Minn. Judge Rules Teen Must See Cancer Doctor

[Reba]

Faith versus logic. Yes, total hypocrisy. That makes it difficult to see her point. Save an aspirin-sized growth in a womb, but support parents with an unusual religion to allow their 13 year old child to die. It ain't logical! In the minds of the hard core religious, we may as well remove hospitals and install more churches. Wonder how many of them send money to the 700 Club and their ilk? How many watched, with some sadness, the end of the PTL empire? An air conditioned dog house, while Jim and Tammy would weep for more money. Oops, am starting to show my cards here....

Since you asked, I will reply.

I've never sent money to the 700 Club, PTL, or any televangelist.

 

[saywhatkid]

Since you asked, I will reply.

I've never sent money to the 700 Club, PTL, or any televangelist.

We agree. I have not either. I did not ask whether or not you did, same as you did not ask me if I contribute to NARAL. I believe I said "I wonder...." And by the way, I do not contribute to NARAL. But it still runs just fine without my support. Here is a link: NARAL Pro-Choice America

 

[Reba]

They are Catholics. They only found the information on Nemenhah when they started browsing the internet. You cannot adopt a religion out of convenience to support your desire to allow your child to die. If they had been practicing such a religion for some length of time, and lived by all of its principles, then the court would have taken that into consideration. But the fact of the matter is that this family is identified as Catholic.

It doesn't matter to me what they call themselves. What is your problem? I only posted the links to clarify what kind of religion that group claims to be. I'm neither supporting or slamming them. It's not a well-known group, so I thought a little background info could be useful.

I don't know when or what reason the family began "practicing" that religion.

So what if they're identified as Catholic? For some people that means, "Oh, my parents were Catholic, and I was baptized a Catholic when I was a baby, and I confirmed when I was a kid." To others, it means a life of faithful devotion and service to their religion. The names "Catholic," "Christian," "Protestant," and "Jew" are too often bandied about as identifiers without substance.

I know people who are called Catholic but practice voodoo, who are called Jews but have never seen the inside of a synagogue, and who are called Christian but have never read the Bible. So? Bottom line is, we don't know how "catholic" this Catholic family is. None of the stories I read mention their parish priest advising them but they do mention the lady lawyer who is also a member of the Nemenhah Band.

None of us really knows that much about the family's background.

 

[Jiro]

None of us really knows that much about the family's background.

and also none of us know what was being discussed between the families and doctors & judge - thus we don't know if the families made an Informed Consent.

 

[naisho]

Why would that be right, yet in this case, the courts are wrong?

The way I personally assess this situation is this. In America, we have the "freedom" to pursue any religion or belief anyone chooses to follow. Whether be it the aforementioned cult of J Jones, Manson's "The Family", The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the Mormons, the Neo-Nazis, any of these associations all share the common ground of individual decision to partake in their beliefs regardless of what is right or wrong.

Who decides it is right or wrong, are the others who evaluate the ones who are in those groups, and entirely an opinion that should be formulated on their own rather than accepted as a standard.

Remember, as blind as a person may be or Mama Hauser/her son in this case, this is what they adamantly chose to follow when presented both forks in the road.


The rest of the "aftershock" issues and problems are what I personally consider a sub-tier to the overall problem. They exist, I will agree with you that you have a point there, but they still only exist because of the main problem.

There is no way I am supporting any individual's decision in a particular religion or belief, the only words I have to say is that this is what they chose in the first place. In America's Freedom of Religion there are bound to be some odd loops and tacks that make themselves questionable, but overall this is the freedom our country has instilled onto them in the first place.

Now, the personal choice of individual opinion is another story.

 

[Jiro]

The Children of God in Montanna practice pedophilia, and claim it as a religious belief. Should they be protected from prosecution for having sex with children just because they say their God tells them to?

And the laws of this land also are set forth to protect those that do not have the means nor the capacity to protect themselves. That is why they are called minors. And if the parents prove to be unable to protect and care for these minors, the state steps in to do so.

