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

[SavedByGrace3]

I think this is the difference between our countries - our healthcare is free at the point of need, so cost is not an issue for life saving care.

I really feel for the poor of your country who cant afford even to think about seeing a doctor when I can just walk down the road to my doctors surgery, wander in and see him.

Not to start whose is better...
But you say your system is free?
I assure you it is not. With every "free" thing you get for "nothing" you pay a very dear price. Someday they will come calling.

As for the US... freedom is not free, but it is worth it.

 

[Justducky]

IF they get away here, then they have taken another step in eroding away our rights.

The question is, what is more important, the rights of a parent, or the right of a child to receive treatment and live?

 

[Justducky]

I think this is the difference between our countries - our healthcare is free at the point of need, so cost is not an issue for life saving care.

I really feel for the poor of your country who cant afford even to think about seeing a doctor when I can just walk down the road to my doctors surgery, wander in and see him.

Yes, I admit you folks more than likely enjoy a better quality of life due to nationalized health care.

Sadly, there is a greedy mindset in America where folks believe basic health care is a luxury-

 

[Questioning Christian]

Let's take the religious aspect out of this issue for a moment, and bring it down to the legal and practical aspects.

The boy and his parents all agree that the boy does not want chemotherapy. They know that the chemotherapy could kill the boy faster than the cancer can. Millions of people worldwide refuse medical treatments every day without legal consequence or judiciary involvement.

I think it a judge in this instance needs to tread very carefully on this issue.

Although the judge may view the refusal of this kind of life-saving care as child neglect [just as a judge would rule parents not feeding their child as neglect], inserting the court's legal opinion into the privacy of the patient is swimming in some dangerous legal waters. If a judge can tell parents what to do with their child in the matter of "life-saving care", where is the line drawn within the definition of the phrase "life-saving care"? Would a judge then have the right to ban parents from taking little Jamie [why is it always "little Johnny" ?] to a healing crusade if the judge can use the parents' Word of Faith background to pre-determine that the parents' religious extremism can be harmful to the health of a child?

And at what point is the judge legally allowed to step in and overtake the child's affairs in direct contradiction to the parents' wishes?

Nodules?
Growths?
Tumors [both benign and malignant]?
Stage 1?
Stage 2?
Stage 3?
Stage 4?

Yes, a lot of emotion may guide us to concern for the child's life, but perhaps we should have more concern for the child's rights.

Personally, I would take freedom ANY day over "concern".

 

[Questioning Christian]

Not to start whose is better...
But you say your system is free?
I assure you it is not. With every "free" thing you get for "nothing" you pay a very dear price. Someday they will come calling.

As for the US... freedom is not free, but it is worth it.

I have to disagree, dids.

Universal health care IS free ...









































































































































































After Big Brother has taken 52 percent of your money in taxes!!!

This is what Barack Obama wants !!!

I have an idea -

Let's give our government 100 percent of our paychecks, and then much-wiser-than-us Barack Obama can decide at the federal level what we should get, and what we should not get. Then we won't have to go through the tedious task of deciding for ourselves how our money should be spent.

Oh yeah, and I just remembered the very best part of 100 percent taxation ...

EVERYTHING will be free !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hallelujah for socialism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Tenebrae]

Not to start whose is better...
But you say your system is free?
I assure you it is not. With every "free" thing you get for "nothing" you pay a very dear price. Someday they will come calling.

As for the US... freedom is not free, but it is worth it.

Choice be told with the amount of PC rubbish you have to deal with in the states, I'll take my free but not free system any day. This wouldnt happen in New Zealand.

Although it has the potential to go that way with the repealing of section 59 of the crimes act bill (aka anti smacking)

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

The question is, what is more important, the rights of a parent, or the right of a child to receive treatment and live?

The child in question is not being denied treatment, he is opting to receive it in an unconventional way. The judge however, has over ruled his choice and is forcing he and his family to do it via chemicals when that is not their (the child or the parents) choice.

 

[Tenebrae]

as a current social worker and a trainee nurse, the main thing I would want to know is did this boy and his family recieve all the information and were they able to make an informed choice with all the facts.

I am very aware that often with health professionals they are very biased in how they present treatements and may not give the paitent informed consent, and most doctors appear to be really biased against alternative medicines. I take magnesium and glucosamine which totally works on my fibromyalgia, however a doctor once scoffted when i told him what I was taking. I replied that when he had a more effective treatement with zero side effects he was welcome to scoff, but until such a time not to knock the only treatement that gave me constant relief from the never ending pain and fatigue

 

[Justducky]

The child in question is not being denied treatment, he is opting to receive it in an unconventional way. The judge however, has over ruled his choice and is forcing he and his family to do it via chemicals when that is not their (the child or the parents) choice.

Those chemicals are what makes remission in cancer patients possible.

What sort of alternative treatments is the family using?

That wasn't clear.

