Minn. Judge Rules Teen Must See Cancer Doctor - Page 8

jillio · 05-22-2009, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

which is what I said in my post - the judge has ruled him incompetent. what's next is that I'm just expressing my concern for Daniel especially about doctors treating him against his will.

Well, this is not the first time that cases like this have gone to court. Generally, when removed from parental influence that has been creating the negative situation, they are compliant and cooperative. They object not so much because of any deep seated belief on their part, but because they are simply doing what they believe their parents want them to do.

jillio · 05-22-2009, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwin

Agree. But there are doctors out there that don't believe in alternative therapies and in that scenario, I would look for another doctor that is willing to work with me.

Nothing prevented this family from doing that. They did not. Therefore, they were in violation of the law concerning medical neglect of their child.

AlleyCat · 05-22-2009, 05:49 PM

For whatever courage Daniel's mother think she has mustered by being on the run and "saving" her son from so-called barbaric treatments, I hope she can find that same courage to attend her son's eventual funeral.

**Jiro** · 05-22-2009, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Absolutely. A doctor cannot fail to report suspected neglect or abuse simply because a patient is famous. They are mandated by law to report to the governing agency any and all cases of suspected abuse and neglect. The agency then investigates, and decides what action is appropriate and in the best interest of the minor child through the legal channels set forth to do so.

I guess we'll never know!

05-22-2009, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Nothing prevented this family from doing that. They did not. Therefore, they were in violation of the law concerning medical neglect of their child.

I wonder if the family ever asked their doctor about combining alternative therapies with western medicene?

Probably will never know the answer.

jillio · 05-22-2009, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

that still doesn't answer my question. Sure there will be guardian for him but what about the boy himself? The doctor still cannot treat him against his will even if the legal guardian consented to it.

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.

jillio · 05-22-2009, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwin

I wonder if the family ever asked their doctor about combining alternative therapies with western medicene?

Probably will never know the answer.

Not according to the reports. They simply refused to take him in for medical treatment and were attempting to treat him at home via the internet.

**Jiro** · 05-22-2009, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Well, this is not the first time that cases like this have gone to court. Generally, when removed from parental influence that has been creating the negative situation, they are compliant and cooperative. They object not so much because of any deep seated belief on their part, but because they are simply doing what they believe their parents want them to do.

oh! interesting....

I suppose we'll just have to sit and wait. Since the child is so deeply brainwashed (supposedly)... I imagine that there will be a long session with psychologist to explain it to him.

jillio · 05-22-2009, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

oh! interesting....

I suppose we'll just have to sit and wait. Since the child is so deeply brainwashed (supposedly)... I imagine that there will be a long session with psychologist to explain it to him.

Yep. It is not unusual at all. Especially in the case of any kind of abuse and neglect.

05-22-2009, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Not according to the reports. They simply refused to take him in for medical treatment and were attempting to treat him at home via the internet.

That's scary! People actually believe everything they read on the internet?!

jillio · 05-22-2009, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwin

That's scary! People actually believe everything they read on the internet?!

Evidently, these people did.

**Jiro** · 05-22-2009, 05:57 PM

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?

**Jiro** · 05-22-2009, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

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.

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.

AlleyCat · 05-22-2009, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

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?

As of two days ago, they both were seen in southern California. They're believed to be headed for the Mexico border.

**Jiro** · 05-22-2009, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlleyCat

As of two days ago, they both were seen in southern California. They're believed to be headed for the Mexico border.

ah.

jillio · 05-22-2009, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

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?

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.

**deafskeptic** · 05-22-2009, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

DANG!! Busted!

How come I'm not busted?

jillio · 05-22-2009, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

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.

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.

jillio · 05-22-2009, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafskeptic

How come I'm not busted?

I guess shel didn't catch you!

**Jiro** · 05-22-2009, 06:28 PM

I just read a very interesting blog written by a 3rd year medical student.

Quote:

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.

Daniel Hauser and Informed Consent

Quote:

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.

**Jiro** · 05-22-2009, 06:32 PM

another interesting argument (but a little crazy).

Quote:

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.

jillio · 05-22-2009, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

I just read a very interesting blog written by a 3rd year medical student.

Daniel Hauser and Informed Consent

There you go. That is what I have been saying all along.

jillio · 05-22-2009, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

another interesting argument (but a little crazy).

Well, no one ever said that there weren't other people out there as misquided as theHauser woman.

**Reba** · 05-22-2009, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

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.

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?

**Reba** · 05-22-2009, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

...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....

Quote:

...The family practices a Native American faith called Nemenhah, Colleen Hauser said....

MPR: Family lands in court over son's cancer treatment

**Jiro** · 05-22-2009, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

There you go. That is what I have been saying all along.

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.

**Reba** · 05-22-2009, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

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.

I thought the warrant was for the mother not making a court appearance.

Quote:

...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....

Father appeals to his wife to return with their cancer-stricken son - CNN.com

**Reba** · 05-22-2009, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

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?

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.

**Reba** · 05-22-2009, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

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.

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.

**deafskeptic** · 05-22-2009, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

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.

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.

05-22-2009, 05:57 PM	#222 (permalink)
Jiro Aparecium Deletrius Legil Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: The Soprano State Posts: 60,553	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? __________________ - Don't forget to buy Jiro's Special Edition Sunglasses for $19.95

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

05-22-2009, 05:49 PM	#213 (permalink)
AlleyCat Registered User Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: In my time zone Posts: 10,827	For whatever courage Daniel's mother think she has mustered by being on the run and "saving" her son from so-called barbaric treatments, I hope she can find that same courage to attend her son's eventual funeral.