• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Judge rules family can't use religious objections to refuse chemo for 13-year-old son

Status
Not open for further replies.

Questioning Christian

Well-Known Member
Sep 7, 2004
5,752
523
53
✟8,589.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
This reminds me of things that some Pentecostals have done and this is why I posted it here.

______________________________

Judge rules family can't refuse chemo for boy By AMY FORLITI – 1 day ago

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — A Minnesota judge has ruled that a 13-year-old boy with a highly treatable form of cancer must seek conventional medical treatment over his parents' objections. 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 Feb. after a single treatment. He, mom, and dad 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.


On the Net:

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
 

Catherineanne

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2004
22,924
4,646
Europe
✟84,370.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Widowed
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 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.

No doubt the judge has considered this very carefully. If the boy is unable to understand his condition properly, it is right that he should be protected from his parents' viewpoint. He is not capable of protecting himself, his parents are not doing it, he is a minor, and so it is right for the court to step in.

This is not about religious rights. It is about well meaning but ultimately rather ignorant parents putting their son's life in danger.
 
Upvote 0

Joachim

The flag is a protest for state flags
Jan 14, 2009
1,931
119
Bob Riley is my governor
✟25,203.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
If there are Pentecostals who disagree with this decision, they are about to consider me as their "great Catholic friend", because I also disagree with it. First, in this case there was no negligence. For their to be negligence there has to be either malicious intent or negligent intent or lack of concern.


In this case there was no lack of concern. The parents were deeply concerned. Their child did not want to undergo any more chemo. They concurred. The judge has overstepped his bounds on this one. The government does not have the right to force people to undergo treatment against their will unless they are a danger to society. This child was no threat to society. The judge made the wrong decision and it is a tragic decision that could have reverberations in constitutional law because this looks like it has the makings of a Supreme Court case
 
Upvote 0

SpiritPsalmist

Heavy lean toward Messianic
Site Supporter
Jun 13, 2002
21,696
1,466
71
Southeast Kansas
✟416,924.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
If there are Pentecostals who disagree with this decision, they are about to consider me as their "great Catholic friend", because I also disagree with it. First, in this case there was no negligence. For their to be negligence there has to be either malicious intent or negligent intent or lack of concern.


In this case there was no lack of concern. The parents were deeply concerned. Their child did not want to undergo any more chemo. They concurred. The judge has overstepped his bounds on this one. The government does not have the right to force people to undergo treatment against their will unless they are a danger to society. This child was no threat to society. The judge made the wrong decision and it is a tragic decision that could have reverberations in constitutional law because this looks like it has the makings of a Supreme Court case

I tend to agree with you. I can't say that I agree with the doctrine that the family is part of but I think that if the boy and his family are aware of what "conventional" methods are offered and they choose instead to go with the unconventional that is their choice.

I have worked in the "system" and saw children removed from their homes simply because the child did not have their own room but shared one with another sibling. It has become to easy to remove children due to an outsiders opinions and incorrect evaluations.

Now if the child was having these decisions made by his parents alone, and he wanted the conventional but his parents did not, then I could see the state stepping in to help. But if the child, who is 13, and I believe quite able to make his own decision on it, says he wants to go with unconventional then he should be allowed to. The parents should not lose their child because they back their son up.
 
Upvote 0

probinson

Legend
Aug 16, 2005
24,504
4,591
47
PA
✟199,169.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
it is right that he should be protected from his parents' viewpoint.

I don't think you even begin to understand the ramifications of this statement.

Heaven help us when the judges of the land get to override how we raise our own children.

:cool:
 
Upvote 0

Thomas The Atheist

Regular Member
Mar 14, 2009
417
29
Belgium
✟15,689.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I agree with the judge...

I mean, come on... clearly these parents have no idea on how to cope with this...
they can pray to their God, ofcourse, but not letting the boy being treated just because they think God will solve it for them?

an example: a couple of months ago this show was on TV where couples had to run an hotel, at the end of every 2? episodes the public could vote and 1 couple had to leave... the last man standing would get the hotel. During the finals, you had 1 "religious" couple, and one not-that religious... the non-religious were going around town, going to see a radio station, handing out flyers, making commercials in the papers etc...
the religious couple on the other hand, stayed home, prayed, came in touch with their "inner self and Jesus" and... lost.. bit time


about these "rights" we have... does any1 here knows about Socrates?
He was a very intelligent man which ideas I find quite interesting.
he stated things like: "democracy isn't correct" and "our own thoughts, are mostly WRONG"

I share his opinion when it comes to things like this... the parents clearly can't cope with the situation...
we should let someone wiser take care of it then...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobW188

