Parents refuse to let son get Chemotherapy, he never showed up for court

[techboy]

I agree with Predicto (I think), though I didn't struggle with it at all.

A 13 year old is not competent (disabilities or not) to make this decision. We don't let 13 year olds sign contracts, and we shouldn't let them do this. It is up to the parents.

The parents, though, are being negligent in the eyes of the State. If they were refusing treatment for themselves, that would be fine, but they cannot do so in the case of the child.

Therefore, the compelling interest of the State is to force the child to accept treatment, since his guardians are not acting in his best interest.

Freedom of religion is not sacrosanct. Just as any other right, it must be weighed against competing issues. Fire in a crowded theater, etc. etc. blah blah blah.

It doesn't matter if this family's religion is right. They can be right while the state forces chemo.

[chow184]

Why do you think that?

If anything, I think it's pretty gutsy to defy a court order and do what they truly believfe is the right thing for their son.

They might very well be fools, but I dont think they're cowards.

And even if they are. Isnt that their right to be cowards?

they just have to live with the fact that they possibly caused their son's life to end prematurely.

I doubt they'd admit to it,but it's a cowardly thing to do. if you have cancer you fight it,you don't hide behind a book of belief. The human will to live can do some miraculous things,but sometimes those miracles need a little help. these parents don't want to give their son a chance at life.

[Midnight Judges]

Eh, you said you're not sure, I think you only get a cookie crumb.

Meh, your argument doesn't really work anyway. Just because someone is pro-choice doesn't mean they are pro-choice under every possible circumstance. Most folks have a point where they are no longer pro-choice, and a huge majority are against partial birth abortions with exceptions to save a woman's life.

So I think the argument that pro-choice = always against Government intervention in medical decisions kind of fails here.

[Hunter_R]

Works for me. Too bad these cooks have a bunch of other children, so their genes will be passed on for multiple generations. The kid seems like he'd rather die than take chemo, which is a good thing. He'll be getting what he wants. The parents probably won't feel too bad. They'll take solace in the fact that their son is "in a better place." Hopefully they stay in jail for more than a few years.

The courts should have removed the kid from his parent's custody.

[adamyesme1111]

I added a poll

[Slateman]

He's 13. He's old enough to know what cancer is and what death means. He don't wanna do it, the he shouldn't have to do it.

[adamyesme1111]

He's 13. He's old enough to know what cancer is and what death means. He don't wanna do it, the he shouldn't have to do it.

A mentally challenged 13 year old, who has been told by his parents that he has an 100 percent chance of living if he doesn't take the medicine because god will save him.

[Special K]

How frickin frustrating.

If this child ends up dying, I hope they can somehow prosecute the parents.

This is just ridiculous.

[bcl05]

The parents aren't cowards, they are stupid. If he dies, I think they should have the book thrown at them. What if he had appendicitis? Would they just sit around and let his belly rot, leading to lethal infection, when a simple operation would save him? Its true that it is possible that he might not die if he doesn't get chemo. Its also true that chemo's success rate in this situation is vastly better than God's. Come on... its fine to have strong religious beliefs, but not to kill your kid with them.

[stanleys]

People are acting like chemo is the end all be all.

Plenty of others turn down chemotherapy or stop it after experiencing the side effects, including some of the brightest people you'd ever meet.

This isn't nearly as cut and dried as some would like to believe. I have no idea what was involved in this immensely personal decision between the child and his parents but as soon as "child" and "religion" are thrown into the discussion, a certain percentage automatically climb on their high horse and shout voodoo.

I'd much rather a court stay out of making these types of decisions.

[Thiebear]

Man this is a tough one:

13yrs old is on the edge of my range on (make your decision) as the Chemo is taking the patient to the EDGE of death and HOPING it works... not even close to 100% effective.

K17: (Vaccines help the public at large, not the individual so yes) No SwineBirdPoxPlague please.

I have girls: I'd give my own pieces to save them.

[Popeman38]

I agree with Predicto (I think), though I didn't struggle with it at all.