It amazes me that a few who are so vocal against the idea of abortion will support a parents right to hasten the death of a 13 year old that is a live and viable human being. Talk about total hypocrisy.

Faith versus logic. Yes, total hypocrisy. That makes it difficult to see her point. Save an aspirin-sized growth in a womb, but support parents with an unusual religion to allow their 13 year old child to die. It ain't logical! In the minds of the hard core religious, we may as well remove hospitals and install more churches. Wonder how many of them send money to the 700 Club and their ilk? How many watched, with some sadness, the end of the PTL empire? An air conditioned dog house, while Jim and Tammy would weep for more money. Oops, am starting to show my cards here....

Yes, but also consider this....what if someone like Jim Jones was the forefront of the religion she chooses to follow. Or Koresh? I still am not seeing this as a good thing for the child. He has been raised to believe in his mother and her religion. Why is the father calling for her to return? So what happens if/when the child dies? Will she insist it is "God's Plan?" The other question I have here; what about the insurance, if there is a policy on this child. Should they be required to pay for his treatment in Mexico? Should the life insurance be paid if this child dies? The thing is, if they (family) rebuff the court system in this instance, what rights do they have if the insurance company refuses to pay; are they going to use the court system to sue for payment? Why would that be right, yet in this case, the courts are wrong?

what in the world are you guys talking about??????? religion?? abortion?? pedophile?? good gracious... can't you see the big picture in here?

First of all - it's about whether or not the family made an Informed Consent. Here's a cliff note -
1. Daniel went to hospital to take 1st stage of chemotherapy.
2. The parents were horrified about the effect it had on him.
3. They refused to go along with 5 more chemotherapy sessions.
4. The doctors reported them to authority for medical neglect

A Possible Precedent which is what I'm gravely concerned with in the future - I'm an Asian Buddhist who is a strong believer of Asian medicine - an alternative medicine with holistic approach. I'm not a strong believer in modern medicine because I don't like chemicals, radiation, drugs, etc. The thought of chemotherapy frightens me.

Let's see what happens in the future -
1. My child has a cancer.
2. The doctors assured me that 6 sessions of chemotherapy has 90% success rate.
3. My wife and I said to doctor - thank you but no thanks. I do not wish to have a chemotherapy for our child. We are going to Korea for alternative medicine.
4. Doctors got angry with us and think we're dumb deaf people. Then they reported us to authority for medical neglect and the judge took my child away and charged us with child neglect.

Now you see what's wrong with this picture? If we allow this to happen to Hauser family, then I'm sad for this country.

 

[saywhatkid]

The way I personally assess this situation is this. In America, we have the "freedom" to pursue any religion or belief anyone chooses to follow. Whether be it the aforementioned cult of J Jones, Manson's "The Family", The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the Mormons, the Neo-Nazis, any of these associations all share the common ground of individual decision to partake in their beliefs regardless of what is right or wrong.

Well said. I am just not sure I agree with some of the religious doctrine of all these groups. The NeoNazis, for instance, would consider a Boot Party* as a sacrament, same as a Catholic would consider Holy Communion. Should both of these sacraments be allowed under law?
* Boot Party is where a group of these members surround an object of hate, i.e. an African-American, and kick/stomp the crap out of them.

 

[Jiro]

Informed Consent - AMA - American Medical Association

Informed consent is more than simply getting a patient to sign a written consent form. It is a process of communication between a patient and physician that results in the patient's authorization or agreement to undergo a specific medical intervention.

In the communications process, you, as the physician providing or performing the treatment and/or procedure (not a delegated representative), should disclose and discuss with your patient:

* The patient's diagnosis, if known;
* The nature and purpose of a proposed treatment or procedure;
* The risks and benefits of a proposed treatment or procedure;
* Alternatives (regardless of their cost or the extent to which the treatment options are covered by health insurance);
* The risks and benefits of the alternative treatment or procedure; and
* The risks and benefits of not receiving or undergoing a treatment or procedure.

In turn, your patient should have an opportunity to ask questions to elicit a better understanding of the treatment or procedure, so that he or she can make an informed decision to proceed or to refuse a particular course of medical intervention.