Growling Maverick
Jul 19, 2008
1,717
140
80
Southern Minnesota
✟17,603.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
A judge reviewed this in a courtroom setting where all parties were represented, even Daniel having his own counsel. As the parents say they are following Daniel's wishes, not choosing for him, his capacity to decide an issue of this nature is relevant. The judge decided, seemingly on the basis of competent evidence, that he did not have that capacity.
Frankly, this decision of the parents to simply follow the wishes of a learning disabled 13 year old leads me to wonder if they understand what the responsibilities of parenthood are. They would actually have had a stronger case, in my mind, if the decision to refuse treatment had been theirs. The mother states that her son is "not in any medical danger at this point." Her qualifications to judge whether or not someone is in medical danger? None are mentioned. The judge had every right - indeed, to my mind, no real choice - but to accept the testimony of trained medical personnel to the contrary.
Negligence by its very nature does not require intent. It can be defined as a failiure to take due care, or as the breach - intentional or unintentional - of a duty owed another. The right of the state to step in when a person lacks the capacity to make a decision affecting his life or safety, and when others cannot or will not act for him, has been established for centuries. The court's decision was proper both in fact and in law; and there is ample precedent for it.
 
Upvote 0

SpiritPsalmist

Heavy lean toward Messianic
Site Supporter
Jun 13, 2002
21,696
1,466
71
Southeast Kansas
✟416,924.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
I agree with the judge...

I mean, come on... clearly these parents have no idea on how to cope with this...
they can pray to their God, ofcourse, but not letting the boy being treated just because they think God will solve it for them?

an example: a couple of months ago this show was on TV where couples had to run an hotel, at the end of every 2? episodes the public could vote and 1 couple had to leave... the last man standing would get the hotel. During the finals, you had 1 "religious" couple, and one not-that religious... the non-religious were going around town, going to see a radio station, handing out flyers, making commercials in the papers etc...
the religious couple on the other hand, stayed home, prayed, came in touch with their "inner self and Jesus" and... lost.. bit time


about these "rights" we have... does any1 here knows about Socrates?
He was a very intelligent man which ideas I find quite interesting.
he stated things like: "democracy isn't correct" and "our own thoughts, are mostly WRONG"

I share his opinion when it comes to things like this... the parents clearly can't cope with the situation...
we should let someone wiser take care of it then...

Sorry Thomas, but did you read the entire op??? :scratch:
 
Upvote 0

zaksmummy

Senior Member
Jul 6, 2007
2,198
196
Chesterfield
✟18,366.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
A judge reviewed this in a courtroom setting where all parties were represented, even Daniel having his own counsel. As the parents say they are following Daniel's wishes, not choosing for him, his capacity to decide an issue of this nature is relevant. The judge decided, seemingly on the basis of competent evidence, that he did not have that capacity.
Frankly, this decision of the parents to simply follow the wishes of a learning disabled 13 year old leads me to wonder if they understand what the responsibilities of parenthood are. They would actually have had a stronger case, in my mind, if the decision to refuse treatment had been theirs. The mother states that her son is "not in any medical danger at this point." Her qualifications to judge whether or not someone is in medical danger? None are mentioned. The judge had every right - indeed, to my mind, no real choice - but to accept the testimony of trained medical personnel to the contrary.
Negligence by its very nature does not require intent. It can be defined as a failiure to take due care, or as the breach - intentional or unintentional - of a duty owed another. The right of the state to step in when a person lacks the capacity to make a decision affecting his life or safety, and when others cannot or will not act for him, has been established for centuries. The court's decision was proper both in fact and in law; and there is ample precedent for it.

I was going to say something similar, but you have put much more eloquently
 
Upvote 0

Zugzwang

Well-Known Member
Feb 28, 2006
1,224
122
✟25,337.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
faith healers who say they would want only god to heal them ("I don't ALLOW sickness in MY house praise god), OFTEN have close family members end up seeking medical treatment, OR they get a disease themselves and often suffer the consequences of stupidity.

Here's an idea: instead of getting all bent out of shape that "parents" are losing the right to choose what's best for their child, how about we continue our "right to life" attitude by thanking god for letting this child live despite the fact he had dumb parents?

don't get me wrong, i DESPISE the govt. and the people's choice for ALLOWING our freedoms to continue to erode on a semi-daily basis when it's evident that "american idol", and "the biggest loser" are more important than basic inalienable rights 101, HOWEVER, letting a child die due to an "ideology", when god allowed a doctor to learn, and go to school for 8 years, who has the medical know how that GOD GAVE HIM TO SAVE YOUR CHILD, and CHOOSING to "roll the dice" by messed up knowledge and gimped up faith?

pfft, this aint even making me nervous in the least, will lose zero sleep over the decision. he isn't being taken away b/c he is being homeschooled (and yes i KNOW it's coming) he's being taken away b/c the parents are zealous idiots with no biblical leg to stand on.