A 13 year old is not competent (disabilities or not) to make this decision. We don't let 13 year olds sign contracts, and we shouldn't let them do this. It is up to the parents.

The parents, though, are being negligent in the eyes of the State. If they were refusing treatment for themselves, that would be fine, but they cannot do so in the case of the child.

Therefore, the compelling interest of the State is to force the child to accept treatment, since his guardians are not acting in his best interest.

Freedom of religion is not sacrosanct. Just as any other right, it must be weighed against competing issues. Fire in a crowded theater, etc. etc. blah blah blah.

It doesn't matter if this family's religion is right. They can be right while the state forces chemo.

What is the difference between this and receiving blood transfusions? Without those, seriously injured people die all the time. Yet it is the parents right to refuse them for their child on religious grounds. Mormons have been doing it for decades.

You can't apply a "if this then" logic to this situation. If you could, we would not elect a president. We would input the data into a computer and allow the computer to solve the issue using bullion logic.

[SnyderShrugged]

nearly 95% of the people I know who were treated with Chemo, went through the hell that it brings to their bodies, then died anyway. They spent their last days on earth in pain, throwing up, and emotionally destroyed. This is a personal choice where the boy's wishes must be considered at a minimum.

[LaxBuddy21]

People are acting like chemo is the end all be all.

Plenty of others turn down chemotherapy or stop it after experiencing the side effects, including some of the brightest people you'd ever meet.

This isn't nearly as cut and dried as some would like to believe. I have no idea what was involved in this immensely personal decision between the child and his parents but as soon as "child" and "religion" are thrown into the discussion, a certain percentage automatically climb on their high horse and shout voodoo.

I'd much rather a court stay out of making these types of decisions.

Plenty of other people have different types of cancer where chemo is not that effective and they are still exploring the most effective medicine. If the parents were told chemo gives there child a 40% chance to live versus 5% without, it becomes an entirely different decision.

[LaxBuddy21]

nearly 95% of the people I know who were treated with Chemo, went through the hell that it brings to their bodies, then died anyway. They spent their last days on earth in pain, throwing up, and emotionally destroyed. This is a personal choice where the boy's wishes must be considered at a minimum.

You have a limited sampling. I work in cancer research. It all depends on the disease how effective chemo is. With many more severe forms of cancer, people do only get a 40% chance of recovery from chemo but that is the best chance we can give them at present. Other diseases have up to 90% chance like this one. If something gives you a reasonably better chance at survival than doing nothing, a rational person would attempt it. I said before, the line gets blurry when that chance is only 30-40% but when it is 90% I think the line is pretty clear.

[Dan T.]

People are acting like chemo is the end all be all.

Plenty of others turn down chemotherapy or stop it after experiencing the side effects, including some of the brightest people you'd ever meet.

This isn't nearly as cut and dried as some would like to believe. I have no idea what was involved in this immensely personal decision between the child and his parents but as soon as "child" and "religion" are thrown into the discussion, a certain percentage automatically climb on their high horse and shout voodoo.

I'd much rather a court stay out of making these types of decisions.

nearly 95% of the people I know who were treated with Chemo, went through the hell that it brings to their bodies, then died anyway. They spent their last days on earth in pain, throwing up, and emotionally destroyed. This is a personal choice where the boy's wishes must be considered at a minimum.

News accounts quote doctors as saying that this is a highly treatable form of cancer. Doctors give 90% chance of survival with treatment, and a 5% chance of survival with no treatment.

Chemo in this case is not a last ditch effort on a terminal patient. It is a routine, if difficult, life saving procedure.

[Kilmer17]

I have a really good friend whos son is autistic. She SWEARS that the MMR vaccine caused it. And she rallies against the use of the vaccine.

Without turning the debate into one re: causes of autism, should the State (ie the courts in this case) have the right to force my friend to have her NEXT child immunized?

I get it folks. I totally disagree with the parents decision in this case. And I personally would be giving my kid the chemo (even if he personally didnt want it). But the parents are the legal guardians. It's their call to make and only their call to make unless the state (ie courts again) remove their guardian rights.

