Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Blue Lion on May 19, 2009, 08:01:04 pm
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090520/ap_on_re_us/us_forced_chemo
NEW ULM, Minn. – Authorities sought to arrest the mother of a 13-year-old boy with cancer who refuses chemotherapy after she fled with her son and missed a court hearing Tuesday on his welfare. A judge issued an arrest warrant and ordered that Daniel Hauser be placed in a foster home and be sent for an immediate examination by a pediatric oncologist so he can get treated for Hodgkins lymphoma.
"The court's priority at this point is to try to get Daniel Hauser and get him the care he needs," Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg said.
The cancer is considered highly curable with chemotherapy and radiation, but Daniel quit chemo after a single treatment. With his parents, he opted instead for "alternative medicines," citing religious beliefs. That led authorities to seek custody. Rodenberg last week ruled that Daniel's parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, were medically neglecting their son.
The Hausers are Roman Catholic and also believe in the "do no harm" philosophy of the Nemenhah Band, a Missouri-based religious group that believes in natural healing methods advocated by some American Indians.
Colleen Hauser testified earlier that she had been treating his cancer with herbal supplements, vitamins, ionized water and other natural alternatives.
The family was due in court Tuesday to report the results of a chest X-ray and their arrangements for an oncologist. But only Daniel's father appeared. He told Rodenberg he last saw his wife Monday evening.
"She said she was going to leave," Hauser testified. "She said, `That's all you need to know.' And that's all I know."
He said Colleen Hauser left her cell phone at their home in the southern Minnesota town of Sleepy Eye.
Anthony Hauser now agrees that Daniel needs to be taken back to a doctor for re-evaluation for the best treatment, said Calvin Johnson, an attorney for the parents.
The founder of Nemenhah, Philip Cloudpiler Landis, said it was a bad idea for Colleen Hauser to flee with her son.
"She should have gone to court," Landis said. "It's how we work these things out. You don't solve anything by disregarding the order of the judge."
The arrest warrant has been distributed nationwide and a crime alert was being issued to businesses around the country, Brown County Sheriff Rich Hoffman said. He said investigators were following some leads, but declined to elaborate.
The family's doctor, James Joyce, testified by telephone that Daniel's tumor has grown and he needs immediate assessment by a specialist.
Joyce said he examined Daniel on Monday, and an X-ray showed that his tumor had grown to the size it was when he was first diagnosed.
"He had basically gotten back all the trouble he had in January," the doctor said.
Daniel said he had pain on the right side of his chest, which he rated a 10 on a scale of 1 to 10, Joyce said.
Joyce said the pain was around the port that was inserted into Daniel's chest to administer chemotherapy. He attributed the pain to the growing tumor, which is pushing the port out of place.
He said Daniel was at risk of substantial physical harm if no action is taken.
Daniel was accompanied to the appointment with Joyce by his mother and Susan Daya, a California attorney.
Joyce testified that he offered to make appointments for Daniel with oncologists, but the Hausers declined. He also said he tried to give Daniel more information about lymphoma but that the three left in a rush.
"Under Susan Daya's urging, they indicated they had other places to go," Joyce said.
Daya did not immediately return a page left on her cell phone Tuesday by The Associated Press. Her voice mailbox was full. The court also tried to reach her during the hearing, but got no answer.
In his ruling last week, Rodenberg wrote that he would not order chemotherapy if Daniel's prognosis was poor. But if the outlook was good, it appeared chemotherapy and possibly radiation would be in the boy's best interest, he wrote.
Daniel's lymphoma was diagnosed in January, and six rounds of chemotherapy were recommended. Daniel underwent one round in February but stopped after that single treatment. He and his parents sought other opinions, but the doctors agreed with the initial assessment.
State statutes require parents to provide necessary medical care for a child, Rodenberg wrote. The statutes say alternative and complementary health care methods aren't enough.
He also wrote that Daniel, who has a learning disability and cannot read, did not understand the risks and benefits of chemotherapy and didn't believe he was ill.
