Minn. Judge Rules Teen Must See Cancer Doctor

[jillio]

This has absolutely nothing to do with the freedom to practice the religion of your choice. It is about the fact that no one has the right, under any law, to actively or passively murder their child. No one has the right to use religion as an excuse to create danger for another human being. When you do, you have overstepped the bounds of personal freedom and imposed your beliefs on another. That directly violates the concept of freedom.

Does anyone honestly believe that one should be able to hide behind the excuse of religious belief to abuse and neglect a child? What about those religions, and there are some in the United States, that believe that a child should be introduced to sexual activity as a toddler? Is that acceptable? After all, they are just exercising their right to religious freedom and expression.

 

[Dixie]

reviewjournal.com -- News - Experts conflict at trial of mom
Homicide by neglect - more than just an 'oopsie' on the mother's part.

Should Parents Who Call God Instead of the Doctor Be Punished? | Mother Jones
Another obvious homicide by neglect - the parents cited religious reasons for not taking their child to the doctor.

islandpacket.com | Woman pleads guilty to causing her 13-month-old son's death
Another child death by neglect - this one faces 25 1/2 - 30 years of prison time for the death of her own son, she also faces charges of abusing her boyfriends son.

Physical Neglect
Different forms of neglect as defined by a government agency.

There's tons more. The fact is that the mother looking at child neglect charges when she returns and the boy is still alive.

If he dies as a result of not getting medical care - she faces charges of child homicide by neglect at the very least.

 

[KarissaMann05]

EDIT: What if I don't want some medical treatments for my kids cos of it is against my belief and vegan belief? Will government force me to take my kids to hospital, they will arrest me for I don't do it or whatever reasons is?? =/

That is point.

 

[jillio]

EDIT: What if I don't want some medical treatments for my kids cos of it is against my belief and vegan belief? Will government force me to take my kids to hospital, they will arrest me for I don't do it or whatever reasons is?? =/

That is point.

If your actions will result in their death it ceases to be a matter of your right to practice religious freedom and becomes a matter of not providing for the health and welfare of your children.

Vegan is not a religion.

 

[KarissaMann05]

Well, then there is no such freedom of religions.

Vegan is not a religion.

Yes, I know. You forget vegan people do not want animal testing medical supplies nor I do. Mostly doctors never understand why non-testing medical stuff is important to vegans, they tend to give them some animal testings when they refused. Same with people never understand why religious beliefs are important to religious people, gov'ment forced to take kids to hospital, which is against their beliefs.

 

[Jiro]

And their actions have been shown to cause harm to their child. No where in the laws of this land does anyone have the right to create a situation so harmful so as to lead to a child's death. They do not have the constitutional right to murder their child through neglect. Period. It doesn't have anything to do with their freedom to direct their child's upbringing. It has to do with not providing for their child's health and well being. Your logic is completely convoluted. Unless, that is, you truly believe that parents have the right to invoke religious belief as justification for the death of a child, or the abuse of a child.

What I'm seeing here is that they want to use alternative medicine for their child. When it comes to incompetence and abuse, now that's a different story. I see no such mention of abuse or incompetence in this story - just a trumped up charge by government to get this boy a chemotherapy.

excerpt from OP's post

A court-appointed attorney for Daniel, Philip Elbert, called the judge's decision unfortunate.

"I feel it's a blow to families," he said Friday. "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."

"The Hausers believe that the injection of chemotherapy into Danny Hauser amounts to an assault upon his body, and torture when it occurs over a long period of time," Johnson said Friday. "They believe that it is against the spiritual law to invade the consciousness of another person without their permission."

The Hausers, who have eight children, are Roman Catholic and also believe in the "do no harm" philosophy of the Nemenhah Band. The Missouri-based religious group believes in natural healing methods advocated by some American Indians.

excerpt from sara's post -

The judge called the family's belief in holistic medicine, particularly Nemenah, a Native American healing practice, as "genuine and strong."

But despite their rights to believe as they wish, the judge said several Minnesota statutes require parents to provide "necessary medical care" to their children, and that "complementary and alternative health care" is not enough.
.........
"The Hauser's believe that the injection of chemotherapy into Danny Hauser amounts to an assault upon his body, and torture when it occurs over a long period of time," Johnson said.

