Mother On the Lam For Right to Let Son Die

[wvulax]

So when/if he dies, it will be neglect then? If the mother can show how she cared for him what would be the minimum ammount of care she would have to perform? How would you draw a line and say this is neglect and this isn't? My point is since there is no clear definition of neglect in this instance, and the boy dies it should be considered neglect.

In the article on MSNBC, the mother knew that the X-rays that the doctors had were damaging to her case so she fled. She knows her son will die. She saw that under her plan the tumor grew back to its original size and was spreading. This seems irrational but she probably thinks she will spend eternity with her son in heaven. A young teen of 13 who probably doesn't have a vibrant social life because of his disease isn't likely to have done anything to deserve a stint in hell or limbo. It's even logical then to want your son to die at a young age of natural causes.

If that's the case it's murder/neglect/manslaughter, and we should prosecute the mother after the boy dies.

 

[Care4all]

"Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg ruled that Daniel Hauser, a 13 year-old boy suffering from nodular sclerosing Hodgkin's Lymphoma, a derivation of cancer common among young adults and adolescents, must go to trial to determine the necessity of chemotherapy. Daniel and his parents are currently refusing treatment due to religious beliefs, but being a minor, Brown County Family Services are charging his parents with medical negligence due to the alternative methods of treatment they have selected.

Despite the advice of four doctors, Tony and Colleen Hausen refused to take their son to chemotherapy, saying that its drastic effects killed their aunt, taking her from a cancer patient to a shadow of a being. In so, they religiously believe that this treatment should not be forced upon anyone, "because it is self-destructive and poisonous" and medical care should be left as a personal decision. At the pre-trial hearing held on Friday morning, their attorney, Calvin Johnson of Mankato, told the court that the state's actions violated spiritual law and Danny had chosen to refuse chemo by his "religious beliefs and his freedom of conscience." Through his own attorney, Phil Elbert of New Ulm, Daniel also submitted an affidavit to court Friday, painting himself as a religious man, standing alongside his parents wishes in the banishment of chemotherapy."

Prove neglect.

The fact that they decided to choose an alternative route does not equate to neglect. Now if you can prove that nothing at all is being done then you will have a case for neglect.

Once you establish neglect, prove that the boy will die without the treatment and prove that he will live with it. Now I've read what the medical professionals have stated, but their word is not absolute fact, it's an opinion, nothing more.

"This child protection pre-trial was held in open court due to the massive public interest, instead of Rodenberg's chambers like most pre-trial hearings. Rodenberg denied the motion to dismiss charges against Daniel's parents, ruling that there were multiple issues left to resolve within the case, including whether or not Brown County can demonstrate a "compelling state interest in intervening in the decisions regarding medical care." Pointing at the current treatment Daniel receives, Rodenberg states that it is not enough, his ruling setting the family up for a trial later in the year.

In his case, Elbert explains that Daniel agrees with his parents' religious beliefs to deny chemotherapy, and he argues that while most child protection petitions stop the harm being caused to or by a child, little will be accomplished here if treatment is forced upon Daniel. He pled for the judge to understand that Daniel's religious beliefs should not be tainted in his last days just because he didn't agree or identify with his ways. He vividly said that if the judge chose to enforce chemotherapy, Daniel would be dead long before he left the Earth, kept alive by a treatment which drained his energy and mocked his beliefs."

Giving the child mineral water and modifying his diet IS NOT an alternative treatment, and this is what the mother said she was doing....for her alternative treatment.

This couple is Catholic, the mother's claim to religious reasons IS BOGUS.

The boys father is CALLING for him to get the Chemo treatment now...but the mom is on the run.

Every single case, that our Law has gotten similar to this, the child has been forced to get treatment that would save their life...

There is absolutely nothing new about what has happened here, there is precedence in the Law for it....we don't let 13 year old boys die because of parent's religious beliefs in this country, and THANK GOD we do not....

It doesn't matter anymore though, the kid is as good as dead now, barring a miracle...his tumors have spread and are growing because the parents did not continue with the treatment back in January when he was diagnosed with it.

Sure it is, if they believe it to be. Why do you insist on forcing your beliefs onto others?

"There is absolutely nothing new about what has happened here, there is precedence in the Law for it....we don't let 13 year old boys die because of parent's religious beliefs in this country, and THANK GOD we do not...."

You're wrong. Google Followers of Christ or any faith healing church and see how many children died over the past decade and how many parents were prosecuted. You will be very surprised.

