs6.formsite.com/exposeobama/form123831343/secure_index.html

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=96916

[Brassmouth]

Just now on Fox, Judge Napolitano said that the government was right to order that kid to have chemo when both he and his parents didn't want it.

This is absolutely ridiculous. How can the government know what works medically and what doesn't?

And this is out of the mouth of somebody who says "Every individual is more moral than the state."

Napolitano is a state shill. He has no ethical compass. His only argument for anything is the Argument from Constitutionality.

This should surprise no one.

[A. Havnes]

I find it strange that people are being reminded of cases where such and such kid had such and such wrong with him or her and died because the parents prayed instead of going to a doctor. This mother isn't praying, she's choosing another form of treatment. The kid doesn't belong to the State. Regardless of your opinion regarding conventional medicine, doctors shouldn't order a form of treatment that they deem appropriate. Refusing to treat a kid is one thing, but deciding on an alternative source is perfectly valid.

Quite frankly, chemo is just about as dangerous as the cancer, because it just goes in and kills everything from bad cells to good cells. It damages the immune system as well.

Chemo Quotes (http://www.oasisadvancedwellness.com/learning/chemo-quotes.html)

Galileo's Lawyer (http://www.amazon.com/Galileos-Lawyer-Alternative-Complementary-Experimental/dp/0980118301)

This is only part 1, but it's interesting how our medical decisions are no longer our own.
YouTube - Galileo's Lawyer, Alternative Health, Wake Up America #11 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQyXS9fbQt0)

[dannno]

yea, but you don't want to 'purge' an ally like The Judge, when we split on an issue like this. I think that's his point.

I disagree with him, I voice my disagreement so that others are aware and perhaps he will become aware and come to his senses. It's simply a hypocritical position, and it doesn't bode well for our movement when leaders of the movement particularly are hypocritical about freedom.

I still sent the letter in to get him on the air, I like everything else he has ever said, that I know of.

[dannno]

oh brother. One issue one time?

Freedom is a pretty important issue.

[Gin]

This reminds me of the case where a girl died because her parents chose to pray for her instead of seeking medical help for a treatable form of diabetes.

Diabetes is not even in the same ballpark as Cancer... I'm sorry, but I have seen the affects of chemo and radiation on cancer patients.. I believe that is one reason why my dad is no longer with us...Chemo and radiation destroy good cells right along with the cancer cells. 75% of Oncologists say that they themselves would not take Chemo (January article I read) because of this fact. Cancer is a fungus. There are many alternative ways to cure it..such as THC..the THC in Marijuana (no you don't have to smoke it) stops the growth of cancer (if only I knew this 18 mths ago) Tarceva is another alternative to Chemo and Radiation as it is Chemo in Pill form which my dad took and it stopped the growth of the tumor (unfortunately by then dad only had a half of a lung left due to chemo and radiation) Personally I feel that while the child should continue some kind of treatment, the Gov has no right saying that it Must Be Chemo and Radiation. JMHO

[DeadheadForPaul]

I'm sorry but these parents might as well be starving their child in their basement. He's slowly wasting away and will die as a result of their neglect.

It's not like we're suggesting that the government should prevent parents from giving their children candy, Cokes, fast food, and other unhealthy food and beverages. This is about providing adequate medical services for your child

There are some rare cases where the government needs to step in to protect a child. After all, it is the government's duty to protect life. This is such a case: when parents are not sufficiently caring for children

[DeadheadForPaul]

Diabetes is not even in the same ballpark as Cancer... I'm sorry, but I have seen the affects of chemo and radiation on cancer patients.. I believe that is one reason why my dad is no longer with us...Chemo and radiation destroy good cells right along with the cancer cells. 75% of Oncologists say that they themselves would not take Chemo (January article I read) because of this fact. Cancer is a fungus. There are many alternative ways to cure it..such as THC..the THC in Marijuana (no you don't have to smoke it) stops the growth of cancer (if only I knew this 18 mths ago) Tarceva is another alternative to Chemo and Radiation as it is Chemo in Pill form which my dad took and it stopped the growth of the tumor (unfortunately by then dad only had a half of a lung left due to chemo and radiation) Personally I feel that while the child should continue some kind of treatment, the Gov has no right saying that it Must Be Chemo and Radiation. JMHO

Cancer is not a fungus.

