How much should courts be allowed to dictate medical care?

[Why Syzygy]

http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090525/OPINION04/90521086/1006

Watching the morning news shows last Wednesday, I found that Colleen Hauser and her son, Daniel, 13, of Minnesota, are the subject of a nationwide woman/boy hunt. A judge has issued an arrest warrant, enforceable in any state, for Mrs. Hauser.

Why all the fuss, and “Fugitive” type hunt? It seems as though Daniel’s parents had the nerve to attempt to make their own choices about medical treatment for their son’s Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
The Hausers firmly believe that chemotherapy, which they regard as a potentially fatal poison, violates their religious beliefs. The family has opted for alternative and natural therapies plus herbs and vitamins.

I can relate to the potential poison part of their belief. A dear friend’s son, with much the same diagnosis as Daniel, passed away several years ago, not from the cancer, but because of the chemotherapy. And, yes, the doctors admitted as much.
Oncologists, who most all of the time refuse to use the word “cure,” preferring the less litigious term, “remission,” say Daniel would have a 95 percent chance of survival with chemo treatment. Without their treatment, statistics are hazy and have been reported at from 5 percent to 25 percent chance of survival, but not zero.

The boy is under court order to be examined by an oncologist, and if that doctor’s advice is not followed, Daniel will be forced into foster care and furthermore forced by the courts to undergo chemotherapy that neither he, nor his parents, wish him to have.
I will let that sink in for a while — “court-ordered chemotherapy.”

Will they tie him securely down while they pump chemo into his veins to accomplish this? If needed, will they gag him also, so he does not yell out that he does not want the treatment?
“I am opposed to chemotherapy because it is self-destructive and poisonous,” he told the court. “I want to live a virtuous life, in the eyes of my creator, not just a long life.” Certainly these sentiments were taught to him by his parents, but are his, and his parents’ wishes, to be simply swept aside for more enlightened and educated opinions?

Whether this is a religious decision or merely one of personal choice, when the courts of this country begin to dictate your or your children’s medical care, we all need to be afraid … very afraid.

[lapfog_1]

1. The better question is "should insane, batshit crazy idiots be allowed to dictate medical care?"

I don't give a flying F**K what the parents order for treatment for themselves. And if they are successful idiots and brainwash their children so that when the children turn 18, THEY can go for prayer or whatever... but a kid under 18 is at the whim of their parents, and that's not fair to the kids.

Give the kid a chance, put them on the best course of medicine recommended by people that study such things. At least till their 18. Then, they want to off themselves, fine.

Being a parent does not provide you with an opportunity to "play god". You can't take one of children outside one night and shoot them because it is your pleasure to do so (or your religious belief or whatever). Nor can you endanger their lives with batshit crazy beliefs.

[dflprincess]

2. The judge made his ruling base partially on the fact the Daniel could not

explain his beliefs to the judge and did not understand what he (Daniel) meant when he said he was an elder and medicine man in the religion he belongs to. Also, the religion appartently doesn't forbid conventional medical treatments. He did go through one round of chemo and it was after that his parents decided that he would not have any more sessions despite his odds of it being successful are (or were) about 90%.

The examine he had last week indicated that the tumor had begun to grow again and one of the concerns is that it will grow enough to cut off his airway. According to a doctor quoted in yesterday's Star Tribune, Daniel has just a few weeks, possibly less than a month before this happens, the original chemo treatment had shrunk the tumor and eased his breathing. I wonder if his parents couldn't stand how sick the treatments made him, how they will cope when they have to watch him literally gasping for air.

Another factor in the judge's ruling was the fact Daniel is only 13 even the judge said that if he was 16 or 17 and seemed to have a better grasp of the risk he was taking the ruling may have been different.

[Stellabella]

4. I wonder why they went to a conventional doctor in the first place.

If they were so sure their 'alternative' crap would cure him, why didn't they just avoid doctors altogether? Then the child would have just died.

Of course, trying to bury a child without some kind of death certificate would be problematic.

[dflprincess]

5. They went to several doctors

There was the first one who found the problem and sent them to Children's Hospital where the lymphoma was diagnosed and where chemo and radition were recommended. Then they got 2nd and 3rd opinions from the Mayo Clinic and the University of Minnesota - who both agreed with the first diagnosis and treatment plan.

The inital (and to date only) round of chemo was successful in that the tumor had begun to shrink but, as I said above, they just couldn't stand how sick the treatment made Daniel. And, no one thinks it would be easy to watch your child go through this and it certainly is a horror for anyone to experience - but with 90% odds, I'd find a way to help my child get through it.

[imdjh]

7. Daniel could not explain his beliefs, because they don't exist.

The family in question is Catholic, not American Indian. The Nemenhah thing is a mail order scheme operated by "Cloudpiler" who is supposedly the grandson of Chief Joseph.



http://www.startribune.com/local/44755337.html?elr=KArks7PYDiaK7DUvDE7aL_V_BD77:DiiUiacyKUUr

If she had, she would have found case files in which Nemenhah's leader, Phillip (Cloudpiler) Landis, who submitted testimony in the case, had been convicted of fraud in two states. Or that another member of the band, James Mooney, won a case that allows him to claim religious exemption from law and sell drugs -- peyote.

