Judge rules family can't refuse chemo for boy
What's your take on this?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hEYZV56pCa-jEce4S...
Judge rules family can't refuse chemo for boy
By AMY FORLITI – 17 minutes ago
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — A Minnesota judge ruled Friday that a 13-year-old cancer patient must be evaluated by a doctor to determine if the boy would benefit from restarting chemotherapy over his parents' objections.
In a 58-page ruling, Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg found that Daniel Hauser has been "medically neglected" by his parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, and was in need of child protection services.
While he allowed Daniel to stay with his parents, the judge gave the Hausers until Tuesday to get an updated chest X-ray for their son and select an oncologist.
If the evaluation shows the cancer had advanced to a point where chemotherapy and radiation would no longer help, the judge said, he would not order the boy to undergo treatment.
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.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hEYZV56pCa-jEce4S...
Judge rules family can't refuse chemo for boy
By AMY FORLITI – 17 minutes ago
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — A Minnesota judge ruled Friday that a 13-year-old cancer patient must be evaluated by a doctor to determine if the boy would benefit from restarting chemotherapy over his parents' objections.
In a 58-page ruling, Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg found that Daniel Hauser has been "medically neglected" by his parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, and was in need of child protection services.
While he allowed Daniel to stay with his parents, the judge gave the Hausers until Tuesday to get an updated chest X-ray for their son and select an oncologist.
If the evaluation shows the cancer had advanced to a point where chemotherapy and radiation would no longer help, the judge said, he would not order the boy to undergo treatment.
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.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jasmine.green on -
I was just about to post this and instead started reading some of the court documents. It's a little weird to me that this kid's 13 years old and in 5th grade, although he was first diagnosed only in January of this year. I wondered if they would explain that in the findings of fact, but they didn't. It's really a shame that people can't be allowed to choose what they will and will not endure. It's also a shame that the only people nearby were all conventional oncologists. According to law, they set the standard of treatment for care. Our legal system is set up to favor the most technological, interventionist, non-integrated form of 'medicine' imaginable.
And Minnesota, where this ruling took place, is the state where the Mayo Clinic is located; no local judge is likely to turn against that huge source of state revenue.
-
Permalink Reply by Susan Virginia on -
On one hand, I wouldn't want chemo.
On the other hand, you can't trust 13 yr olds to make smart decisions regarding things like medical care & their LIVES. I don't think those parents made a very strong case for their stance either.
-
Permalink Reply by AwesomeUniverse!!! on -
I think it's important for people to be eating well in the first place and look into possible reasons for the cancer. Refusing chemo is not enough. They should be going by a strict diet and herb regime in his case. It makes sense to join longer standing strict religious affiliations if you wnat to chose your way to treat sickness. I don't think the gov't would go into Amish settlements and tell them what to do because they have been doing their same thing all along. There also maybe less cancer in groups like that. I think if the court is going to force anyone to take such harsh treatments they should also have to pay for the treatments and blood analysis to see if it has been caused by a contaminated vacine or other exposure. Cancer in children is getting more and more common and accepted. It's like they are the new test subjects. Ultimately if it is going to put the family into bankruptsy they should have a choice as well. I think the kid is old enough to understand what is going on and should have a say so. In this case I think he should probably have the chemo but it should always be a choice for the family- not forced.
-
Permalink Reply by Susan Virginia on
-
Well I totally disagree with you saying
Ultimately if it is going to put the family into bankruptsy they should have a choice as well
-
Permalink Reply by Jasmine.green on
-
why?
-
Permalink Reply by Susan Virginia on
-
Because it would give a lot of unhappy, uncaring people the freedom to neglect their children's health.
-
Permalink Reply by Susan Virginia on
-
I might be misinterpreting how you intended the statement.
-
Permalink Reply by Jasmine.green on
-
I didn't make the statement, but people already make lots of family decisions based on their financial solvency, and not necessarily because they're uncaring. Sometimes they just can't afford to do any better. Heck people do it all the time at the grocery store, at the mall, wherever.
Maybe it sounds callous, but people have to make too many decisions they shouldn't have to make. My parents supported me through grad school, and they rather I had organic food than buy it for themselves, or take a vacation, or anything. That makes me sad, I wish they didn't feel they had to make that choice.
And you know, it is a question of rights, and in our institutional arrangements it's possible for doctors to basically force many of us to pay for treatments they are going to do a bad job of, or are unnecessary, or are not what we want, or are unnecessarily toxic. It's one thing to waste our time and make us sick, but to make us pay for it too? That doesn't make any sense. So I understand the desire to not pay for something you think is going to make your child suffer or is stupid, especially if it's going to bankrupt you in the process.
-
Permalink Reply by Susan Virginia on
-
If you make a blanket rule that parents are not obligated to pay for their children's care if it will be a financial hardship, you open the floodgates for children to suffer. Many many children are already suffering & neglected because their deadbeat parents don't care enough to provide even the basics... you say "well if its a burden on your resources, don't bother," and people WILL take advantage of that.
We need rules for society, people need minimums.
-
Permalink Reply by Jasmine.green on
-
You're totally taking things out of context. Court cases are not about blanket rules and neither were these posts.
-
Permalink Reply by Susan Virginia on
-
Blanket rules are often made based on court rulings.
-
Permalink Reply by Ian on -
I am curious to know: do you consider having the ability to choose your child's health care (whether conventional or alternative) to be neglectful?
Ultimately, this is the fundamental argument that is being decided here, and whether outside sources like "child protection workers" know about our children's health better than we parents do. I suppose if the parents said "we're not going to have any treatment at all for his cancer", well yes ... that would be negletful. But this is not what the parents are on the record of saying.
Ian
Latest Activity
that looks so good!
Oh my mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!!!!!
oh bejesus..that good. Can we PLEASE start posting RECIPES along with food postings?!
I checked out the photo; looked at it for 45 minutes...still don't see any cat. Or any sink. Or anything except Kirsten...
Prettyyyyyy
Mmmmmmmmmm
Yummmmmmmm
Mmmmmmmmm
Mmmmmm
Hahaha pisser
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Wowwww
Very pretty.
Sweet. I am so there.
why would you want to kill germs in your intestine?
I don't think this exists for humans yet, unfortunately - but what I think would be the healthiest mattress (and virtually free of dust-mites, even bed-bugs which inflict some homes recently) for humans would be the same as the healthiest for pets...
Someone should make a thread...
Community by WLIR:
© 2009 Created by Dhrumil