Daniel testified that he believed the chemo would kill him and told the judge in private testimony unsealed later that if anyone tried to force him to take it, "I'd fight it. I'd punch them and I'd kick them."
If the mods think this should be in the old topic, they can move it. I just thought the update warranted a new topic since we kinda finished the last one.
-
I'm ok with a new topic, since the focus has now changed, so pending any other mod feeling otherwise, this is fine.
About the topic, I wish I could say I was surprised that this happened, but, sadly enough, I think I suspected it.
Of course, now they've pushed it into the realm of criminal law, and it does raise the question of, if they trusted the alternative techniques so much, why were they so scared to face the results of the X-Ray?
-
When their kid dies, they should be tried for his murder.
-
They won't be. At most it will be neglect, and they will get off real easy.
-
Under US law if she does not get him treatment she can be charged with murder. Watched (well had it on in the background) a whole segment on CNN. There is precedent for murder charges. There is no religion loophole for minors. Parents must provide proper medical care just like food and shelter. Charges run all the way from misdemeanor neglect to murder.
-
Gross criminal neglect is the most I'd charge them with. If he dies, she would have just lost her son; honestly, what is throwing her in jail going to do? Hurt her more? What rationale is behind putting her behind bars, instead of say a mental clinic or something. All it does is satisfy the urge for "justice" even when that urge is misguided in a way.
-
can be != will be
The US has a long history of letting people off for this sort of thing.
If she's in jail, she can't **** with other children for a while.
-
The mother is also wanted now... The local news reported she left and was required to show up in court.
-
Gross criminal neglect is the most I'd charge them with. If he dies, she would have just lost her son; honestly, what is throwing her in jail going to do? Hurt her more? What rationale is behind putting her behind bars, instead of say a mental clinic or something. All it does is satisfy the urge for "justice" even when that urge is misguided in a way.
Unfortunately "death of son" is not a sentence to be handed out by the court. It's like some kids when I was in high school trying to say an 18 year old shouldn't be charged with reckless driving (for going over 120 on the freeway and evading police) because he crashed and was almost killed. Bad things that happen to you because you committed a crime shouldn't lessen your punishment later.
On the other hand, I do agree a murder charge is a bit unwarranted. I'd go with Involuntary Manslaughter myself. The mother is not INTENDING to harm the child, even though she is being an idiot.
Hopefully legal efforts will be able to stop this child from dying. I think we can all agree that would be the best solution.
-
Well it depends on the state but I don't think any state would even try for murder 1. The manslaughter/murder 2 would depend on the state charges are filed in which could be wherever the child dies.
-
A judge issued an arrest warrant and ordered that Daniel Hauser be placed in a foster home and be sent for an immediate examination by a pediatric oncologist so he can get treated for Hodgkins lymphoma.
Omg...
Remember when I said in the other thread that I had a friend with cancer, and the chemo didn't really hurt him?
He had Hodgekins lymphoma as well, one of the best treatable types of cancer...
-
Isn't the drawback to chemotherapy decreased resistence to other diseases?
-
Yeah, it suppresses your immune system for the duration of the treatment, but I don't think it's permanent.
-
Gross criminal neglect is the most I'd charge them with. If he dies, she would have just lost her son; honestly, what is throwing her in jail going to do? Hurt her more? What rationale is behind putting her behind bars, instead of say a mental clinic or something. All it does is satisfy the urge for "justice" even when that urge is misguided in a way.
Unfortunately "death of son" is not a sentence to be handed out by the court. It's like some kids when I was in high school trying to say an 18 year old shouldn't be charged with reckless driving (for going over 120 on the freeway and evading police) because he crashed and was almost killed. Bad things that happen to you because you committed a crime shouldn't lessen your punishment later.
On the other hand, I do agree a murder charge is a bit unwarranted. I'd go with Involuntary Manslaughter myself. The mother is not INTENDING to harm the child, even though she is being an idiot.
Hopefully legal efforts will be able to stop this child from dying. I think we can all agree that would be the best solution.