Well, I guess the parents should have not brought him to a DOCTOR in the first place...then it would be all peachy keen to kill him.

 

[wvulax]

We do actually let children die of neglect. The law is on the religious side. 140 kids died last year because faith based options were used. They all had the same 90% survival rate for their diseases. Some charges were brought but no convictions of the 140 kids' parents.

 

[xotoxi]

Well, I've never had cancer but if I did I would certainly hope that I would be able to decide for me - or my kids - what I thought was the best course of treatment.

Now what makes you think that you know what the best course of treatment is for your kids. I don't mean that in a belittling way...please don't take it that way.

But are you a doctor? Are you an herbalist? Have you treated others with cancer successfully?

I don't care what you as an adult decide will be the best course of treatment for yourself. You have that right.

And you have the right to make important medical decisions for your children...TO A POINT.

But at a certain point, a parents decision to withhold lifesaving treatment for a child become neglect, plain and simple. It is legally mandated to be reported, plain and simple. The state takes over, plain and simple. And there is nothing that you can do about it.

While this is a fascinating discussion, the parent will ALWAYS lose in a case like this. And they should.

How would I determine what the best treatment would be? By getting several opinions and seeing several doctors and then making the decision based upon that information. My decision -for myself or my kids- would be based on that info. Were I to choose an alternative method vs. a traditional method it would and should be my choice.

My son is dx'd w/ASD (autistic spectrum disorder). He was 6 1/2 when he was dx'd, old for that diagnosis. We've been to no less than 15 doctors over the course of 8-10 years either seeking a diagnosis or treatment. What I discovered is that all 15 doctors had their own idea of what was the best treatment for him. There was no consensus, per say. I've had one 'best in the field' tell me no, do not get any type of therapy for your kid and the next doc, another 'best in the field' say no, that was 100% wrong, get as much therapy as possible. Every doctor we saw scoffed when we said we wanted to remove gluten from his diet. I had conventional docs tell me that was hogwash. Well traditional docs offered Ritalin and Risperidal as treatment; we tried their route with little success and crappy side effects. We took my son off gluten when he was 7 1/2 for four years. Started in the spring; when school rolled around in the fall the teachers wanted to know what had happened because his behavior had improved that much. When he was little his skin was like an alligators, rough, dry, gross. Behind his ears used to split and bleed. I tried everything soap-wise to ease it. Nothing worked. Pediatrician said it's eczema, here's some creme. Even after tests were run and one of his levels came back high, she dismissed it as a false positive. I took him off milk for two months, prior to taking him off gluten, to see if any behavior changes would take place. None did but low and behold, his skin cleared up. He was allergic to milk.

You can go on and on about doctors knowing best; I've had enough shitty expericences to know diferently. You can decide what is best for you and your family and I will decide what is best for mine. And doctors and government do not have the right to force treatment just because they disagree with it and think that they know best.

I'm glad to see that you have had success with an alternative therapy. I have hear a lot about the gluten free diet in relation to ADHD and I think it is definitely worth trying.

And my own opinion on Autistic Spectrum Disorder (not being an expert in it) is that it isn't treated with medicines, but rather therapy, such as speech therapy, occupational therapy, maybe some physical therapy, and behavioral therapy. My cousin's son has Pervasive Developmental Delay (PDD) which is likely similar, and he seems to be doing well with the different therapy sessions.

However, autism, ASD, PDD, ADHD...these conditions are not universally fatal if left untreated. As a physician, I would not report someone to the authorities for neglect if they chose not to treat one of these disorders or if they chose an alternative therapy.

But if these conditions were universally fatal, then there would have to be some damn good evidence that a chosen alternative therapy was effective before I would say that the child was not being neglected.

In fact, in this case, if there was evidence that a certain herbal therapy had been shown to be 50% effective in treating Hodgkins (compared to chemo at 95%), I'd accept that as a parental choice. But they are chosing something that has no evidence and in essence are chosing non-treatment.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

So when/if he dies, it will be neglect then? If the mother can show how she cared for him what would be the minimum ammount of care she would have to perform? How would you draw a line and say this is neglect and this isn't? My point is since there is no clear definition of neglect in this instance, and the boy dies it should be considered neglect.

In the article on MSNBC, the mother knew that the X-rays that the doctors had were damaging to her case so she fled. She knows her son will die. She saw that under her plan the tumor grew back to its original size and was spreading. This seems irrational but she probably thinks she will spend eternity with her son in heaven. A young teen of 13 who probably doesn't have a vibrant social life because of his disease isn't likely to have done anything to deserve a stint in hell or limbo. It's even logical then to want your son to die at a young age of natural causes.