 

[Justducky]

as a current social worker and a trainee nurse, the main thing I would want to know is did this boy and his family recieve all the information and were they able to make an informed choice with all the facts.

I am very aware that often with health professionals they are very biased in how they present treatements and may not give the paitent informed consent, and most doctors appear to be really biased against alternative medicines. I take magnesium and glucosamine which totally works on my fibromyalgia, however a doctor once scoffted when i told him what I was taking. I replied that when he had a more effective treatement with zero side effects he was welcome to scoff, but until such a time not to knock the only treatement that gave me constant relief from the never ending pain and fatigue

Some medical professionals embrace alternative treatments when it's appropriate to do so.

 

[probinson]

What sort of alternative treatments is the family using?

That wasn't clear.

FTA:

...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....

 

[Justducky]

FTA:

...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....

Sounds like non-treatment. The court decided properly.

As to the Nemenhah Band themselves, they are new organization that hold beliefs similar to that of local Native Americans as well as the Mormon Church — although neither group recognizes the Nemenhah Band as a part of them. Their leader, Philip “Cloudpiler” Landis has a criminal past and spent a few months in jail several years ago for charges of fraud. After leaving jail he started the group which he allows others to join for a small fee of $250. To top it off, whenever members of the Nemenhah Band get sick they also have to pay Landis for the natural medicines too. askville.amazon.com/Philip-Cloudpiler-Landis-brand/AnswerViewer.do?requestId

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

Sounds like non-treatment. The court decided properly.

As to the Nemenhah Band themselves, they are new organization that hold beliefs similar to that of local Native Americans as well as the Mormon Church — although neither group recognizes the Nemenhah Band as a part of them. Their leader, Philip “Cloudpiler” Landis has a criminal past and spent a few months in jail several years ago for charges of fraud. After leaving jail he started the group which he allows others to join for a small fee of $250. To top it off, whenever members of the Nemenhah Band get sick they also have to pay Landis for the natural medicines too. askville.amazon.com/Philip-Cloudpiler-Landis-brand/AnswerViewer.do?requestId

There is still a vast difference between herbs and chemicals not made for the human body. I don't agree with their religion, but I believe they have the right to practice herbal medicine over chemicals if they choose to. Herbal medicine has been here since God created the world.

In my opinion, it is nobody else's business. They have a choice and they choose but they are overrun by government. If the child said he wanted chemo and his parents refused, I can see the government stepping in. But that is not the case. He is being forced to have medicine injected into him that he does not want. If the parent were to make that move, they would be arrested for child abuse. The government does it and they call it intervention. Go figure.

 

[probinson]

In my opinion, it is nobody else's business.

That's really what it boils down to.

I still want to know who filed this lawsuit. Anyone know?

 

[Questioning Christian]

The following editorial is a column which sheds more light on the situation.

This is an OPINION piece -- I repeat, an OPINION piece.

This is not a news report.

Jon Tevlin: Boy with cancer should not be a casualty of ignorance, too

Boy with cancer should not be a casualty of ignorance, too


By JON TEVLIN, Star Tribune
Last update: May 17, 2009 - 4:43 PM


Perhaps it's the large, trusting eyes and the smooth, bald head that make us want to believe in Daniel Hauser. He never speaks, but seems composed and mature in front of television cameras, a silent Buddha upon whom we can project wisdom. Maybe that's why so many readers and talk-radio listeners were willing to believe that a 13-year-old boy could be a church elder and a medicine man; after all, he even has the papers to prove it. Maybe it's why they believed he could understand his own mortality and make hard decisions about his own health care.

Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth.

Not only could Daniel neither read nor understand the affidavit he signed saying he preferred "native" treatments over chemotherapy for his Hodgkin's lymphoma, but he also could not read. Period. When tested by his teacher for entrance into a charter school, according to court documents, Daniel, who had been home-schooled, could not identify the following word: "The."

A court in New Ulm on Friday correctly decided that Hauser, or more accurately his parents, could not deny Daniel medical treatment that will likely cure him of a disease that would otherwise kill him. It is indeed distasteful to picture doctors restraining Daniel to give him chemotherapy.
His parents can make sure that doesn't have to happen. The only thing more distasteful, shameful really, would have been to let a frightened little boy elect to kill himself, to let his well-intentioned but misguided parents neglect him to death. Alternative remedies have become almost mainstream, as most doctors encourage them in conjunction with the science and art of traditional medicine.

But as Al Carroll, a Mescalero Apache professor, told me, Native Americans' biggest complaint is a lack of access to good modern medicine. Most parents I know say they would practically sell their souls to save their child. I have no doubt the Hausers were doing what they thought was best.

So I can only conclude they are being duped.

 

[Tenebrae]

Some medical professionals embrace alternative treatments when it's appropriate to do so.

I get angry when I hear alternative healers passing lemon tea or pumpkin and apricot seeds off as the latest cure for cancer. It sucks badly to give people that are so desperately clinging to hope, false hope.