My point wasn't that "oh, she's already in pain so we should be lenient," my point was more along the lines of "what exactly will jail time do?". It won't rehabilitate her, it's not like she's a danger to society; so what exactly would be the point of throwing her in the slammer?
-
Props to the mom for sticking to her guns.
Even though I think she's wrong, way to stick it to the judicial system. **** them and their noise.
FREEEEEEEDOOOOOOOOM.
-
Survival of the fitteeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeest. :p
-
Gross criminal neglect is the most I'd charge them with. If he dies, she would have just lost her son; honestly, what is throwing her in jail going to do? Hurt her more? What rationale is behind putting her behind bars, instead of say a mental clinic or something. All it does is satisfy the urge for "justice" even when that urge is misguided in a way.
Unfortunately "death of son" is not a sentence to be handed out by the court. It's like some kids when I was in high school trying to say an 18 year old shouldn't be charged with reckless driving (for going over 120 on the freeway and evading police) because he crashed and was almost killed. Bad things that happen to you because you committed a crime shouldn't lessen your punishment later.
On the other hand, I do agree a murder charge is a bit unwarranted. I'd go with Involuntary Manslaughter myself. The mother is not INTENDING to harm the child, even though she is being an idiot.
Hopefully legal efforts will be able to stop this child from dying. I think we can all agree that would be the best solution.
My point wasn't that "oh, she's already in pain so we should be lenient," my point was more along the lines of "what exactly will jail time do?". It won't rehabilitate her, it's not like she's a danger to society; so what exactly would be the point of throwing her in the slammer?
That doesn't make a lot of sense, if that were the case then why give jail time to anybody who commits a single crime of passion. Somebody walks in on their spouse having an affair and kills them we would just let them off the hook because they are miserable from it and they probably aren't going to kill anyone else?
-
Ironically enough, I was watching an episode of Law and Order last night about a Doctor who claimed that HIV didn't lead to Aids, and a Mother who had refused to let her son take retro-virus treatment because of her belief...
-
FREEEEEEEDOOOOOOOOM.
:yes:
Part of the price of freedom is allowing people to make decisions you disagree with.
-
What about making decisions that put other people's lives in danger? Specifically, a child's life?
-
Yea I'm not sure what freedom that kid has
-
What about making decisions that put other people's lives in danger? Specifically, a child's life?
His parents didn't give him the cancer.
-
What about making decisions that put other people's lives in danger? Specifically, a child's life?
His parents didn't give him the cancer.
His parents are also denying him a treatment that has a 90% success rate. Without it, he has less the a 5% change of living. How can you justify removing 85% of a child's chance to live? The kid didn't deserve to get cancer, but the kid doesn't deserve to die at the hands of his tragically confused mother either. He has a very good chance of surviving this if he just took the chemo treatment. The mother isn't allowed to remove him from this treatment and essentially condemn him to death (with 95% certainty) , because its child abuse, if not outright murder of a minor.
Removing her child from treatment caused harm to the child and has put his life in danger. This is called child abuse, and it's against the law. If this wasn't against the law, then you'd have to let parents beat their kids and starve them as punishment too. There are reasons we have these laws, and its to save innocent children. Are you really willing to watch this kid die when we could save him so easily? Do you really think that a parent should have so much control over their children that those innocent children will die because of mistakes their parents made? We're not animals (behaviorally), we don't eat our own young, we aren't going to let survival of the fittest govern who is and who isn't going to live.
-
What about making decisions that put other people's lives in danger? Specifically, a child's life?
His parents didn't give him the cancer.
No but they refused to give him the treatment for it. Textbook medical neglect.
-
What about making decisions that put other people's lives in danger? Specifically, a child's life?
His parents didn't give him the cancer.
This. THIS. This is what I'm talking about.
-
A similar story....
WAUSAU, Wis. – Attorneys for a Wisconsin woman accused of praying for her dying daughter instead of getting her help have rested their case without calling any witnesses.
Forty-one-year-old Leilani Neumann is charged with second-degree reckless homicide in the March 2008 death of daughter Madeline from untreated diabetes.