If that's the case it's murder/neglect/manslaughter, and we should prosecute the mother after the boy dies.

What if the boy undergoes the treatment then dies, would that be murder?

 

[KittenKoder]

So when/if he dies, it will be neglect then? If the mother can show how she cared for him what would be the minimum ammount of care she would have to perform? How would you draw a line and say this is neglect and this isn't? My point is since there is no clear definition of neglect in this instance, and the boy dies it should be considered neglect.

In the article on MSNBC, the mother knew that the X-rays that the doctors had were damaging to her case so she fled. She knows her son will die. She saw that under her plan the tumor grew back to its original size and was spreading. This seems irrational but she probably thinks she will spend eternity with her son in heaven. A young teen of 13 who probably doesn't have a vibrant social life because of his disease isn't likely to have done anything to deserve a stint in hell or limbo. It's even logical then to want your son to die at a young age of natural causes.

If that's the case it's murder/neglect/manslaughter, and we should prosecute the mother after the boy dies.

What if the boy undergoes the treatment then dies, would that be murder?

... or torture.

 

[wvulax]

I don't see it as murder because the doctors are trying to help, and you would have to prove it was the chemo not the cancer that killed him. I'm arguing that the mother would be responsible because she knows and understands what is going on very clearly, and is taking action to ensure the treatment isn't given.

 

[DiveCon]

no, i know what i know and i dont need to ask anyone

you can believe that crap if you want to, but not me

ok, that's fine and dandy, don't speak to your pastor!

but HOW will you ever know more than you know now?

i for one, plan on expanding my knowledge, every day for the rest of my life and never plan to stop learning more every day that passes, than i know now....

dcon emulates his hero Dubya Bush...critical thinking isn't needed when you "know" something.

fuck off bitch
Bush never was nor will he be anything even remotely close to a "hero" to me
but you worship Obama

 

[DiveCon]

Your own ineptitude bores you?

No, your trolling does, however.

Now there is a classic case of projection

yes, you sure are
shes right, you troll

 

[KittenKoder]

ok, that's fine and dandy, don't speak to your pastor!

but HOW will you ever know more than you know now?

i for one, plan on expanding my knowledge, every day for the rest of my life and never plan to stop learning more every day that passes, than i know now....

dcon emulates his hero Dubya Bush...critical thinking isn't needed when you "know" something.

fuck off bitch
Bush never was nor will he be anything even remotely close to a "hero" to me
but you worship Obama

It's priceless (and sad really) when the wingnuts on both sides keep doing that, DiveCon it's best to just laugh at them, they will never understand what it means to think for themselves.

 

[DiveCon]

I understand what you are saying, but what if your beliefs tell you that your children should only be fed bread and water once a day and chained to their beds for the rest of it? There's a line there, a very delicate one. You are not allowed to do whatever you want to your child. With parents on one side and the government (law) on the other, what you hope is that neither abuses the power that they have. As a parent, I couldn't imagine not wanting the best for my children, that's why so many cannot relate to these parents at all or others who neglect and abuse their children for whatever reason. As a society I think we have to protect children as well, which is why I am anti-abortion.

Freedom of religion is protected under our constitution. Now you can make up all kind of scenarios to fit your argument but lets stick with the facts at hand. The parents and the child in this case have decided to choose another course of action in accordance with their religious belief. The govt. cannot tell them to go against their belief because that my friend would be unconstitutional. I wish I was the families lawyer, no matter how much I disagree with their decision, it's still their decision to make. Not yours, mine or the states.

Google Neil Beagley who died from an easily treatable condition.

they are CATHOLIC, this DOES NOT differ with their religion and
NEGLECT is against the law, regardless of religious beliefs...why can't you comprehend this Lone Star?

you can't sit back and let your child DIE in this country if there is medical treatment that can save them.

except its NOT neglect to seek alternative treatments

 

[DiveCon]

Can you show me where in the constitution it says murder is against the law?

Can you show me where in the constitution that Robbing someone is against the law?

Can you show me where in the constitution that going over the speed limit driving is against the law.

This child CAN NOT READ OR WRITE at 13 years old, I seriously doubt he will be able to do such at 17 either....so no, it would not make a difference lone star.....not with him, thus this is an exception....he is learning disabled.