Maybe she researched all possibilities and still decided to take the word of a convicted criminal over that of Mayo Clinic doctors?

Apparently not.

Calvin Johnson, the attorney for the Hausers, said neither he nor the family were aware of any possible criminal behavior of anyone associated with Nemenhah. And he didn't seem particularly concerned about it. In fact, he bristled at anyone who might question the Hausers' beliefs.

[Why Syzygy]

8. What I find interesting about

this scenario is the fact that in the US, the only grounds one has to appeal for liberty is Religion.
I wonder why that is. Why does Religion have to serve the purpose? Why not the Constitution?

[imdjh]

10. The only thing relevant in this case is the best interests of the child.

That's why the courts are involved. The parents trying to use religion as a tool, doesn't make it the only "ground one has to appeal for liberty". The child can appeal to the court to maintain that he is capable of an adult decision in the matter, and the court can consider it. The court did, and found that the child is not capable of an adult decision in the matter. It happens all the time in custody cases- the court considers the wishes of the child, but is not bound by them.

[Why Syzygy]

20. Thanks.

I wasn't seeing that part of the issue.

[Confusious]

13. If you were an adult,

You could say, "I don't want Chemo", and they would have to respect your wishes.

A child of 13 years cannot make that decision.

Thats why all these cases are adults appealing on religious grounds. But the courts don't listen to that. I don't think I've heard of a case where it has worked. And if it ever does work, god help us. ALOT of dead children are going to start showing up.

[varkam]

14. "the only grounds one has to appeal for liberty is Religion"

What?

[Stellabella]

3. Parents are legally obligated to provide medical care for their children.

MEDICAL care, not hocus-pocus nonsense. Children don't have the brain development necessary to make life or death decisions for themselves. When the parents won't do it and there is an excellent chance of a cure with traditional treatments, courts have every right to intervene.

His type of cancer has a 95% cure rate with chemo and radiation. Can you say the same for 'alternative' 'treatments'??

This has been hashed out many times. The boy is illiterate, thinks he is a medicine man, and is being lied to by his mother, at least, if not the father too. His tumor is growing again, and he is, in his own words, on '10 out of 10 on the pain scale'.

Chemo isn't 'self-destructive and poisonous.' It saved my husband's life, and the lives of many thousands of people. No, it isn't foolproof. And there are no guarantees in life, let alone medicine. But the odds favor that boy living a long life IF he gets proper and proven treatment.

[imdjh]

6. My mother and I went a round or two with this

She was, naturally leaning toward supporting the parental choice. But then she failed- as she related it to a parental decision not to vaccinate. I pointed out that there is a huge difference between refusing to vaccinate a child for a disease which that child does not have, and refusing to treat a child for a disease which that child does have. We moved on to another topic.

Then today, we were talking about the woman who let her diabetic daughter die, and I couldn't believe it- my mom was looking for a way to blame it on someone else.

Now this is an educated and intelligent woman, but she seems to have an irrational streak when it comes to mothers making decisions like this. Her objection isn't about government control, it's about being right, always right. In other words, it's about HER.

Both of those women are bad mothers. I guess many women live in fear of being called a bad mother. But that's what they are. The mother of the diabetic is a criminally negligent mother, and the mother of the cancer patient is working on becoming one.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

9. That's the wrong question to ask

The actual question should be: "How much jurisdiction should courts be allowed over parents accused of endangering the lives of their children?" The answer is: the courts need enough power to protect children from death. Wouldn't you agree?

The question posed in the OP title is ridiculous. The court is simply stepping in to a situation where the parents are endangering the life of their child, just as would have happened if the parents refused to feed the child or forced him to sleep in dog turds.

You think we should be afraid of the courts protecting children? That's fucking rich...

[azurnoir]

11. This portion of the article is quite misleading

I can relate to the potential poison part of their belief. A dear friend’s son, with much the same diagnosis as Daniel, passed away several years ago, not from the cancer, but because of the chemotherapy. And, yes, the doctors admitted as much.
Oncologists, who most all of the time refuse to use the word “cure,” preferring the less litigious term, “remission,” say Daniel would have a 95 percent chance of survival with chemo treatment. Without their treatment, statistics are hazy and have been reported at from 5 percent to 25 percent chance of survival, but not zero.

the author does not name the cancer from which his friends child suffered from what is said I would imagine lymphoma is in the name, as there are over 30 different types of lymphoma one can not know exactly which he is talking, he says the child died from the chemo and yes that does happen, the most frequent cause is a allergic reaction to the drugs, patients and their guardians are quite fully informed as to this possibility and it is a relatively rare occurrence. In the case of Hodgkins the stats enumerated in the story are laughable 95% survival (that means cure folks} with treatment vs a possible 5-25% without proper treatment gee which would a sane person choose for their kid? The claim of "survivor" vs cured is also purposely misleading the author insinuates it is so the MD can not be sued that is most certainly not the case it has been the standard practice for many years that a patient is not considered cured until they have been free of the disease {in remission} for 5 years

I sincerely hope that this kid is found and that it is not too late

[Confusious]

12. You know,

It always surprises me how some people on the left rage against religion, saying it misleads people, superstition, etc, etc, etc, but will go in for the first snake-oil salesman selling "alternative and natural therapies plus herbs and vitamins", which have no scientific proof that they work (beyond someone saying it works) or, when given the chance to prove their claims, back out 100% of the time.

