About Should the Government Become Involved?
|May 15th, 2009||#1|
| || |
Should the Government Become Involved? info
By AMY FORLITI
MINNEAPOLIS – A Minnesota judge has ruled that a 13-year-old cancer patient whose parents want to treat him with "alternative medicine" must seek conventional medical treatment for their son.
In a 58-page ruling Friday, Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg found that Daniel Hauser has been "medically neglected" and is in need of child protection services.
Rodenberg said Daniel will stay in the custody of his parents, but Colleen and Anthony Hauser have until May 19 to get an updated chest X-ray for their son and select an oncologist.
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.
I am not a fan of big government, of the government running my life or my choices as a parent or individual. However...there are exceptions to every case and I think when the people are purposely endangering their children someone needs to step in.I voted yes.
"Our politicians do not serve us; they serve the multinational corporations that pay them. It's time to change that. Let's end the corporate takeover of our government." — Cenk Uygur
Last edited by pixiedustboo; May 15th, 2009 at 17:27..
|May 15th, 2009||#2|
| || |
There are diffrent medical cases, and diffrent scenarios...in this case however, if the child has the option to a succesful treatment.. then why prevent the child from recovering, and living a wonderful life full of opportunities??? Parents should consider "what is in the best intrest of the child" and not their own....sigh..
R.I.P. Steven Zeluff
Last edited by sky2979; May 15th, 2009 at 21:56..
|May 15th, 2009||#3|
| || |
A 90% chance of recovery with chemo?!?!?! Are the parents clinically retarded?!
This is absolutely insane. At what point does a religion become more important than your child's life?! If you KNOW the child will probably be cured with a conventional treatment, why would you opt for something that probably WON'T work?
I say GO GOVERNMENT in this particular scenario... Not to say that I'm for the government telling us what to do all the time, but when it endangers the life of an innocent child...
|May 15th, 2009||#4|
| || |
This is really an all or nothing situation. Either parents have the right to decide how to raise or protect their children or it is the governments responsibility.
That is the choice.
If you approve of the government in deciding in some cases, then when a situation comes up where you disagree with the government decision, guess who will decide.
When the government takes over the decision making it is not on a individual basis. Given parents make mistakes, are we to assume the government won't?
When it comes to raising children who do you think will do a better job?
Last edited by Chukpike; May 15th, 2009 at 20:17..
|May 15th, 2009||#5|
| || |
---I am not saying I think the government should raise [our] children for us (I actually think they should take more of a step back then they have at the moment with some cases, spanking, etc). However, I am saying when the parents are incompetent and endangering their children then someone needs to step in.---
When does it become okay to let a child suffer (and in this case highly likely die) just so we have "freedom" raising our children?
|May 15th, 2009||#6|
| || |
Freakin fruit loops. Let a kid die because it comes into conflict with some assinine "new age" belief in holistic medicine that may or may not be based on Native American medicine. They oughta take all eight of these idiots kids.
As far as the native american aspect, I know a few and none of them would let their kid die while they watch some nut job burn sage and crush up elder berry roots or whatever. They would do anything possible to save the kid...any responsible parent would.
Sgt. Rafael Peralta ,United States Marine Corps
Company A, 1st Bn, 3rd Marine Regt, 3rd Marine Divison
We will never forget your valor and sacrifice.
Semper Fi !
|May 15th, 2009||#7|
| || |
Look Chukpike, there's a difference between parents making mistakes and parents CONSCIOUSLY NEGLECTING A CHILD. That's what's happening here. I highly doubt the government would be involved if the kid had a cold and the parents gave him some kind of herb instead of cough syrup. This is a whole 'nother ball game.
|May 15th, 2009||#8|
| || |
Simple solution: Take the kid off on his own and ask if he wants chemo or holistic medicine. Honor his wishes. I know I was old enough to make such a choice when I was 13, though I don't have a learning disability.
"Mankind, when left to themselves, are unfit for their own government." - George Washington
|May 15th, 2009||#9|
| || |
I didn't realize the poll is about this one particular case. Once the government steps in and determines they will make the decisions, it is not going to be on individual case by case basis. The doctors will make the decisions with the support of the government.
If it is about who makes medical decisions, the parents or the government, then I still think it belongs with the parent.
Same as the right to die issue. The government has stepped in and said you don't have a right to die. We will keep you alive no matter how much pain you may be in and how much it will cost you. After you run out of medical insurance and you have dissolved all you worldly possessions, you will go on hospice at taxpayers expense. The only medications you will get are pain killers, even if the don't work with out a lethal dose, which won't be given.
Not being up on all the religions, would it be more acceptable if the parents belonged to an older more established religion? I am not even sure religion enters into it. (I know that was part of the parents position).
If it was my child I would want him treated, but he is not. I don't like the parents decision in this case, but believe it is their decision to make.
|Pentagon Spending Growth Outpaces Auditors|
|Guantanamo Decision Rebuffs Government|
|Colombian Government Is Ensnared In A Paramilitary Scandal|
|Canada heads for election as government falls|
|Iraq government ready to 'help' rebels lay down weapons|