The constitution guarantees life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that addresses your first two questions. The speeding ticket nonsense is a stretch, even for you.

Illiteracy does not mean stupid, I know several people that have gone on to be very productive members of society without knowing how to read. Can you prove the alleged disability and to what extent? Is the child mentally retarded? Does he suffer from autism? Or perhaps he just wasn't taught how to read or write.

I've given you a name to google so you could see what is happening in cases very simliar to this one and one in which the child did die. But you obviously are stuck with your one-sided opinion. As I've stated, the choice these parents are making would not be my choice, but I do believe it's their choice to make, not yours, mine or the states.

Once you give away a freedom, it's almost impossible to get it back. Religious freedom should not be infringed upon.... period.

We do NOT let children die from medical neglect lone star....

and life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness covers such....

Choosing an alternative method of treatment that has possibilities of curing ones child is DIFFERENT than this woman, on her own, with no direct advice, giving her son pure water and a diet change and is as good as giving the parents permission to kill their son.

Tell me, is it okay if your child got his arm cut off by a tractor o your farm, for you to just leave him there, bleeding to death, because your religion requires such?

Can you throw your child in to a snake pit, because your religion believes in such?

The answer is NO to both....this case is similar....though near pointless now, because they have probably already killed their son and the chemo would be useless now...when he had his 95% chance of surviving his cancer with this treatment, months ago, is when it should have been done.

Care

WRONG, the cancer will have killed him
they do have the choice to choose whatever alternative treatments they wish

would you be for charging the doctors with murder when the chemo doesnt work and the patient still dies?

 

[jillian]

The constitution guarantees life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that addresses your first two questions. The speeding ticket nonsense is a stretch, even for you.

Illiteracy does not mean stupid, I know several people that have gone on to be very productive members of society without knowing how to read. Can you prove the alleged disability and to what extent? Is the child mentally retarded? Does he suffer from autism? Or perhaps he just wasn't taught how to read or write.

I've given you a name to google so you could see what is happening in cases very simliar to this one and one in which the child did die. But you obviously are stuck with your one-sided opinion. As I've stated, the choice these parents are making would not be my choice, but I do believe it's their choice to make, not yours, mine or the states.

Once you give away a freedom, it's almost impossible to get it back. Religious freedom should not be infringed upon.... period.

We do NOT let children die from medical neglect lone star....

and life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness covers such....

Choosing an alternative method of treatment that has possibilities of curing ones child is DIFFERENT than this woman, on her own, with no direct advice, giving her son pure water and a diet change and is as good as giving the parents permission to kill their son.

Tell me, is it okay if your child got his arm cut off by a tractor o your farm, for you to just leave him there, bleeding to death, because your religion requires such?

Can you throw your child in to a snake pit, because your religion believes in such?

The answer is NO to both....this case is similar....though near pointless now, because they have probably already killed their son and the chemo would be useless now...when he had his 95% chance of surviving his cancer with this treatment, months ago, is when it should have been done.

Care

WRONG, the cancer will have killed him
they do have the choice to choose whatever alternative treatments they wish

would you be for charging the doctors with murder when the chemo doesnt work and the patient still dies?

so if they want to shake some animal bones over the kid while chanting, that would be ok to you, too?

they don't have the right to let this kid die.

What is with you people... terry shiavo's husband didn't have the right to turn off the machines but these people can let a kid die who has a 95% chance of being cured???

please enlighten me. becaues i don't get it. it seems warped to me.

 

[Ravi]

Freedom of religion is protected under our constitution. Now you can make up all kind of scenarios to fit your argument but lets stick with the facts at hand. The parents and the child in this case have decided to choose another course of action in accordance with their religious belief. The govt. cannot tell them to go against their belief because that my friend would be unconstitutional. I wish I was the families lawyer, no matter how much I disagree with their decision, it's still their decision to make. Not yours, mine or the states.

Google Neil Beagley who died from an easily treatable condition.

they are CATHOLIC, this DOES NOT differ with their religion and
NEGLECT is against the law, regardless of religious beliefs...why can't you comprehend this Lone Star?

you can't sit back and let your child DIE in this country if there is medical treatment that can save them.

except its NOT neglect to seek alternative treatments

It can be, it probably depends on the state.