Judge Vincent Howard ordered the trial to recess until Friday morning.
Prosecutors wrapped up their case earlier Thursday, calling as their last witness a pediatrician who treated 11-year-old Madeline after she was rushed to a hospital.
Dr. Joseph Monaco says medical staff spent about 50 minutes trying to revive the girl even though her heart had stopped. He says her diabetes could have been treated if she'd been brought in earlier.
-
What about making decisions that put other people's lives in danger? Specifically, a child's life?
His parents didn't give him the cancer.
If someone ran him over with a car, or shot him in the head you don't take him home to pray and give him some ginseng.
You take him to the hospital. If you don't, you get charged with murder.
-
No parent has the right to decide that their child has to die.
-
Anyone still arguing in favour of the mother has missed an important point.
Anthony Hauser now agrees that Daniel needs to be taken back to a doctor for re-evaluation for the best treatment, said Calvin Johnson, an attorney for the parents.
That's it. Debate over. The father has said the child should be examined. Doesn't matter what the mother wants now, she's only half of the parenting team with no more right to decide than the father. In the case of a tie the courts decide and we already know what they say.
-
That's why I haven't commented.
As I asked at the beginning of the thread, if the mother was so certain that alternative techniques would work, why run before the X-Rays came back? That suggests to me that the mother knew the X-Rays would show that the condition was getting worse before she had even seen them, and by running, she is now simply trying to avoid the truth.
With the fathers agreement that the boy needs treatment, this is no longer a matter of parents vs court, it's a matter of parent vs parent with the court making the decision.
-
That's why I haven't commented.
As I asked at the beginning of the thread, if the mother was so certain that alternative techniques would work, why run before the X-Rays came back? That suggests to me that the mother knew the X-Rays would show that the condition was getting worse before she had even seen them, and by running, she is now simply trying to avoid the truth.
With the fathers agreement that the boy needs treatment, this is no longer a matter of parents vs court, it's a matter of parent vs parent with the court making the decision.
True, and the court has made its decision: take the kid back for chemo.
Besides, whether or not chemo agrees with your religious beliefs, no religion condones letting a child die when they could be saved. The sad part is that the authorities probably won't find the mother until it's too late, and all they'll be able to do for the poor kid is bury him.
-
My grandfather had colorectal cancer, was on chemo for 4 years. He suddenly got really sick, and so me, my sister, and mom (grandpa's daughter) all went down. I remember him being kind of plump, but not fat. When we got there, he was really skinny, and you could see every vein in his face. After two days, he passed out and was taken to a hospice. Three days later, I got up from the bed and went to sleep on the couch. About an hour later I dimly remember waking up with my mom crying on the armchair, and my grandfather's friend (An austrian guy, early twenties. He had been taking care of my grandfather) was talking to her. They didn't realize I was in the room. I woke up the next morning, and had forgotten about waking up. I walked into the big sitting room, and my mom was sitting on the couch, and Tom (the friend) was just kind of standing in the kitchen, staring at the counter. My mom told me to sit down, and told me my grandfather had died 5 hours ago. :(
-
To be honest, my Father is undergoing tests at the moment, but I think they are more for the sake of making sure than anything else, about 8 weeks after his heart attack, some idiot jumped the lights at 50 miles an hour and smacked into the side of his car, writing it off, there's some concern, because of his blood-thinning medication, that he may have internal bleeding, but to be sure, they are checking every possibility, because of the symptoms he had could also be indicative of prostrate problems.
Personally, I don't feel like it is anything to worry about, and for a good few weeks before his heart attack, I knew, at some level, that something was wrong, kind of like an Aura that made me feel 'uneasy' about his health, but I couldn't quite identify it, I've got no such feeling this time.
-
I had some surgically removed skin cancer some years ago. Two friends had chemotherapy in the same year. One lived, one died. There's various other cancers going around, but they don't matter as much.