(and yes i know this will offend some, sorry, but imo, when you preach god can heal, and members of your family go see a doctor, or you preach god can heal marriages, and you end up getting a divorce...JUST SHUT UP! your credibility is nill, and if "we" had any brains or moral compass at all, we'd throw these bums out and not give them a penny.)

and no, i won't repond to healing verses tyvm, this is common sense 101, not some experimental treatment, but a basic one. geesh.
 
Upvote 0

SavedByGrace3

Jesus is Lord of ALL! (Not asking permission)
Site Supporter
Jun 6, 2002
20,661
4,410
Midlands
Visit site
✟758,178.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I agree with the judge...

I mean, come on... clearly these parents have no idea on how to cope with this...
they can pray to their God, ofcourse, but not letting the boy being treated just because they think God will solve it for them?

an example: a couple of months ago this show was on TV where couples had to run an hotel, at the end of every 2? episodes the public could vote and 1 couple had to leave... the last man standing would get the hotel. During the finals, you had 1 "religious" couple, and one not-that religious... the non-religious were going around town, going to see a radio station, handing out flyers, making commercials in the papers etc...
the religious couple on the other hand, stayed home, prayed, came in touch with their "inner self and Jesus" and... lost.. bit time


about these "rights" we have... does any1 here knows about Socrates?
He was a very intelligent man which ideas I find quite interesting.
he stated things like: "democracy isn't correct" and "our own thoughts, are mostly WRONG"

I share his opinion when it comes to things like this... the parents clearly can't cope with the situation...
we should let someone wiser take care of it then...
So if a judge decides that an atheist is not qualified to raise children you would agree with his opinion and laud the action?
What next?
Should children be taken away from their parents because the parents teach them creationism?
Should 12 year old daughters be removed because the parents refuse to allow an abortion?
How long will it be before children are removed because the family teaches Christian faith and values? Don't say it could not happen. It already has all around the world.
 
Upvote 0

Thomas The Atheist

Regular Member
Mar 14, 2009
417
29
Belgium
✟15,689.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
So if a judge decides that an atheist is not qualified to raise children you would agree with his opinion and laud the action?

No I wouldn't... why? I don't see the judge as the wiser man concerning this matter.

let's get back to Socrates, shall we? why do you think he didn't see democracy as a good, legit way to run a country?

an example: the economic crisis. Obama says "all americans have to pay 3 times as much taxes!" following to this, the American people will get mad at him and pass this on to eachother and their children. (let's say a person can be president as long as he gets re-elected, right?) so, a bit later: election time! All these angry people (and children) vote against Obama and his party, even though HE WAS RIGHT! the dumb, ignorant people who don't know anything about how to make decisions / run a country have the power in their hands, they get to decide what happens!

they don't like the 3x as much taxes, so "bye-bye Obama!"...
even though he was correct, he still get's stopped by those who don't know anything about it...

that's why Socrates says that one man, or a couple, should run the country all by themselves... but not like tyrants, no. like (I dont know if this is corrrect english) elevated or enlightened rulers who know what's good for them and the people...

in this case, the judge isn't the right "ruler"

How long will it be before children are removed because the family teaches Christian faith and values? Don't say it could not happen. It already has all around the world.

in my beliefs, I wouldn't mind this happening... Not that brutal / drastic / radical though...

but on the other hand, freedom of speech's very important aswel...

this world would be a better and easier place if religion weren't around I think...
 
Upvote 0

SavedByGrace3

Jesus is Lord of ALL! (Not asking permission)
Site Supporter
Jun 6, 2002
20,661
4,410
Midlands
Visit site
✟758,178.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
No I wouldn't... why? I don't see the judge as the wiser man concerning this matter.

let's get back to Socrates, shall we? why do you think he didn't see democracy as a good, legit way to run a country?

an example: the economic crisis. Obama says "all americans have to pay 3 times as much taxes!" following to this, the American people will get mad at him and pass this on to eachother and their children. (let's say a person can be president as long as he gets re-elected, right?) so, a bit later: election time! All these angry people (and children) vote against Obama and his party, even though HE WAS RIGHT! the dumb, ignorant people who don't know anything about how to make decisions / run a country have the power in their hands, they get to decide what happens!

they don't like the 3x as much taxes, so "bye-bye Obama!"...
even though he was correct, he still get's stopped by those who don't know anything about it...

that's why Socrates says that one man, or a couple, should run the country all by themselves... but not like tyrants, no. like (I dont know if this is corrrect english) elevated or enlightened rulers who know what's good for them and the people...

in this case, the judge isn't the right "ruler"



in my beliefs, I wouldn't mind this happening... Not that brutal / drastic / radical though...

but on the other hand, freedom of speech's very important aswel...

this world would be a better and easier place if religion weren't around I think...
Except, of course, your religion?
 