This communications process, or a variation thereof, is both an ethical obligation and a legal requirement spelled out in statutes and case law in all 50 states. (For more information about ethical obligations, see the AMA's Code of Medical Ethics, contained in the AMA PolicyFinder. Providing the patient relevant information has long been a physician's ethical obligation, but the legal concept of informed consent itself is recent.

The first case defining informed consent appeared in the late 1950's. Earlier consent cases were based in the tort of battery, under which liability is imposed for unpermitted touching. Though battery claims occasionally occur when treatment is provided without consent, most consent cases generally center around whether the consent was "informed", i.e., whether the patient was given sufficient information to make a decision regarding his or her body and health care. Because informed consent claims, unlike battery claims, are based in negligence, they generally are covered by liability insurance.

To protect yourself in litigation, in addition to carrying adequate liability insurance, it is important that the communications process itself be documented. Good documentation can serve as evidence in a court of the law that the process indeed took place. A timely and thorough documentation in the patient's chart by the physician providing the treatment and/or performing the procedure can be a strong piece of evidence that the physician engaged the patient in an appropriate discussion. A well-designed, signed informed consent form may also be useful, but an overly broad or highly detailed form actually can work against you. Forms that serve mainly to satisfy all legal requirements (stating for example that "all material risks have been explained to me") may not preclude a patient from asserting that the actual disclosure did not include risks that the patient unfortunately discovered after treatment. At the other extreme, listing all of the risks may not be wise either. A comprehensive listing will be difficult for the patient to understand and any omission from the list will likely be presumed undisclosed. If you are using a form that contains a list, consider, with your attorney, inserting language indicating that the list is not exclusive (such as "included, but not limited to") before the list begins. Medicare participating physicians must also be cognizant of CMS's requirements for informed consent.

Again, this is general knowledge you can use when you ask for further information and advice from qualified attorneys and/or other professional consultants. If you need a referral to a qualified attorney, please contact your state medical society.

 

[saywhatkid]

what in the world are you guys talking about??????? religion?? abortion?? pedophile?? good gracious... can't you see the big picture in here?

First of all - it's about whether or not the family made an Informed Consent. Here's a cliff note -
1. Daniel went to hospital to take 1st stage of chemotherapy.
2. The parents were horrified about the effect it had on him.
3. They refused to go along with 5 more chemotherapy sessions.
4. The doctors reported them to authority for medical neglect

A Possible Precedent which is what I'm gravely concerned with in the future - I'm an Asian Buddhist who is a strong believer of Asian medicine - an alternative medicine with holistic approach. I'm not a strong believer in modern medicine because I don't like chemicals, radiation, drugs, etc. The thought of chemotherapy frightens me.

Let's see what happens in the future -
1. My child has a cancer.
2. The doctors assured me that 6 sessions of chemotherapy has 90% success rate.
3. My wife and I said to doctor - thank you but no thanks. I do not wish to have a chemotherapy for our child. We are going to Korea for alternative medicine.
4. Doctors got angry with us and think we're dumb deaf people. Then they reported us to authority for medical neglect and the judge took my child away and charged us with child neglect.

Now you see what's wrong with this picture? If we allow this to happen to Hauser family, then I'm sad for this country.

It seems as though religion is at the core of this issue, along with your own take on the situation. As for allowing it to happen, seems as though Mom has already taken the matter into her own hands. Why does the father have no say here? Lets suppose you have this child with your wife (I do not know you, so I am just assuming you are gonna be married and have a child) What if you want to fly to Korea, and your wife wants to use the USA/chemo/radiation treatments? Why would your values weigh more than hers, and why would it be different for you than the father Hauser?

 

[Jiro]

It seems as though religion is at the core of this issue, along with your own take on the situation. As for allowing it to happen, seems as though Mom has already taken the matter into her own hands. Why does the father have no say here? Lets suppose you have this child with your wife (I do not know you, so I am just assuming you are gonna be married and have a child) What if you want to fly to Korea, and your wife wants to use the USA/chemo/radiation treatments? Why would your values weigh more than hers, and why would it be different for you than the father Hauser?

here's a thing about your argument - that is between my wife and I. Of course this is same old classic parents fighting and disagreeing with each other for centuries. As long as it's between us, that's fine. If we cannot agree on something, then we'll simply go to family court and the judge will decide whose custody to assign to.

