[Kosh]

The model of irresponsible parenting

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.

If the parents decided to do this to themselves, that's fine. But to endanger someone elses life, especially their child's is just wrong.

EDIT: And since the child is only 13, he isn't capable of making such a decision on his own.

[Blue Lion]

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.

That's some pretty shoddy beliefs.

[blackhole]

How can you possibly justify a decision that reduces the chances of your child's recovery from 90% to 5% as anything except gross medical neglect?

[Kosh]

How can you possibly justify a decision that reduces the chances of your child's recovery from 90% to 5% as anything except gross medical neglect?

Religion.

[Blue Lion]

This reminds me of a case here in Baltimore that happened just recently that sorta reminds me of it. It's not the same, but whatever.

"The group moved from East to West Baltimore, where police said Javon died after being starved for refusing to say "Amen" after meals. After the boy died, police said in court documents, the group prayed over the body for two days, then swaddled it in sheets and stowed it in a green suitcase."

Your religious beliefs don't get to include child endangerment.

I'm just flabbergasted these people sent their kid to chemo one time and then said "hey wait, this is against our religion"

[Dilmah G]

That makes me so unimaginably angry. There's a line between religion and Real Life. Once religion begins to put someone's life in danger for no ****ing good reason, that's what pisses me off.

[Knight Templar]

Now this would make an interesting case for precedent.

Kid has life-threatening disease. Disease is curable, but only through procedure that causes immense pain and suffering. Parents can't bear to see that, kid doesn't want it. However, kid will likely die otherwise. Parents believe there is another way, though significantly more risky. Parents are legal guardians of kid.

Does Gov. have the legal (or moral) right to tell parents what to do?

Don't get confused. This really isn't about religion, its about the integrity and sovereignty of parental guardianship.

How can you possibly justify a decision that reduces the chances of your child's recovery from 90% to 5% as anything except gross medical neglect?

Religion.

Wrong.

If you've known anyone who's had cancer and gone through chemo, you know its an incredibly ****ty experience, often worse than cancer itself. Project that onto your child, a 13-year old no less, and the choice to watch him go through that isn't so easy. Of course, neither is losing him to cancer. But if there were a chance that you could save him some other way, you might think twice.

While the article paints whatever faith the family shares in spirituality and alternative medicine as rather crude and useless against his condition, it still remains an ultimately awkward position, for lack of a better phrase. Chemo ain't like getting a shot in the arm. For a state judge to say that the family isn't allowed to pursue their own people's version of a cure for him again, sets a weird precedent that the state's legal authority supersedes that of parent's (of varying peoples, religions and creeds) in day-to-day life.

[Goober5000]

Does Gov. have the legal (or moral) right to tell parents what to do?

Don't get confused. This really isn't about religion, its about the integrity and sovereignty of parental guardianship.

Wow, I agree with KT...

This is essentially it.  Ultimately, is the child the ward of his parents, or the ward of the state?  And keep in mind that government is far less likely than a parent to be personally invested in a kid's well being.

From what I heard, a relative of this family also went through chemotherapy and died despite (or perhaps because of) it.  So there's that to consider also.

[Knight Templar]

Does Gov. have the legal (or moral) right to tell parents what to do?

Don't get confused. This really isn't about religion, its about the integrity and sovereignty of parental guardianship.

Wow, I agree with KT...

Don't worry man, it happens to the best of us.

[Blue Lion]

So whats the result then? Do parents get to decide what to do to their kids, even if it hurts them?

[Knight Templar]

So whats the result then? Do parents get to decide what to do to their kids, even if it hurts them?

Unfortunately, its that simple, but more complicated, at the same time.

As a parent, you're obligated to do what you think is best for your child. This usually entails loving, caring for, and protecting them. In this case, he has cancer. He could die from it, he might not. Chemo could save him, it also could not (note the fact: Chemo is a highly undesirable process in itself.) There are no guarantees in this situation.

There are no "results" thus far, except for that neither the kids nor the parents liked going through Chemo. For Chemo to produce such a negative reaction in the both of them, and yet to have a judge step in and say "tough ****, suck it up the both of you" isn't really right.

[iamzack]

What if the kid had tetanus and the parents decided to pray instead of taking the kid to a doctor?

It's neglect, plain and simple. The parents are responsible for keeping the child healthy and alive. If they fail to do so, it's neglect.

[Knight Templar]

What if the kid had tetanus and the parents decided to pray instead of taking the kid to a doctor?