Upvote 0

SavedByGrace3

Jesus is Lord of ALL! (Not asking permission)
Site Supporter
Jun 6, 2002
20,661
4,410
Midlands
Visit site
✟758,178.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
please specify? what part of my post does this message concern as I cant really understand this right now....
This part:

"this world would be a better and easier place if religion weren't around I think..."

Do you think the religion haters will differentiate between theistic and non-theistic religion?

I do not. You will be just at risk as everyone else.

You support the removal of my children from our family because of our faith?

I am sad to hear that.

When they come to take away your children, bring them and yourself to my home, we will hide you the best we can.
 
Upvote 0

probinson

Legend
Aug 16, 2005
24,504
4,591
47
PA
✟199,169.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
don't get me wrong, i DESPISE the govt. and the people's choice for ALLOWING our freedoms to continue to erode on a semi-daily basis when it's evident that "american idol", and "the biggest loser" are more important than basic inalienable rights 101, HOWEVER, letting a child die due to an "ideology", when god allowed a doctor to learn, and go to school for 8 years, who has the medical know how that GOD GAVE HIM TO SAVE YOUR CHILD, and CHOOSING to "roll the dice" by messed up knowledge and gimped up faith?

Just so I'm clear, you DESPISE government interference and taking away our freedoms.... EXCEPT in this case. Double minded much?
rolleyes.gif


So let's hypothesize; The judge has decided to "roll the dice" in the doctor's favor. So what prize do you award the parents if the JUDGE'S decision to force this treatment against the will of both the parents and the child results in their child dying? What responsibility does the judge and the doctors bear if that happens?

I won't try to give you any scripture, since your post made it abundantly clear that you really don't care what scripture says. Apparently, "common sense" trumps anything the Bible might have to say about this... at least in this instance.

:cool:
 
Upvote 0

Zugzwang

Well-Known Member
Feb 28, 2006
1,224
122
✟25,337.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Just so I'm clear, you DESPISE government interference and taking away our freedoms.... EXCEPT in this case. Double minded much? http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h1...s/rolleyes.gif

yes i do, b/c one is an ideology that applies TO EVERYONE ELSE cept faith healers own members of their family, or themselves, whereas this is life and death. is that so hard to understand? :doh:

So let's hypothesize; The judge has decided to "roll the dice" in the doctor's favor. So what prize do you award the parents if the JUDGE'S decision to force this treatment against the will of both the parents and the child results in their child dying? What responsibility does the judge and the doctors bear if that happens?

one doesn't have to "hypothesize" the results of NOT doing anything now does one? we know what the result will be.

furthermore, just how powerful IS your Jesus anyway prob? is God "in control" or isn't He? is He able to "do all things" EXCEPT when it conflicts with your ideology, or not? personally, i believe He is able, tyvm.

This reminds me of that story with the guy being stranded on his house due to a flood, and a boat comes offering a ride, and he says "no, God is able, He'll rescue me." and happens again, and finally by a chopper, and the guy drowns. in heaven, he asks God, "Why didn't you save me God?" God replied, "I sent you two boats and a chopper, what more do you need?"
(I killed the punchline only to show the fact i'm not trying to be funny here, just trying to prove an (obvious) futile point here to some of you.)

the inconsistency here is baffling, Jesus himself DID certain things, he didn't just say be healed and they were healed, not always. (as some of you defended TB's behavior last year, and enjoyed pointing out.) yet, in THIS case, it's absolutely absurd, of all the things this family could do, taking him to a DOCTOR is somehow seen as "lack of faith" in some circles?

more like a lack of common sense.

the word is CLEAR that GOD is NOT the author of confusion, but satan. those that rely solely on god before seeing a doctor, suffer the consequences, and god forbid, someone dies, than they do what? BLAME GOD! (It was his time, god's will.)

don't blame your stupidity on God!

BTW, Luke was a DOCTOR! Obviously Jesus doesn't have a problem with doctors, He-loooooo!

I won't try to give you any scripture, since your post made it abundantly clear that you really don't care what scripture says. Apparently, "common sense" trumps anything the Bible might have to say about this... at least in this instance.

Thank you for not giving me scripture, but INSTEAD giving me smugness and a true representation of your heart Prob...

...at least in this instance.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.