But in this case - doctors and judge are telling us what to do with the child and they know what's best for the child. They even went so far to trump up criminal charges against them! Yes the religion is part of it but it's not the core thing of this issue. It's their RIGHTS that's at stake in here.

FYI - Both father and mother DO NOT want chemotherapy.

 

[shel90]

If it has been determined that the parent is engaging in practices that have directly endangered the life of their child, then yes, it is neglect. If it has been determined that the child is grossly obese (as in the case of the 550lb 14 year old) due to a medical condition that needs to be treated in order to control the obesity, then yes, that parent is guilty of medical neglect. If the child is grossly obese simply because the parent refuses to provide an adequate diet and discipline regarding eating habits, then that parent is guilty of simple neglect. Obese is not the issue. Life threatening obesity is the issue. Life threatening cancer is the issue.

It is just as if the parents were starving their children. I dont think anyone here would accept a parent's decision to starve their child but yet accept parents' neglect to combat their children's life-threatening obesity and refusing to allow medical treatment to combat deadly cancer? I see a contradiction here.

 

[shel90]

I think some people will invent a religion (cult) just to give themselves any excuse to abuse children.

 

[saywhatkid]

here's a thing about your argument - that is between my wife and I. Of course this is same old classic parents fighting and disagreeing with each other for centuries. As long as it's between us, that's fine. If we cannot agree on something, then we'll simply go to family court and the judge will decide whose custody to assign to.

But in this case - doctors and judge are telling us what to do with the child and they know what's best for the child. They even went so far to trump up criminal charges against them! Yes the religion is part of it but it's not the core thing of this issue. It's their RIGHTS that's at stake in here.

FYI - Both father and mother DO NOT want chemotherapy.

Wrong. There has been a change of heart by the father, as I mentioned. He wants them back to discuss as a family. Copy of article and link to follow.

 

[Jiro]

I think some people will invent a religion (cult) just to give themselves any excuse to abuse children.

they can go ahead and invent any religion they want. That's the beauty about America - the freedom of religion but you cannot abuse the children in any shape or form. That's why the authorities seized Waco and several other cults.

 

[Jiro]

Wrong. There has been a change of heart by the father, as I mentioned. He wants them back to discuss as a family. Copy of article and link to follow.

WRONG. I'm talking about the ORIGINAL intent at the TIME of discussion between doctors and parents, not LATER.

 

[shel90]

they can go ahead and invent any religion they want. That's the beauty about America - the freedom of religion but you cannot abuse the children in any shape or form. That's why the authorities seized Waco and several other cults.

Yea, that's fine if they invent a religion but if their "religion" forbids them to seek medical treatment for their children, should the govt stay out or seize that religion/cult?

 

[saywhatkid]

As a search for his wife intensified, Anthony Hauser urged Colleen to end her three-day flight from the law and bring their son home.

By WARREN WOLFE and BOB VON STERNBERG, Star Tribune staff writers

Doctor fears time is short for Danny

SLEEPY EYE, MINN. - The Daniel Hauser case took a dramatic turn Thursday afternoon when the boy's father, speaking from the family farm, urged Colleen Hauser to end her three-day flight from the law and bring their son home.

"I know you're scared," Anthony Hauser said to a bank of television cameras. "I know that you left out of fear, maybe without thinking it all the way through. If you're out there, please bring Danny home so we can decide as a family what Danny's treatment should be."

Daniel and his mother disappeared on Monday evening, fleeing from court-ordered treatment for the boy's cancer and triggering a nationwide manhunt.

Hauser's plea came hours after a felony arrest warrant for deprivation of parental rights was issued for Colleen Hauser.

The statement was issued in cooperation with Brown County Sheriff Rich Hoffmann, who met with Anthony Hauser earlier Wednesday in an effort to bring the drama to an end. County Attorney James Olson, who filed the original petition for court intervention, said he did not know of the arrangement before it happened but supported the idea.