Medical neglect
Medical neglect is the failure to provide appropriate health care for a child (although financially able to do so), thus placing the child at risk of being seriously disabled or disfigured or dying. According to NCANDS, in 2005, 2 percent of children (17,637 children) in the United States were victims of medical neglect (USDHHS, 2007). Concern is warranted not only when a parent refuses medical care for a child in an emergency or for an acute illness, but also when a parent ignores medical recommendations for a child with a treatable chronic disease or disability, resulting in frequent hospitalizations or significant deterioration.
Even in non-emergency situations, medical neglect can result in poor overall health and compounded medical problems.
Parents may refuse medical care for their children for different reasons religious beliefs, fear or anxiety about a medical condition or treatment, or financial issues. Child protective services agencies generally will intervene when:

• Medical treatment is needed in an acute emergency (e.g., a child needs a blood transfusion to treat shock);
• A child with a life-threatening chronic disease is not receiving needed medical treatment (e.g., a child with diabetes is not receiving medication); or
• A child has a chronic disease that can cause disability or disfigurement if left untreated (e.g., a child with congenital cataracts needs surgery to prevent blindness).

In these cases, child protection services agencies may seek a court order for medical treatment to save the child’s life or prevent life-threatening injury, disability or disfigurement.
Although medical neglect is highly correlated with poverty, there is a distinction between a caregiver’s inability to provide the needed care based on cultural norms or the lack of financial resources and a caregiver’s knowing reluctance or refusal to provide care. Children and their families may be in need of services even though the parent may not be intentionally neglectful. When poverty limits a parent’s resources to adequately provide necessities for the child, services may be offered to help families provide for their children.

Child Neglect

 

[DiveCon]

We do NOT let children die from medical neglect lone star....

and life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness covers such....

Choosing an alternative method of treatment that has possibilities of curing ones child is DIFFERENT than this woman, on her own, with no direct advice, giving her son pure water and a diet change and is as good as giving the parents permission to kill their son.

Tell me, is it okay if your child got his arm cut off by a tractor o your farm, for you to just leave him there, bleeding to death, because your religion requires such?

Can you throw your child in to a snake pit, because your religion believes in such?

The answer is NO to both....this case is similar....though near pointless now, because they have probably already killed their son and the chemo would be useless now...when he had his 95% chance of surviving his cancer with this treatment, months ago, is when it should have been done.

Care

WRONG, the cancer will have killed him
they do have the choice to choose whatever alternative treatments they wish

would you be for charging the doctors with murder when the chemo doesnt work and the patient still dies?

so if they want to shake some animal bones over the kid while chanting, that would be ok to you, too?

they don't have the right to let this kid die.

What is with you people... terry shiavo's husband didn't have the right to turn off the machines but these people can let a kid die who has a 95% chance of being cured???

please enlighten me. becaues i don't get it. it seems warped to me.

yet you support the killing of the unborn


that seems pretty fucking warped to me

 

[AllieBaba]

It is warped.

And everyone blissfully carries on with the trampeling of this child's rights and the rights of his family without waiting to see what the situation is.

When was he diagnosed? What stage was he when diagnosed? What factors into the effectiveness of the chemo? What are his medical issues besides the Hodgkins? Why should they opt for chemo if he's dying anyway?

I see nothing about the family refusing to get chemo earlier...in fact, no mention has been made of his condition prior to a few days ago. So was he JUST diagnosed and already at a point where chemo is not likely to be effective? WHAT ARE HIS OTHER MEDICAL CONDITIONS???

 

[Newby]

WRONG, the cancer will have killed him
they do have the choice to choose whatever alternative treatments they wish

would you be for charging the doctors with murder when the chemo doesnt work and the patient still dies?

so if they want to shake some animal bones over the kid while chanting, that would be ok to you, too?

they don't have the right to let this kid die.

What is with you people... terry shiavo's husband didn't have the right to turn off the machines but these people can let a kid die who has a 95% chance of being cured???

please enlighten me. becaues i don't get it. it seems warped to me.

yet you support the killing of the unborn


that seems pretty fucking warped to me

That's pretty much been my contention as well. They don't see the unborn as a child, which is indeed sad.

 

[AllieBaba]

They don't see him as a child, either. All this, and the abortion issue, are about is who is allowed to control the poor, the vulnerable, and those who don't agree with you?

It's an erosion of individual power and human rights, based on the leftist elitist assumption that they should be making the decisions for everyone....right down to who should live, and who should die, and what we should eat, and what medicines should we be allowed or forced to take...how much money we should be allowed to make, etc. and so on.

 

[wvulax]

I don't think you can say that liberals are the only ones who limit people's freedom. Republicans have done their fair share as well.

 

[AllieBaba]

No, not really.