Should the Government Become Involved?

[pixiedustboo]

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


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.

 

[sky2979]

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..

 

[Rob Henderson]

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...

 

[Chukpike]

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?

 

[pixiedustboo]

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...

+1 Rob, exactly how I feel.

When it comes to raising children who do you think will do a better job?

Considering it's doubtful the child will make it anywhere near his 18th birthday with the parents raising him, I say the government will do a better job.

---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?

 

[03USMC]

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.

 

[Rob Henderson]

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?

Sooo... You read the part where it said the parents DON'T want to give the child the treatment that would probably save his life, right? I just want to clarify that you think the parents would do a better job of raising this child...


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.

 

[major liability]

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.

 

[Chukpike]

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.

 

[03USMC]

Just me but I don't think any religion matters when it comes to a childs life, so no it wouldn't.

 

[pixiedustboo]

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.

I'm guessing from your comments, especially "it is their decision to make" means that you support the government staying out of all family/child based cases. For instance, family child molestation cases and child abuse cases because it's the "parent(s)" making the decision. And after all, who would raise a child better than their own parents?

I'm sorry, but that is just about the most backward thinking I think I've ever heard. It's their right to kill their 13 year old child?

There HAS to be a point where the government is involved in extreme cases if the parents aren't doing what is in the best interests of the child.



p.s. I don't think I would pull the child aside and ask him his opinion at this point. He's already been brainwashed by his parents to accept "natural" cures and I don't think he really knows he will be dying if he ops for the "natural" cures.



All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

 

[A Can of Man]

We separate kids from parents when they go to the cops about getting disciplined, I rate this about a million times worse.
When it is a case where a minor is denied a medical treatment, I think this becomes a case where the government can intervene.

 

[The Other Guy]

Government should become involved. If one will work, imagine what both will do.

 

[Chukpike]

I'm guessing from your comments, especially "it is their decision to make" means that you support the government staying out of all family/child based cases. For instance, family child molestation cases and child abuse cases because it's the "parent(s)" making the decision. And after all, who would raise a child better than their own parents?

I guess you are comparing parents making decisions for the welfare of their children, to being able to abuse their children. That is so wrong, and I would think you are more intelligent than that.

I'll let you decide if it is the same.

I think this personal attack is just wrong at any level.

I'm sorry, but that is just about the most backward thinking I think I've ever heard. It's their right to kill their 13 year old child?

As you are aware the child is going to get treatment, so unless the court is wrong he is not going to die. So we can discuss where the line between parents and the state should be drawn without making ridiculous statements. So quit with the drama queen off the wall statements.

As backward as your statement above? And I never said it was right.

There HAS to be a point where the government is involved in extreme cases if the parents aren't doing what is in the best interests of the child.

So why did they not take the boy away from these "bad parents"?
No, instead they set the parents up to go to jail for defying the court. Suggest you read what the mother said in the article. She is not going to follow the court instructions.

The state probably didn't take the child because they didn't want to pay the medical bills. This way they can make the parents pay. I know this sounds wrong. Or maybe the court wants to prove a point, they are the boss.

Notice that this compassionate judge didn't say to take the boy directly for treatment. The child has cancer and the government set a date for the mother to comply, if she doesn't are they going to set another court date. If the court really wanted to help the child why didn't they send him for immediate treatment?
Sounds like the government is right on top of this and is doing one bang up job for the child.

p.s. I don't think I would pull the child aside and ask him his opinion at this point. He's already been brainwashed by his parents to accept "natural" cures and I don't think he really knows he will be dying if he ops for the "natural" cures.

Happens all the time. Courts will ask a 13 year old which parent they wish to stay with after a divorce. And I would agree with you, that the child is not old enough to make that decision.

If he was 18 the court would not be able to do anything. So the arbitrary line proves that anyone under 18 can't make a decision.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

"And after all, who would raise a child better than their own parents?" Apparently you think it is the government.

 

[sky2979]

As a parent,...single mother for that matter....I try and place myself in the position of the child's parents,...and I really dont know, what I would do if, I was faced with that kind of decision....It's very overwhelming, and heart-breaking...but the truth is that I dont know whether I would agree or disagree to chemo for my child...chemo is just as devastating and dreadful...sigh...I cannot say or judge until I am faced with that difficult decision..

I know, I stated otherwise previously,...but after analyzing and thinking more about this...well, I simply decided am not in the position to judge...

 

[Rob Henderson]

I guess you are comparing parents making decisions for the welfare of their children, to being able to abuse their children. That is so wrong, and I would think you are more intelligent than that.