"My interest is not in prosecuting Colleen Hauser but in getting Danny home,'' Olson said in an interview.

California authorities, with assistance from the FBI, are investigating a sighting of the Hausers on Tuesday morning in southern California. Olson said the new warrant, upgrading charges to felony level, would allow authorities in other states to arrest and detain Colleen Hauser.

As soon as Daniel is taken into custody, he will be returned to Brown County, placed into foster care and examined by a pediatric oncologist, Olson said.

Although Colleen Hauser could fight extradition from another state, "I don't know why she'd bother if we have Daniel," he said.

On Wednesday night, Hoffmann disclosed that Colleen Hauser and Daniel, 13, were apparently trying to reach Mexico for an alternative medical treatment to chemotherapy.

"We're hoping they're still in the country," he said Wednesday morning. "The sooner we find Daniel, the better."

Agents of the FBI and the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency are assisting in finding and detaining the Hausers. The FBI became involved once they crossed state lines, Hoffman said.

Crime alert issued

Daniel and his mother disappeared from their home Monday evening and failed to show up for a court hearing on Tuesday. The boy was diagnosed in January with Hodgkin's lymphoma, an uncommon but treatable form of cancer, and doctors recommended six rounds of chemotherapy and radiation. He and his parents stopped treatment after one session, citing religious and other objections. Doctors notified Brown County authorities, and Olson filed a petition for child neglect last month.

Hoffmann said it's unclear how the pair is traveling or who is helping them, but said Thursday that FBI agents had visited Marina del Rey, Calif., where a 57-foot yacht is anchored. The yacht houses the law office of Susan Daya, also known as Susan Hamwi, a California attorney who accompanied the Hausers to a medical appointment on Monday.

The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension has issued a national crime alert with a description of the pair and identifying two other adults who might be with them.

The Border Patrol was alerted and Hoffmann said authorities were trying to determine whether Colleen Hauser had a passport or other documents that might enable her and her son to cross the U.S. border.

The search has a special urgency because doctors fear Daniel's cancer could worsen rapidly if left untreated. Doctors have testified that the boy has a 90 to 95 percent chance of survival if he gets the recommended chemotherapy and radiation treatment, but only a 5 percent chance of living five years if he goes without conventional treatment.

Meanwhile, U.S. Border Patrol and Customs officials in California said they have been alerted about the Hauser case but would not say whether they are actively on the lookout for the pair.

Spokesman Vincent Bond said a daring escape across the U.S.-Mexico border is unlikely, although automobile traffic bound for Mexico is not as closely monitored as traffic coming into the United States.

Leaving the United States for Mexico can be as simple as driving down an interstate highway straight across the border without intervention by U.S. officials. Interstate 5 runs the length of California, and empties into Tijuana. In addition, southbound travelers can walk or drive through six ports of entry that are operated by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

The agency, in concert with other law enforcement officials, will conduct road stops based on specific intelligence on key dangers such as narcotics, drug money, fugitives and the trafficking of illegal goods. Cameras also capture images of every license plate leaving and entering the United States, Bond said.

Staff writers Curt Brown, Chao Xiong, Jenna Ross and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

Dad's plea: Please bring Danny back

 

[Jiro]

Yea, that's fine if they invent a religion but if their "religion" forbids them to seek medical treatment for their children, should the govt stay out or seize that religion/cult?

chemotherapy is not the only option there. there are several other ways to do it - Asian medicine, for example. If I want to go Korea for alternative medicine to treat this cancer for my child, should the authority and doctor charge me with child neglect and medical neglect?

 

[saywhatkid]

WRONG. I'm talking about the ORIGINAL intent at the TIME of discussion between doctors and parents, not LATER.

We disagree. I bow out now.

 

[Jiro]

We disagree. I bow out now.

there's nothing to disagree. you got the sequence wrong.

1. Parents said to doctor - "I don't want any more chemotherapy"
2. Doctors charged them with medical neglect

that's the point!!!