Yes, chemotherapy is poison. They pump it into you to kill the cancer. Some people want to take the small chance of living. In this case though, that chance is 90%. Not doing it is murder.

I think the woman should be charged with murder in the 1st degree if her son dies.

[uppityperson]

22. Indeed, I see it as

hating what "organized religion" has done but then turning to another type of the same belief system thing with "go in for the first snake-oil salesman selling "alternative and natural therapies plus herbs and vitamins"". The old strongly held beliefs are bad, but the new are good?

It surprises me also.

[Warpy]

15. You don't get it.

The state steps in when it's a minor and the treatment in question has a good chance of saving the child's life and withholding it will certainly result in the child's death.

The state, in other words, feels it has a vested interest in bringing minor citizens to adulthood.

The kid has a 98% chance of being alive in 5 years with treatment. He has a 90+% chance of being cured with no recurrence of the cancer, ever, with treatment. He has a slim chance, <5%, of being alive in 5 years without treatment and no chance of a cure without treatment.

The state doesn't step in when competent adults refuse treatment. The state doesn't step in when a child is being refused treatment for non life threatening conditions.

Try to realize this is a life or death issue. Allowing parents ownership of their kids the way they own a car or a couch would result in dead kids for illnesses that are treatable.

What's worse, a parent with his toes trod upon or a dead child?

[Why Syzygy]

17. "You"

I never indicated this is MY opinion. I posted the op ed to spawn discussion. That's all.
My opinion has not been stated anywhere. Just FYI.

[semillama]

18. But surely you understand when you post an article or opinion piece

without comment, the de facto impression that you give is that you agree with it, that the author is saying something better than you can state it yourself? If it doesn't represent your opinion, then state how you disagree, and if it does, talk about how it reflects your views.

[Why Syzygy]

19. That wasn't my intention..

Personally, I don't have a strong opinion either way on this case. I'm more an observer. Sorry for the confusion.
I could have stated that.

I can see both sides. (That's true for me of a lot of issues.) I don't like chemo. But, I'm not qualified to determine it's cost/benefit in every situation. I don't even have all the facts of this present case, which are coming out in this thread. That's helpful.

If it were my child and had gotten to the point of court order, I would have complied and helped my child deal with the consequences in as healthy manner as possible. I FEEL that the mother running away with Daniel is even more damaging than chemo might be. A sick child does not need all that drama!

I'm familiar with a case in the UK where the doctors gave up on a young boy, and his grandparents have been able to save his life with alternative treatments. So, I know it can be done. (that's just one example) Due to my extensive experience with the medical profession, I also have just a hunch that the doctors concerned in this case did not do a very good job in the beginning explaining all the ramifications and expectations of the case to the parents and child. The hunch is a different oncologist would have had better success at moving the treatment forward rather than making the parents balk. And, perhaps they sought advice from others with more radical ideas.

However, I do believe part of a parent's job is to assist their child in dealing with unhappy circumstances. Taking off and running away is not helpful to this child in any way. THAT is the most harmful.

So, you see, I am not on either side of the argument. Should have said so.

[SidDithers]

16. Sometimes kids need to be protected from their parents...

the case of Daniel Hauser is very clearly just such a case.

Sid

[rocktivity]

21. Colleen and Daniel Hauser are reportedly back home,

and reports say that Colleen Hauser is now prepared to allow Daniel to undergo chemotherapy.

There was a warrant of arrest issued for Colleen Hauser, and the FBI and Interpol were also reportedly looking for them...During the week that mother and son were “missing”, various opinions regarding the Hausers’ preference for natural treatment surfaced...

Their return was facilitated by...a defense attorney based in Orange County, California...There was speculation that mother and son had intentions of proceeding to Mexico.

Link

:headbang:
rocktivity

[uppityperson]

23. Good. Thank you for the update. nt

[supernova]

26. This really smells

like she the kid and the MD weren't communicating well about the realities and the benefits of chemo.

and boo on her for transferring her fears to her son.

But, I'm glad they decided to return for now.

[Why Syzygy]

27. That's what I thought

might have happened also. I know from first hand reading of posts by DUers in the medical profession that some of them have no tolerance for patients who are fearful. It is a normal human reaction, fear. There is a productive way and a nonproductive way to handle those patients.

I wish Daniel the best outcome.

[trotsky]

24. I dunno, how much should courts be allowed to protect children?

Should they have the ability to strip parental rights from abusers? Or is it OK if the abuse is part of the parent's firmly-held religious beliefs?

Can a parent refuse to use carseats and seatbelts because they believe them to be the work of the devil? Is the court overstepping its authority to allow enforcement of mandatory seatbelt laws for children?

[Crunchy Frog]

25. No, I do not believe that parents have an unlimited right

to medically neglect their children to the point of death. I think this court ruling was entirely appropriate.