[DeadheadForPaul]

This post demonstrates that you failed to gather the basic facts of the case and have a very poor understanding of the tenets of liberty.

Your have officially discredited your position, way to go.


I wonder how I have "failed to gather the basic facts of the case". Seems pretty straightforward: Kid gets sick. Mother refuses medical treatment and puts her son's life in jeopardy. Government steps in to protect those who cannot protect themselves (children).

I assure you that I have a fairly solid understanding of liberty. I would ask you whether you understand that the government has an obligation to protect "life, liberty, and property". Ever hear Dr. Paul say that in one of his speeches? There is nothing more important than life, and here we see a parent essentially killing her child. The state is there to protect life.

You have discredited your position by rejecting established medical and scientific facts while simultaneously ignoring the rights of the child to LIVE.

[puppetmaster]

I wonder how I have "failed to gather the basic facts of the case". Seems pretty straightforward: Kid gets sick. Mother refuses medical treatment and puts her son's life in jeopardy. Government steps in to protect those who cannot protect themselves (children).

I assure you that I have a fairly solid understanding of liberty. I would ask you whether you understand that the government has an obligation to protect "life, liberty, and property". Ever hear Dr. Paul say that in one of his speeches? There is nothing more important than life, and here we see a parent essentially killing her child. The state is there to protect life.

You have discredited your position by rejecting established medical and scientific facts while simultaneously ignoring the rights of the child to LIVE.

They have chosen another form of treatment. This is by far NOT a refusal of treatment.

[dannno]

I wonder how I have "failed to gather the basic facts of the case". Seems pretty straightforward: Kid gets sick. Mother refuses medical treatment and puts her son's life in jeopardy. Government steps in to protect those who cannot protect themselves (children).

I assure you that I have a fairly solid understanding of liberty. I would ask you whether you understand that the government has an obligation to protect "life, liberty, and property". Ever hear Dr. Paul say that in one of his speeches? There is nothing more important than life, and here we see a parent essentially killing her child. The state is there to protect life.

You have discredited your position by rejecting established medical and scientific facts while simultaneously ignoring the rights of the child to LIVE.

Ron Paul believes that medical treatment should be between the doctor, patient and in this case the parents. He believes that people have the right to alternative treatments.

BTW, you said that the kid couldn't talk, but he's 13.

[DeadheadForPaul]

Ron Paul believes that medical treatment should be between the doctor, patient and in this case the parents. He believes that people have the right to alternative treatments.


We're talking about a parent making life-ending decisions for a child. I don't care what you or any other adult does with regard to their health. It is an entirely different ballgame when an illiterate, uneducated child is having his decisions made by a crazy mother who believes in magical potions. The child's illiteracy should tell you enough about the neglect on the part of the mother...and perhaps, reveals that she is also not very educated about established medical procedures.

BTW, you said that the kid couldn't talk, but he's 13.

Actually, I said he couldn't READ. Something that may likewise apply to my detractor. :cool:

[DeadheadForPaul]

They have chosen another form of treatment. This is by far NOT a refusal of treatment.

The chosen treatment is no better than waving a magic wand over the child and saying "you are healed!

[dannno]

The chosen treatment is no better than waving a magic wand over the child and saying "you are healed!

Double blind FDA study to back that up??

Where they aren't using chemo in concert??

Stop spewing.

[dannno]

Actually, I said he couldn't READ. Something that may likewise apply to my detractor. :cool:

So you're saying the 13 yr old can't read?

[DeadheadForPaul]

So you're saying the 13 yr old can't read?

YES! I'm not saying it. It is a fact.

How can an illiterate 13 year old with a learning disability and a crazy mom know what medical options to pursue?

[Carole]

The chemo treatment is poison. Why would any parent want to poison their child. They are protecting him from the poison.

The damage chemo does can be extensive. There are alternative treatments that may be as or more effective.

It is wrong for the state to intervene in this family decision. The state does not own our children. Forcing a child to take toxic chemo sesesions is tantamount to attempted murder IMHO.

Why are we still using this primitive method of treatment for cancer after decades and decades of research? What is wrong with this picture?

This is medicine and government at its worst and in bed with one another.