What the court cannot and should not do, is force the parents to make a decision against their own beliefs/wishes etc.

They can take away the parents right to choose, but they cant force the parents to choose the way the state wants them to choose.

[BKSkinsFan]

My initial problem with this was that the kid appeared to be against getting the treatment. My niece is 13, they're not completely inept and unable to comprehend things. With this case, the mother is withholding information from her son, not letting the doctors explain things to him, like the fact that his tumor is back to its original size, and harming her child with her own ignorance.

Dr. James Joyce testified Tuesday that when he examined Daniel on Monday, the boy complained of severe pain around a "port" that had been placed in his chest in January to administer cancer-fighting drugs. The pain probably was caused by the tumor pushing at the port, Joyce said.

Joyce said he was ready to set an appointment for Daniel with an oncologist, and recommended doctors at Children's Hospital of Minnesota, the University of Minnesota or Mayo Clinic, but Colleen Hauser declined.

He said he also tried to give Daniel more information about lymphoma, but that his mother and a woman accompanying them -- who identified herself to the doctor as California attorney Susan Daya -- left in a rush, saying they had "other places to go."

Citing religious beliefs doesn't even appear to be the case actually.

"Daniel should be getting some treatment -- something," said Dan Zwakman of Cottage Grove, a member of a religious group to which Daniel Hauser and his mother belong. The group says it follows Native American traditions of healing using herbs and meditation.

"They said they were going to obey the judge's order, and then they take off. I don't know what they're thinking," Zwakman said.

Hauser said he was a "bit disappointed" that his wife didn't stick with the plan they had talked about. "We were going to present a treatment plan to the court. If they didn't go with it, we would appeal it," he said. Anthony Hasuer said he doesn't oppose chemotherapy but would prefer that it be given less frequently and in conjunction with alternative therapy.

A bit disappointed that your wife's actions are most likely going to result in your son being placed in foster care?

[SUSkinsFan]

I remember a few years back we had a case similar to this not too far from where I live. A 17 year old was diagnosed with cancer and refused chemo, instead choosing to go with natural remedies. One court said he had to report for chemo, on appeal the next court said he didn't. Luckily the last I heard the kid was doing alright w/o chemo.

I sided with the kid in that case because he was 17 and old enough to have an understanding of his decision.

That isn't the case here. This kid is 13 and at that age I don't think he is capable of making a decision like this. But I agree with what other posters have said. If he doesn't get chemo and dies, the parents should be charged with murder.

[December90]

How frickin frustrating.

If this child ends up dying, I hope they can somehow prosecute the parents.

This is just ridiculous.

So if he were to get the Chemo and still die would you prosecute the Judge and the Doctors who force the treatment on the kid?

[SUSkinsFan]

So if he were to get the Chemo and still die would you prosecute the Judge and the Doctors who force the treatment on the kid?

Only if they can prove it was the chemo, and not the cancer, that killed him

[Dictator]

That isn't the case here. This kid is 13 and at that age I don't think he is capable of making a decision like this.

In some instances (like a custody issue) the court will take a 13 year olds opinion into consideration.

Like Kilmer has been saying for pages now, if the courts want to determine a course of action for the child, they should strip the parents of their rights.

They should also foot the bill for the treatments.

[techboy]

What is the difference between this and receiving blood transfusions? Without those, seriously injured people die all the time. Yet it is the parents right to refuse them for their child on religious grounds. Mormons have been doing it for decades.

It's Jehovah's Witnesses, and that shouldn't be allowed either, if it's that way. It's fine for adults to refuse any treatment they want, but not to do it for children who are not mature enough to make their own decisions.

[SUSkinsFan]

In some instances (like a custody issue) the court will take a 13 year olds opinion into consideration.

Like Kilmer has been saying for pages now, if the courts want to determine a course of action for the child, they should strip the parents of their rights.

They should also foot the bill for the treatments.

Custody isn't a life or death issue.

[Dictator]

Custody isn't a life or death issue.

It's a life altering issue.