-
I thought cancer couldn't 'go around'- I always thought it was a genetic disorder. :confused:
-
Oh geez.... she has the son with her :eek2:
-
I thought cancer couldn't 'go around'- I always thought it was a genetic disorder. :confused:
It was a turn of phrase, she didn't mean contagion, just that a lot of people seemed to get it at around the same time :)
-
My grandfather had colorectal cancer, was on chemo for 4 years. He suddenly got really sick, and so me, my sister, and mom (grandpa's daughter) all went down. I remember him being kind of plump, but not fat. When we got there, he was really skinny, and you could see every vein in his face. After two days, he passed out and was taken to a hospice. Three days later, I got up from the bed and went to sleep on the couch. About an hour later I dimly remember waking up with my mom crying on the armchair, and my grandfather's friend (An austrian guy, early twenties. He had been taking care of my grandfather) was talking to her. They didn't realize I was in the room. I woke up the next morning, and had forgotten about waking up. I walked into the big sitting room, and my mom was sitting on the couch, and Tom (the friend) was just kind of standing in the kitchen, staring at the counter. My mom told me to sit down, and told me my grandfather had died 5 hours ago. :(
Chemo is not a silver bullet unfortunately, and like I said other alternatives like immunotherapy seem to be in the experinmental stages. Without it there's certain death, with it there's at least a chance.
-
In this case, it was chemo with a 95% chance of curing him, or prayer, with a 0% chance of curing him (and 5% him surviving anyway, and people giving the credit to prayer)
-
In this case, it was chemo with a 95% chance of curing him, or prayer, with a 0% chance of curing him (and 5% him surviving anyway, and people giving the credit to prayer)
chemo was 90%
buutttt..... yeah.
-
CNN had some info on the supposed religious objection. Seems the guy running the cult isn't even a member of the tribe his "religion" is based on. While the tribe does believe in the natural medicine approach they do not have any belief against chemo and members have had chemo. So basically it is not against the religion just against the belief of one whacko who says he's a decedent of some chief and actually isn't.
-
Well here is some good news:
Reported by: Associated Press.
Original Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090525/ap_on_re_us/us_forced_chemo
MINNEAPOLIS – A 13-year-old cancer patient and his mother are back in Minnesota after fleeing nearly a week ago to avoid court-ordered chemotherapy, a sheriff's office said Monday.
The Brown County sheriff's office did not provide more details Monday before an evening news conference at the county seat of New Ulm.
Daniel Hauser and his mother, Colleen, had been due to appear in court last Tuesday for a hearing that could have resulted in a judge ordering chemotherapy to treat Daniel for Hodgkin's lymphoma. They missed the court appearance, and the search for them had focused on southern California and Mexico.
A message left for Daniel's attorney Monday afternoon was not immediately returned. An attorney for Colleen and Anthony Hauser was out of town and could not be reached for immediate comment.
Daniel has Hodgkin's lymphoma, which doctors say has a 90 percent chance of being cured in children if treated with chemotherapy and radiation. Without treatment, he has a 5 percent chance of survival.
Daniel underwent one round of chemotherapy in February, but stopped after that single treatment, citing religious beliefs. The family opted instead for natural healing practices inspired by American Indians.
A judge ruled that the parents medically neglected Daniel and ordered them to get him an updated chest X-ray as well as select an oncologist for a re-evaluation. After the X-ray showed a tumor in Daniel's chest has grown, the mother and son left town.
The American Cancer Society estimates there are 35 to 50 clinics in Mexican border towns that attract cancer patients looking for alternatives to traditional U.S. treatment methods.
An FBI affidavit alleges Colleen Hauser fled to avoid being prosecuted on two state counts of depriving another of custodial or parental rights. Brown County family services has been granted custody of Daniel to get him to a pediatric oncologist.
Last Thursday, Anthony Hauser appeared before reporters asking his wife to come home. "If you're out there, please bring Danny home so we can decide as a family what Danny's treatment should be," he said.
At a news conference Thursday, Brown County Sheriff Rich Hoffmann vowed to arrange a safe return for Colleen Hauser without an enforcement action if she shows "a good faith effort to come back."
-
if psycho-***** wants to purify the gene pool by letting the kid die, so be it.