[VIDEODROME]

many people in this thread are baffled that Napolitano and others here would side with the government.

What does the Constitution as well as local State Law say? That is what Napolitano will side with.

Got to remember this isn't just his personal view. Someone like the Judge will come down on the side of the law because his career has been to enforce the rule of law and due process. The most he might do is interpret it's constitutionality and it seems according to him to be constitutional. Or at least nothing prevents the laws in play here from being written by the state.

[skyorbit]

I wonder how I have "failed to gather the basic facts of the case". Seems pretty straightforward: Kid gets sick. Mother refuses medical treatment and puts her son's life in jeopardy. Government steps in to protect those who cannot protect themselves (children).


The government's stance is socialistic though.

The only way for the government to force this, is to force tax-payers to pay for the procedure. That sounds like socialized medicine to me. I thought we were against this.

This is nothing more then state mandated medical care.

Tracy

[AuH2O]

Since we accept that children aren't capable of making full mature decisions, we have age of consent law and various other statutes to protect children before their maturity. This means that parents are empowered to make life-altering decisions, because the child has not reached a level of maturity to weigh options for himself.

Parents have the power to raise their family and provide for their children however they see fit. If the government says "Okay, you make all the decisions until we disagree with one, then we take over!" where does their power stop? What reigns in the government from controlling all decisions made? Perhaps we should open massive government child-rearing camps and send our kids off for 18 years after they've been weaned from their mother. Clearly the government wants to be the final decision maker of what is right for our children.

[Ninja Homer]

The Quackery of Chemotherapy, Gunpoint Medicine and the Disturbing Fate of 13-Year-Old Daniel Hauser

http://www.naturalnews.com/026305.html

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 by: Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

"(NaturalNews) You see it in newspapers and websites across the 'net: People insisting that 13-year-old Daniel Hauser must be injected with chemotherapy in order to "save his life," and that anyone refusing to go along with that is a criminal deserving of arrest and imprisonment.

What's most astonishing about the mainstream reaction to the forced chemotherapy of Daniel Hauser is not merely that they believe states now own the children, but that they believe in the entire world there exists but one single treatment for cancer, and it happens to be the one that makes pharmaceutical companies the most money. The arrogance (and ignorance) of that position is mind boggling.

There was once a time when western medical doctors believed that the heavy metal mercury was a medicine, too. They methodically used mercury to treat hundreds of different diseases and conditions, oblivious to the fact that they were actually poisoning people with this toxic heavy metal.

And yet, imagine if authorities had arrested parents for not treating their children with mercury. Imagine if they threw parents in prison for refusing their "mercury medicine." That would be equivalent to today's arrogant, misguided and extremely dangerous campaign to outlaw saying "no" to chemotherapy.

A brief history of medical quackery
It was mercury, in fact, that led to the term "quack." Mercury is called "quicksilver," and those doctors who prescribed it were eventually discovered to be pushing toxic chemicals rather than any real medicine. They were initially called "quicks" and then later "quacks."

The quackery of those doctors prescribing mercury wasn't hard to miss: People taking the mercury would get extremely ill. Their hair would fall out. They would lose their appetite and experience extreme loss of body weight. Many would simply die from the toxicity.

Remarkably, these are the same side effects produced by chemotherapy. And today, chemotherapy doctors describe these side effects in precisely the same terms as the mercury quacks of a century ago, claiming the effects are "part of the healing process" and encouraging patients to find the courage to "just go through with it."

But let's pull our heads out of the muck here and acknowledge the obvious: Poisoning patients -- whether with mercury or chemotherapy -- will never produce healing. And the prescribing of such toxic chemicals to patients is little more than sophisticated quackery, backed by seemingly convincing data (which is actually based on scientific fraud) along with the urgings of cancer doctors who rely on highly manipulative fear tactics to corral patients into treatments that will only harm them.

Do parents have the right to protect their children from poison?
Today, the mother of 13-year-old Daniel Hauser is on the run, having skipped out on the Minnesota court that ordered her to poison her own child. She is now considered criminally negligent by the state -- a parent who belongs behind bars and will likely be imprisoned when she is arrested at gunpoint.