I am all for alternative therapies being used in conjunction with normal medicine, and have seen great benefits for clients. There are some exceptions obviously, St Johns wort which is a herbal remedy for depression is contraindicated for use with traditional antidepressants and there are a few other exceptions

 

[Tenebrae]

The following editorial is a column which sheds more light on the situation.

This is an OPINION piece -- I repeat, an OPINION piece.

This is not a news report.

Jon Tevlin: Boy with cancer should not be a casualty of ignorance, too

Boy with cancer should not be a casualty of ignorance, too


By JON TEVLIN, Star Tribune
Last update: May 17, 2009 - 4:43 PM


Perhaps it's the large, trusting eyes and the smooth, bald head that make us want to believe in Daniel Hauser. He never speaks, but seems composed and mature in front of television cameras, a silent Buddha upon whom we can project wisdom. Maybe that's why so many readers and talk-radio listeners were willing to believe that a 13-year-old boy could be a church elder and a medicine man; after all, he even has the papers to prove it. Maybe it's why they believed he could understand his own mortality and make hard decisions about his own health care.

Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth.

Not only could Daniel neither read nor understand the affidavit he signed saying he preferred "native" treatments over chemotherapy for his Hodgkin's lymphoma, but he also could not read. Period. When tested by his teacher for entrance into a charter school, according to court documents, Daniel, who had been home-schooled, could not identify the following word: "The."

A court in New Ulm on Friday correctly decided that Hauser, or more accurately his parents, could not deny Daniel medical treatment that will likely cure him of a disease that would otherwise kill him. It is indeed distasteful to picture doctors restraining Daniel to give him chemotherapy.
His parents can make sure that doesn't have to happen. The only thing more distasteful, shameful really, would have been to let a frightened little boy elect to kill himself, to let his well-intentioned but misguided parents neglect him to death. Alternative remedies have become almost mainstream, as most doctors encourage them in conjunction with the science and art of traditional medicine.

But as Al Carroll, a Mescalero Apache professor, told me, Native Americans' biggest complaint is a lack of access to good modern medicine. Most parents I know say they would practically sell their souls to save their child. I have no doubt the Hausers were doing what they thought was best.

So I can only conclude they are being duped.

I have no troubles with a child choosing to forgo a treatement that can look at both sides of the story and make a decision based on informed consent. I do have a problem if theres misrepresentation going on

 

[Joachim]

Who brought this lawsuit in the first place? Who is going to pay for the chemo? Is the insurance company going to cover these costs out of the "best interest" of the child also? And if they don't, will the judge be willing to pay for it, or the doctors willing to offer their services for free, since it's in the "best interest" of the child?

I wish you people had been in Ethics & Morality (where this came from) because you just made every argument that I am making alone, vs every other person who is basically telling me I'm wrong, and that I approve of child death and things like that. I brought up that exact point in E & M. The response I got was that these people thought it was ok for the judge to force the parents to pay for it even though neither they nor the child consented to it.


My argument was precisely that the judge (or some element of the state) should pay for it because it is their perogative, or failing that, order the doctor to perform it free of charge.


You basically just repeated my reasoning so I wanted to commend you for it. I also want to commend the majority of you because the majority of you are actually seeing this as a freedom issue, whereas all of the people except for me in the ethics section were obviously seeing it through the colored lens of their belief in western medicine (a belief that I argue could border on worship). It's basically been me, a feminist and a buddhist defending against absolutely everyone else.


So, I wanted to commend you for your reasoning, and I want to commend the people in here in general for actually seeing this for what it is.

 

[Joachim]

There was a case either in Australia or the UK recently where the young girl had a congenital heart condition, and further treatment was going to be really invasive and painful with only a small chance it would actually prolong her life with any quality.


She read about the outcomes and the possible treatements for her condition and their likelyhood of sucess and decided that she wanted to enjoy the rest of her life with her family rather than being so pumped up and full of treatment that she couldnt enjoy it and after a long court case her decision to to pursue further treatment was upheld

My concern is that if a child can understand the implication of their treatement and choose not to go that way, its really bad for that to be over ruled. Chemotherapy is a horrible treatment

this is a list of possible side effects


We have a list of paitent/service user rights in New Zealand, one of them is the right to choose to accept or decline medical treatment.

This just sounds like a really dodgy precedent

It's a terrible precedent. I say this as a soon to be law student. This case has the makings of a Supreme Court case. With the right lawyer, this could go to the Supreme Court. What worries me is what the court would say because on an issue like this, you never can tell who will side with who. I personally don't think you can constitutionally justify this action but a modern court (who will also have this fascination with modern medicine) might not see it similarly.

 

[Joachim]

The question is, what is more important, the rights of a parent, or the right of a child to receive treatment and live?

Are the rights of the child being respected if it is being forced to get treatment against its will? How can something that is forced upon you be a right?