It's neglect, plain and simple. The parents are responsible for keeping the child healthy and alive. If they fail to do so, it's neglect.

That was an amazing analogy. Because tetanus treatment is hella life-threatening.

[Uchuujinsan]

If you've known anyone who's had cancer and gone through chemo, you know its an incredibly ****ty experience, often worse than cancer itself.

Well, my best friend had cancer and chemo, and it was, well, unimpressive?
He was completely fine with it, didn't lose hair, didn't have to stay in the hospital.
Of course, it always depends on the type of cancer, but the "If you've known anyone..." part isn't correct :>

The idea of the chemo therapy is to poison the body, cancerous cells grow faster, take in more poison, and die faster than the rest of the body. Obviously, that will be dangerous (and certain types of cancer can hardly be treated like this)
But it's still better than a(n almost) guaranteed death due to the cancer itself.

For me, allowing parents to refuse such a treatment for their child is quite similar to allowing the parents to shoot their child.

Btw, am I mistaken or are the people who would forbid people to have an abortion the same as those who would allow the parents to be responsible for the death of the child in this case..?

[Knight Templar]

If you've known anyone who's had cancer and gone through chemo, you know its an incredibly ****ty experience, often worse than cancer itself.

For me, allowing parents to refuse such a treatment for their child is quite similar to allowing the parents to shoot their child.

That's the thing though - it's not your call. It shouldn't really be the judge's either. He's a judge, yes. But he's not the child's parent. And as you already pointed out - every chemo case is different. That only means that every case  should be considered case by case. In this case, the parents are the ones responsible for making the choice.

Btw, am I mistaken or are the people who would forbid people to have an abortion the same as those who would allow the parents to be responsible for the death of the child in this case..?

I don't know what this means, only that this isn't about abortion.

[redsniper]

Blargh. Choosing not to give the kid chemo and severely reducing his chances of survival are, of course, foolish. The bigger issue here though, as has already been stated, is whether parents should have the right to make such bad decisions.

It irks me sometimes how much people here get off to religion-bashing. I acknowledge that plenty of bad has been done in the name of religion, but there's plenty of arguing to be done about state vs parent guardianship here. You've got like five other threads to argue religion.

[NGTM-1R]

That was an amazing analogy. Because tetanus treatment is hella life-threatening.

It's actually quite a good one. Chemo's extremely unpleasant (perhaps we should compare rabies shots instead?) but not terribly life-threatening either.

[karajorma]

KT's actually right about religion on this one. Religion isn't the problem here. I don't think it's the reason why the parents are doing something phenomenally stupid. They took their child to have a session of chemo and then decided against it. That's not a religious objection then since if the objection was really on religious grounds they wouldn't have taken him at all.

What is actually going on apparently is that they decided to take him for treatment, decided not to go ahead with it and then claimed it was against their religion because they assumed that would give them a stronger argument then "Because we don't want to"


What is under discussion here is where a parent's rights over a child end. I doubt that there is anyone here who is going to argue that the state shouldn't step in when there is a case of neglect or abuse. The question is whether this qualifies.

So let's ignore religion, it's irrelevant to this argument really.

[Knight Templar]

KT's actually right

QFT.

Note that aside from providing an alternate point of view, I haven't really taken a side. All I'm trying to point out is that it isn't always a clear decision on what's best for a loved one. On top of that, it sets a ****ing bad (if you like your individual rights) precedent if the judge tells the family they have to take their kid to Chemo. If the judge can rule that, you can set a legal precedent where Gov. decides how to best cure and treat your problems. This isn't even to mention medical costs to the family.

The real issue here is whether or not the parents are over (or under) stepping their bounds as legal guardians of the child by not taking him to chemo. I know you all hate religion. I don't care.

Should you be allowed to not take your children to chemo if they have cancer? THINGS TO CONSIDER: Chemo might not save them. Chemo sucks. You want to avoid prolonged suffering. You're sure that there are other medical treatments with less ill impact.

Should Gov. be allowed to tell parents how to treat parents? THINGS TO CONSIDER: First cancer, then any disease. First disease, then parenting - slippery slope. Who is Gov to tell you how to help your family if it goes against your personal beliefs?

And before anyone says so, nobody wants the kid to die. But I'm sure we can all mostly agree that medical treatment against him (or his parents') will is probably not the best way to save him.

[Fury]

Huh, I have to agree with KT on this one. Well said.