Minn. Judge Rules Teen Must See Cancer Doctor

I just had a brain hiccup. Was this boy ever found? Was there a mention somewhere in this thread that the mother was found in Maryland?
 
jillio said:
Yes, he can. If the guardian ad litem gives informed consent, then the doctor can treat. The guardian ad litem speaks for the child. Just as a parent speaks for a child. My son never wanted to get a shot, either, but as his parent, I made those decisions and authorized the doctor to treat him. A child doesn't want to eat vegetables and would much prefer a steady diet of sugar. But a child does not always know what is best, and what is best is rarely what they want. That is why children, as minors, are not afforded the same rights as adults.
Click to expand...

but this is not a simple shot in his butt or feeding him broccoli. This is several sessions of chemotherapy which he will be sick and vomiting. One can logically assume that with a poor mental health (because he felt violated and disgusted) along with his weakened health due to chemotherapy, his chance of survival is will go down.
 
Jiro said:
I just had a brain hiccup. Was this boy ever found? Was there a mention somewhere in this thread that the mother was found in Maryland?
Click to expand...

As of two days ago, they both were seen in southern California. They're believed to be headed for the Mexico border.
 
Jiro said:
I just had a brain hiccup. Was this boy ever found? Was there a mention somewhere in this thread that the mother was found in Maryland?
Click to expand...

No, that was a mother than had been ordered to get medical treatment for her 550 lb 14 year old that was experiencing complications that were putting his life in danger. Rather than comply with the court order, the mother took the boy from NC to MD, where she was arrested, he was taken into state custody, and hospitalized.

The Hauser mother, if I'm not mistaken, is believed to be in Mexico.
 
Jiro said:
but this is not a simple shot in his butt or feeding him broccoli. This is several sessions of chemotherapy which he will be sick and vomiting. One can logically assume that with a poor mental health (because he felt violated and disgusted) along with his weakened health due to chemotherapy, his chance of survival is will go down.
Click to expand...

Sick and vomiting will pass just like a sore azz will pass. He will be alive. And no, chemo will compromise his immune system, but that is exactly what raises his chance of survival from the cancer.
 
I just read a very interesting blog written by a 3rd year medical student.

This is not about the rights of the family. It’s about the understanding of the family. You can make decisions about your healthcare, but they must be informed decisions. When they are not informed decisions, it’s hard for us to stop you from making them for yourself, we dont’ try. We can however, stop you from killing your child through ignorance. Sometimes. Sometimes we can’t. When we can’t it’s a tragedy. It’s not an exercise in freedom.

If Daniel’s mother had understood the options, and, separate from her religious beliefs, decided that there was a good reason not to do chemotherapy, this would be a different case too. If she said “Both Daniel and I understandd that not receiving chemotherapy is likely to result in his death. We understand that there is evidence that herbal therapies don’t work, and that my religious beliefs are no reason for him not to receive chemotherapy. I understand the actual risks and benefits of chemotherapy, but we would both still prefer that he not receive treatment,” then we’d be in a different situation.

In that case, Daniel and his mother would have made an informed decision that I disagree with personally. But thats their decision. That would be their right. That would be their freedom.

Freedom is only freedom with understanding. “Freedom” without understanding is really living in bondage to your ignorance.
Click to expand...

Daniel Hauser and Informed Consent
To say that you have informed consent mean that you understand the consequences of your actions.

To have given informed consent, a patient should know the following:

1. The patient’s diagnosis.
2. The purpose of the proposed treatment.
3. The risks and benefits of the proposed treatment.
4. The alternatives to this treatment, and the consequences of the alternatives.
5. The risks of NOT having the proposed treatment.
.......
If you accept Daniel is “old enough” to understand the issues in theory, which I don’t, he still doesn’t understand the situation will enough to have given or revoked informed consent for chemotherapy.

Any argument that includes with “medical choice”, “his right to be left alone”, “his right to refuse treatment”, “His family’s right to choose medical care” or “religious exemption” completely miss the point.

“His right to be left alone” and, “His right to refuse treatment”, require understanding of the treatments. The same goes for “medical choice”, which would have been a dubious argument to begin with.