And yet, I ask you this: What else could she have done? To appear in court and submit her child to chemical injections of a toxic substance would amount to child abuse. She is doing what any sensible parent would do: She's protecting her child from the poisons of the world, and standing up against the tyrants of modern medicine who so desperately seek to exploit her child for profit that they have actually turned to enforcing their business at gunpoint in order to do so.

It is interesting that pharmaceutical medicine is the only industry in America that's forced to recruit its patients at gunpoint.

I call it Gunpoint Medicine, and it is exactly as it sounds: The enforcing of medical quackery at gunpoint."

register to read the rest of the article (http://www.naturalnews.com/026305.html)

[VIDEODROME]

I tend to think people should be free to do just about anything as long as they're not harming another person. I think this crosses that line which is why I side with the Judge.

Also in this case there is a very favorable track record for successful treatment of this type of Cancer using chemo.

Finally one other thing I think the Judge said was that if this was more of a grey area where the cancer was nearly certain to be fatal and incurable he would have left the family alone. One of the major factors in this judgment is the certainty of the successful cure. Taking a chance of herbs when another cure exists that is certain to work is reckless endangerment of the kid's life.



I think this is what sets it aside from the Mercury thing or other things like it. While strange medicines have been used in the past I doubt they had a proven high success rate of curing people.

[BuddyRey]

Except that children do not have the ability to comprehend their responsibilities, so their rights are suppressed.

Even if one accepts the arguable conclusion that a mentally stable 13 year-old is a child, it still doesn't justify the contravention of the Non-Aggression Axiom, especially when parent and child are of one accord on this issue. Just my opinion, of course.

[robert4rp08]

How in the world does anyone here support the forced administration of chemicals that kill both good and bad cells?

EDIT: Forgot to add that this treatment violates their religious beliefs.

[robert4rp08]

That's like saying polygamy should be legal because in Islam and LDS its allowed. Obviously not about religion.

It's partially about religious freedom. Duh.

[robert4rp08]

Sent an email to Napolitano (contact@judgenap.com)

My email:
I've been a fan of yours since reading A Nation of Sheep and Constitutional Chaos last year. I look forward to Freedom Watch every week. And most of all I have been appreciative of your advocacy of liberty and Constitutionalism.

I was however shocked to learn that you supported the STATE'S decision in FORCING a child against his and his parent's wishes to be injected with CHEMICALS that kill both good and bad cells. Where in the Constitution does the judicial branch get the authority to play parent, doctor, and God?

-Robert

Response:
You are misinformed on my views on the case. I do not support this.

[puppetmaster]

I am amazed that so many have no knowledge about alternative medicine and their proven ability to fight cancers and other illnesses. I am glad the judge has denied the support

[VIDEODROME]

How in the world does anyone here support the forced administration of chemicals that kill both good and bad cells?



Doesn't your own body do that when you run a Fever trying to kill germs in your body?

[Epic]

Sent an email to Napolitano (contact@judgenap.com)

My email:
I've been a fan of yours since reading A Nation of Sheep and Constitutional Chaos last year. I look forward to Freedom Watch every week. And most of all I have been appreciative of your advocacy of liberty and Constitutionalism.

I was however shocked to learn that you supported the STATE'S decision in FORCING a child against his and his parent's wishes to be injected with CHEMICALS that kill both good and bad cells. Where in the Constitution does the judicial branch get the authority to play parent, doctor, and God?

-Robert

Response:
You are misinformed on my views on the case. I do not support this.

I started this thread. I saw him talking with Shep Smith about this on the Fox News Channel. The Judge said he is skeptical of government power, but that if he were the judge, he would have forced the kid to take chemo.

If he has changed his mind, that's great. But he definitely did support it on television.

[robert4rp08]

Doesn't your own body do that when you run a Fever trying to kill germs in your body?

My immune system has never attacked healthy cells when I've run a fever. Does your body kill healthy cells in your bone marrow, digestive tract, and follicles when you run a fever? You may want to get that checked out.

[literatim]

Chemo therapy is nothing but doctors using you as a lab rat to test out their latest drug. It makes you incredibly sick and it does nothing to really cure you of cancer. The only treatment these doctors use that actually works in surgery.

[A. Havnes]

Looks like the parents finally agreed to poison the kid in order to keep custody of him. This kind of behavior makes me sick.