I'll let you decide if it is the same.

I think this personal attack is just wrong at any level.

It falls under the same category. How many times has a child been "disciplined" by his or her parents and the parents gotten away with it?

As you are aware the child is going to get treatment, so unless the court is wrong he is not going to die. So we can discuss where the line between parents and the state should be drawn without making ridiculous statements. So quit with the drama queen off the wall statements.

As backward as your statement above? And I never said it was right.

I'm curious as to how you can judge someone so instantly, Chukpike... Perhaps I'm finally getting to the bottom of your views on gay marriage and the like... Seeing as how you've never met anyone on here in your life, yet you make OUTRAGEOUS accusations against a person, then ***** and moan when someone makes an accusation against you. Very mature for someone your age...

The fact is if he didn't receive treatment, the child would probably die. But with treatment, he has a VERY good chance of surviving. If the parents understand this, and still refuse the child treatment, then they are essentially killing the child.

So why did they not take the boy away from these "bad parents"?
No, instead they set the parents up to go to jail for defying the court. Suggest you read what the mother said in the article. She is not going to follow the court instructions.

The state probably didn't take the child because they didn't want to pay the medical bills. This way they can make the parents pay. I know this sounds wrong. Or maybe the court wants to prove a point, they are the boss.

Notice that this compassionate judge didn't say to take the boy directly for treatment. The child has cancer and the government set a date for the mother to comply, if she doesn't are they going to set another court date. If the court really wanted to help the child why didn't they send him for immediate treatment?
Sounds like the government is right on top of this and is doing one bang up job for the child.

It's a helluva lot better than the parents are doing! Or do you disagree? You think herbs and spices will cure cancer? *chuckle* Californians....

"And after all, who would raise a child better than their own parents?" Apparently you think it is the government.

IN THIS CASE... YES.

 

[A Can of Man]

IN THIS CASE... YES.

I agree. In this case, you'd have to put in some effort to be any worse.

 

[rattler]

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.

I agree, parnts have the right to decide. As European, though, and having a lot of laws in place that do not only define *rights* but also *obligations* towards yur kids as a parent (and I have no prob whatsoever with 99% of them) I find it natural that if parents show obvious signs of abuse, abandonment or, lik in this case - negligence to have the kid taken away from them.

Government care is not great? Sure, but there might be othr familiy members or, if not, living growing up i government custody is still better than dying satisfying some quirked parent´s minds, IMHO.

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.

The government (or, in Europe, the town social services where you live), and they are bound to follow laws (an not have to wait for a judges decision for general actions taken). I have no prob with that if parnents are not up to the task, be it for bein druggies, child molesters, religious fanatics or whatever.

When it comes to raising children who do you think will do a better job?

Good parents, no question. "Good" for me means thexy put the kids interests before their own.

My 2c,

Rattler

 

[pixiedustboo]

I guess you are comparing parents making decisions for the welfare of their children, to being able to abuse their children. That is so wrong, and I would think you are more intelligent than that.

I'll let you decide if it is the same.

I fail to see what is different from a parent physically abusing a child to a parent neglecting a child and letting them die.

As you are aware the child is going to get treatment, so unless the court is wrong he is not going to die. So we can discuss where the line between parents and the state should be drawn without making ridiculous statements. So quit with the drama queen off the wall statements.

Originally Posted by pixiedustboo
I'm sorry, but that is just about the most backward thinking I think I've ever heard. It's their right to kill their 13 year old child?

My ridiculous comment would be fact if the parents had full power over the child verses the government intervening. I fail to see how that is a "ridiculous" statement.



If we let someone get away without getting chemo for a terminally ill child...what else will happen? Where will a line be drawn, or will there be a line at all? Maybe a mom has a baby with asthma, but she thought it would be better to do "natural" treatments - or better yet, in her backward thinking that the child is fine! Until she has a dead baby.

But after all, it's her child, and she needs to make the decision she thinks is best because if the government intervenes she is losing her freedoms to make her own choices.

IN THIS CASE... YES.

I agree. I'm not saying I think the government should run everything. But in this case...yes.

 

[BritinBritain]

A friend of mine worked in a major London hospital in London. A young child was brought in who required an emergency blood transfusion, the parents of the child were Jehovah's Witness's refused to give consent to the blood transfusion as it went against their religious beliefs. As it was a matter of life or death, a phone call was made to a judge by the hospital and the child was made a ward of the state within minutes and given the required medical treatment.


Do I consider it was right? Damn right I do