“His family’s right to choose his medical care”, and “Religious Exemption”only apply if their choice does not constitute neglect. The court has already ruled that not accepting conventional treatment for a disease with a 90% cure rate is neglect. Please note, this is not particularly controversial. In fact we’ve talked about this before on this blog, in comments: If a Christian Scientist family walks in with their infant who has pneumonia, they don’t get to refuse antibiotics. It may be against their religion, but they don’t get to sacrifice their infant for their religion.
Click to expand...
 
another interesting argument (but a little crazy).

Do parents have the right to protect their children from poison?
Today, the mother of 13-year-old Daniel Hauser is on the run, having skipped out on the Minnesota court that ordered her to poison her own child. She is now considered criminally negligent by the state -- a parent who belongs behind bars and will likely be imprisoned when she is arrested at gunpoint.

And yet, I ask you this: What else could she have done? To appear in court and submit her child to chemical injections of a toxic substance would amount to child abuse. She is doing what any sensible parent would do: She's protecting her child from the poisons of the world, and standing up against the tyrants of modern medicine who so desperately seek to exploit her child for profit that they have actually turned to enforcing their business at gunpoint in order to do so.

It is interesting that pharmaceutical medicine is the only industry in America that's forced to recruit its patients at gunpoint.

I call it Gunpoint Medicine, and it is exactly as it sounds: The enforcing of medical quackery at gunpoint.

It is also interesting that conventional medicine is so utterly (and arrogantly) convinced that its chemicals are the one and only solution for any disease, it now believes those who seek other healing modalities should be arrested and imprisoned.
Click to expand...
 
jillio said:
Since medical treatment for this particular child is what we are discussing in this topic, I assumed any reasonable person would understand what I was talking about.
Click to expand...
Please explain to me what determines whether or not a child has constitutional rights when it comes to medical decisions. Why do some children have rights, and some don't?
 
jillio said:
...This family has been identified as Catholic. There is nothing in the Catholic Doctrine that would prohibit receiving medical care. In fact, the Catholic Doctrine would certainly not support this mother's actions that will ultimately lead to the death of her child as a result of medical neglect. They don't have a "religious" leg to stand on in this case....
Click to expand...
...The family practices a Native American faith called Nemenhah, Colleen Hauser said....
Click to expand...
MPR: Family lands in court over son's cancer treatment
 
jillio said:
There you go. That is what I have been saying all along.
Click to expand...

understandable but problem is - we don't know what was being said between them since it was behind the closed door. and plus - the end result is still same even if they said the right thing. Granted - they didn't say it right but the intention is still same. They're refusing chemotherapy. If they want to seek alternative medicine in Mexico, they are free to do so.
 
jillio said:
What is your point Jiro? The boy does not have the constitutional right to make decisions regarding his medical care. That is why the arrest warrant has been issued for his mother.
Click to expand...
I thought the warrant was for the mother not making a court appearance.

...The boy and his mother were last reported seen Monday in Minnesota. When mother and son failed to show up at a court hearing Tuesday, Brown County District Judge John R. Rodenberg issued an arrest warrant for Colleen Hauser....
Click to expand...
Father appeals to his wife to return with their cancer-stricken son - CNN.com
 
Foxrac said:
What happen after couple of mother and son has went to Mexico to prevent any treatment that ordered by judge and does judge made any wrong to say or force?
Click to expand...
First problem, getting them back to American jurisdiction. If American authorities can't bring them back to the United States, then the boy can't be forced to undergo chemotherapy. They have to return to the U.S. before anything can be done.
 
jillio said:
And that is where you are wrong. The end result is the issue, and that is exactly what the courts have looked at in this case.

It has already been determined that with chemotherapy, he as a 90% chance of being cured.
Click to expand...
Jiro asked, "What would happen if he died from chemotherapy as ordered by court?" He didn't ask about the success rate of the procedure but about the safety of the procedure itself.

Jiro, yes, children can die from the effects of chemotherapy. That's one of the risks that is covered by the doctor prior to signing the informed consent form.
 
Reba said:
Jiro asked, "What would happen if he died from chemotherapy as ordered by court?" He didn't ask about the success rate of the procedure but about the safety of the procedure itself.

Jiro, yes, children can die from the effects of chemotherapy. That's one of the risks that is covered by the doctor prior to signing the informed consent form.
Click to expand...

I have a question regarding chemotherapy: what's the odds of a child dying from chemotherapy?

I would think it's devastating for a parent to watch their cancer stricken child suffer from chemotherapy but for most it's a better alternative than having to go to their child's funeral.
 
Back
Top