"They believe that it is against the spiritual law to invade the consciousness of another person without their permission," he said.
.......
But, Johnson says, Daniel still plans to refuse to undergo chemotherapy treatment. The family believes that would be a form of assault that the courts cannot sanction.

Correct me if I'm wrong but doctors CANNOT perform the medical procedure against the patient's wish as it's against their medical ethics.

 

[Foxrac]

That's why I NEVER believe in freedom of religions! :roll:

What's wrong? What you want to be change?

 

[Jiro]

This has absolutely nothing to do with the freedom to practice the religion of your choice. It is about the fact that no one has the right, under any law, to actively or passively murder their child. No one has the right to use religion as an excuse to create danger for another human being. When you do, you have overstepped the bounds of personal freedom and imposed your beliefs on another. That directly violates the concept of freedom.

Does anyone honestly believe that one should be able to hide behind the excuse of religious belief to abuse and neglect a child? What about those religions, and there are some in the United States, that believe that a child should be introduced to sexual activity as a toddler? Is that acceptable? After all, they are just exercising their right to religious freedom and expression.

um.... child sex is a crime. child abuse is a crime. choosing the medicine for their child is not a crime.

 

[jillio]

Well, then there is no such freedom of religions.

Vegan is not a religion.

Yes, I know. You forget vegan people do not want animal testing medical supplies nor I do. Mostly doctors never understand why non-testing medical stuff is important to vegans, they tend to give them some animal testings when they refused. Same with people never understand why religious beliefs are important to religious people, gov'ment forced to take kids to hospital, which is against their beliefs.

The parents are free to practice any religious belief that they want to. They are not, however, free to use them as an excuse to justify causing the death of their own child. You are confusing the personal freedom to your belief, and the obligation under the law to provide for the health and welfare of any child that you bring into this world.

There are religions that believe that beating a child is not only acceptable, but recommended. Should parents be allowed to beat their children as a result? There are religions that believe that sex with toddlers is not only acceptable, but demanded by their religion. Should these people be permitted to sexually abuse toddlers as a result? There are religions that believe that human sacrifice is not only acceptable, but demanded by their god. Should these people be permitted to murder someone in the name of their religion? You can practice any religion you want to personally. You can subscribe to any religious belief you choose. But you cannot use it as an excuse to harm another human being.

 

[jillio]

um.... child sex is a crime. child abuse is a crime. choosing the medicine for their child is not a crime.

Under the law, it is. It is called "medical neglect." That is why an arrest warrant has been issued for this parent.

 

[jillio]

What I'm seeing here is that they want to use alternative medicine for their child. When it comes to incompetence and abuse, now that's a different story. I see no such mention of abuse or incompetence in this story - just a trumped up charge by government to get this boy a chemotherapy.

excerpt from OP's post




excerpt from sara's post -


Correct me if I'm wrong but doctors CANNOT perform the medical procedure against the patient's wish as it's against their medical ethics.

Alternative medicine has been shown to put this child in danger of loosing his life. That is medical neglect. The child is not under the care of an alternative practitioner. The mother is using techniques she found on the internet.

In your last statement, you are talking about a patient being competent to give or deny consent. It has already been determined that this child is not competent to give or deny consent. You are confusing the issues.

 

[Jiro]

Under the law, it is. It is called "medical neglect." That is why an arrest warrant has been issued for this parent.

excerpt from NY Times article

Doctors have recommended six rounds of chemotherapy followed by radiation. But after the first round left him ill and weak, Daniel’s parents refused to consent to any more. The second round, scheduled for March, was not administered. That was when the hospital reported the family to the authorities, charging medical neglect.

She only agreed to the first round of chemotherapy, she said, because she felt pressured by doctors, and because it was her understanding that the rest of the treatments were optional. And Daniel, she says, has opted not to continue.

“But if we don’t need any, then why?” she said. “Daniel made it clear he didn’t want it.”

Is a 13-year-old boy old enough to refuse medical care? Are well meaning, but possibly ill-informed, parents entitled to support and encourage him in that refusal? And what is a court to do if Daniel — who believes chemotherapy itself will kill him — physically refuses treatment? Tie him to a bed? Anesthetize him?

“I understand it would be difficult, but would you do it?” Daniel’s lawyer asked.

