[Blue Lion]

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.

[Flipside]

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?

[Turambar]

When their kid dies, they should be tried for his murder.

[iamzack]

They won't be. At most it will be neglect, and they will get off real easy.

[FUBAR-BDHR]

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. 

[Unknown Target]

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.

[iamzack]

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.

[Scooby_Doo]

The mother is also wanted now... The local news reported she left and was required to show up in court.

[Solatar]

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.

[FUBAR-BDHR]

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.

[Uchuujinsan]

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...

[Grizzly]

Isn't the drawback to chemotherapy decreased resistence to other diseases?

[Mefustae]

Yeah, it suppresses your immune system for the duration of the treatment, but I don't think it's permanent.

[Unknown Target]

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?

[BlackDove]

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.

[Unknown Target]

Survival of the fitteeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeest.

[StarSlayer]

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?

[Flipside]

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...

[Goober5000]

FREEEEEEEDOOOOOOOOM.

Part of the price of freedom is allowing people to make decisions you disagree with.

[blackhole]

What about making decisions that put other people's lives in danger? Specifically, a child's life?