Answered Bostrom: “I don’t know.”

 

[jillio]

excerpt from NY Times article

Again, Jiro, it has been determined that Daniel is not competent to make informed consent decisions, so the fact that the mother states that "he didn't want it" is moot.

And, their refusal to consent to the medical treatment that gives their child a much increased chance of survival from a fatal disease is considered to be medical neglect.
Chemotherapy always leaves one ill and weak. What's your point here?

 

[Jiro]

Again, Jiro, it has been determined that Daniel is not competent to make informed consent decisions, so the fact that the mother states that "he didn't want it" is moot.

And, their refusal to consent to the medical treatment that gives their child a much increased chance of survival from a fatal disease is considered to be medical neglect.
Chemotherapy always leaves one ill and weak. What's your point here?

again - read the last part of my previous post.

Is a 13-year-old boy old enough to refuse medical care? Are well meaning, but possibly ill-informed, parents entitled to support and encourage him in that refusal? And what is a court to do if Daniel — who believes chemotherapy itself will kill him — physically refuses treatment? Tie him to a bed? Anesthetize him?

“I understand it would be difficult, but would you do it?” Daniel’s lawyer asked.

Answered Bostrom: “I don’t know.”

What do you suppose what should the doctors do? Perform the procedure against his wills?

 

[jillio]

again - read the last part of my previous post.



What do you suppose what should the doctors do? Perform the procedure against his wills?

Again, Jiro...read carefully. He is not competent to make those decisions. His will does not enter into it.

Do you think it is his will to die? How many kids do you know that willing submit to an injection of antibiotics to treat an infection? Give them a choice, and they will say, "Nope, no shot for me." Do they get the shot anyway. You bet they do. Why? Because it is in the best interest of their health and welfare, and because they are not competent to make such a decision for themselves.

 

[Jiro]

Again, Jiro...read carefully. He is not competent to make those decisions. His will does not enter into it.

Do you think it is his will to die? How many kids do you know that willing submit to an injection of antibiotics to treat an infection? Give them a choice, and they will say, "Nope, no shot for me." Do they get the shot anyway. You bet they do. Why? Because it is in the best interest of their health and welfare, and because they are not competent to make such a decision for themselves.

then I'm sad for this country. I'm especially saddened by your bold statement. I guess you're fine with the government putting an obese on healthy diet.

BTW - I cannot answer your question because I'm not Daniel Hauser. You'll have to ask him.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

It supposed to be up to teenagers, however there's common sense about they are required to have treatment, despite over religious problem.

If this man were adult then it would be his decision to receive a treatment or death.

If cancer don't treated so early then it would become more harder to fight it and alot of medical cost, additional with funeral cost too.

Accord the article of thread creator.

Doctors have said Daniel's cancer had a 90 percent chance of being cured with chemotherapy and radiation. Without those treatments, doctors said his chances of survival are 5 percent. Child protection workers accused Daniel's parents of medical neglect, and went to court seeking custody.

It says that Daniel has 90% chance to be cure with the help from chemotherapy. 90% is a VERY good chance. I would be understand if it´s less than 50% but 90%?

 

[Liebling:-)))]

I firmly believe that people have the right to religion and the right to choose which religion to believe in. We have freedom of choice. However, I do not fully believe that religion should interfere with medical needs, particularly if it's a parent making that decision for the child. A child is not old enough to understand the consequences of his/her actions if they choose to reject particular medical treatment, and know only what their parents have informed them. This particular child did not choose his religion, and could die if he doesn't get the treatment. The parents would rather see their child die than use proper medical technology? Very wrong indeed.

Therefore many religion beliefs can´t separate their belief with medicial issues.

 

[Foxrac]

Accord the article of thread creator.



It says that Daniel has 90% chance to be cure with the help from chemotherapy. 90% is a VERY good chance. I would be understand if it´s less than 50% but 90%?

Not for late stage of cancer.

It's only for early stage of cancer.

I don't know about how long that 13 years old boy got cancer.

 

[Foxrac]

then I'm sad for this country. I'm especially saddened by your bold statement. I guess you're fine with the government putting an obese on healthy diet.

BTW - I cannot answer your question because I'm not Daniel Hauser. You'll have to ask him.

I don't believe in government crap that control my life, especially overweight and obese.