[syb0rg]

Cliff's Notes:

Kid has Hodgkin's lymphoma, 13 year old boy. Parents are from a small, religious group in Missouri that refrain from using modern medicine (they have medicine men, much like native americans did). Kid has chemo once, it shrinks the tumor, then parents refuse to take him to get it again. Docs say 90% chance of getting rid of tumor with chemo, 5% of living if untreated. Now a court legal battle between the state and the parents. Court says if tumor size is continuing to increase and docs say his life can be saved with chemo, they will order it.


Extremely interesting case. My guess is that the state will win. I feel for the kid. He can't possibly fully understand what's going on. My fiance has worked on the hemoc (hematology-oncology) floor at children's her whole nursing career (2 years). She's well into the top half of the seniority list, if that tells you anything about working on that floor. From the stories she's told me, chemo can be absolutely awful, and she's had families where all involved just wanted it to stop. Usually, it's the parents wanting to press on with kids that have a tiny % chance of making it, but the kid has lived on the same hospital floor for years and is basically waiting for "permission" from the parents to let go and die. I want to say the state is crossing the line here, but at the same time, I want the 13 year old kid to be given the best chance to live. Should he have to adhere to his parents' religious beliefs? The kid doesn't want the chemo, but is it his choice? Pretty complex stuff. Should parents have the right to essentially allow their kids to die, or be put in harm's way for religious reasons? Tough.

A 13-year-old boy's vow to resist chemotherapy by punching or kicking anyone who tries to force it on him will present doctors with a tough task if they can't change his mind.

A judge was due Tuesday to hear the results of his order that Daniel Hauser undergo a chest X-ray and his family pick an oncologist to be treated for Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Daniel and his parents stopped chemotherapy after one treatment and opted for "alternative medicines," prompting Brown County authorities to intervene. The cancer is regarded as highly curable with chemotherapy and radiation, but is likely fatal without it.

Daniel was scheduled for an X-ray Monday. His attorneys couldn't confirm he kept the appointment, and calls to the Hauser home rang unanswered.

"It can be very difficult to treat a 13-year-old boy who doesn't want to be treated," said Arthur Caplan, chair of the medical ethics department at the University of Pennsylvania. "I don't want to say it's impossible, but it makes it very tough on the doctors."

Last week, Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg ruled that Daniel's parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, were medically neglecting him.

Rodenberg said if a new X-ray showed a good prognosis, chemotherapy and possible radiation appeared to be in his best interest. Chemotherapy would not be ordered if the cancer was too advanced.

If chemotherapy was ordered and the family refused, Daniel would be placed in temporary custody. It wasn't immediately known where the boy might be treated or how medicine would be administered if he fights it.

Caplan said the medical community recognized a person's right to refuse treatments � but those rights didn't extend to incompetent people or children. Still, he said: "It is hard to treat someone who won't cooperate." Restraints could be used.

Officials at some Minnesota hospitals that treat cancer in children described several methods they would try to break through the boy's resistance.

Dr. Steven Miles, a professor of medicine and bioethics at the University of Minnesota Center for Bioethics, said a hospital may assign a companion to a child, or administer a sedative to relieve anxiety. Sometimes foster homes catering to medically ill children can help by providing a loving environment and education about what the child needs.

"The kid says he's not sick and the mom says she'll treat it if it's an emergency," Miles said of the Hauser case. "With cancer, if it's an emergency, it's too late."

Brian Lucas, a spokesman at Children's, said ethics experts met Monday to make sure everyone was up to speed on Daniel's case and plan for any possibility.

Caplan said he believes the judge made the right decision.

"This case falls, for me, squarely in the 'You've gotta get him treated' camp," Caplan said. "If it's not life and death, you might not push so hard. If it's not a proven treatment ... you wouldn't push so far."

But doctors may not have to follow the court order "if they feel it can't be carried out � if it's literally impossible to get a needle into this kid," Caplan said.

NEW ULM, Minn. � A judge issued an arrest warrant Tuesday for the mother of a 13-year-old boy resisting chemotherapy after the pair missed a court hearing on his welfare.

Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg also ordered that Daniel Hauser be placed in protective custody so he can get proper medical treatment for Hodgkin's lymphoma.

The cancer is considered highly curable with proper treatment, but Daniel quit chemo after a single treatment and with his parents opted instead for "alternative medicines," citing religious beliefs. That led authorities to seek custody. Rodenberg last week ruled that Daniel's parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, were medically neglecting their son.

The family was due in court Tuesday to tell the judge results of a chest X-ray and arrangements for an oncologist. But Daniel's father was the only one who appeared. He told Rodenberg he last saw Colleen Hauser on Monday evening.

"She said she was going to leave," Hauser testified. "She said, `That's all you need to know.' And that's all I know."

He said his wife left her cell phone at home.

The family's doctor, James Joyce, testified by telephone that Daniel's tumor has grown and he needs immediate assessment by a pediatric cancer doctor.

Joyce said he examined Daniel on Monday, with an X-ray showing that his tumor had grown to the size it was when he was first diagnosed.

"He had basically gotten back all the trouble he had in January," the doctor said.

Daniel was accompanied by his mother and Susan Daya, who Joyce said was an attorney from California.

Joyce testified that he offered to make appointments for Daniel with oncologists at Children's Hospital, the University of Minnesota, Mayo Clinic or elsewhere, but the Hausers declined.

He also said he tried to give Daniel more information about lymphoma but that Daya, Daniel and his mother left in a rush.

"Under Susan Daya's urging, they indicated they had other places to go," Joyce said.

Daya did not immediately return a page left on her cell phone Tuesday by The Associated Press. Her voice mailbox was full.

Besides examining Daniel's chest X-ray, Joyce also said he asked Daniel how he was feeling. The doctor said the boy told him he had pain on the right side of his chest, which Daniel rated a 10 on a scale of 1 to 10.

Joyce said the pain was around the port that was inserted into Daniel's chest to administer chemotherapy. He attributed the pain to the growing tumor, which is pushing the port out of place.

Daniel also told the doctor he had a cough, though he wasn't having any trouble breathing, Joyce said.

Daniel's court-appointed attorney, Phil Elbert, asked Joyce if Daniel was at risk of substantial physical harm if no action is taken. The doctor said yes.

In his ruling last week, Rodenberg wrote that he would not order chemotherapy if Daniel's prognosis was poor. But if the outlook was good, it appeared chemotherapy and possibly radiation was in the boy's best interest, he wrote.

Daniel's lymphoma was diagnosed in January, and six rounds of chemotherapy were recommended. Daniel underwent one round in February but stopped after that single treatment. He and his parents sought other opinions, but the doctors agreed with the initial assessment.

Colleen Hauser testified at the earlier hearing that her son "is not in any medical danger." She said she had been treating his cancer with herbal supplements, vitamins, ionized water and other natural alternatives.

Rodenberg wrote that state statutes require parents to provide necessary medical care for a child. The statutes say alternative and complementary health care methods aren't enough.

He also wrote that Daniel, who cannot read, did not understand the risks and benefits of chemotherapy and didn't believe he was ill.

Daniel testified that he believed the chemo would kill him and told the judge in private testimony unsealed later that if anyone tried to force him to take it, "I'd fight it. I'd punch them and I'd kick them."

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

from various sources....

stated here..... Yahoo! news


I'd like to keep this open for debate either if you feel the Government should step in and help the child or if you feel like the religious beliefs of the family should be keep.

If this turns into a debate
don't attack the poster in anyway - just attack the post.

[SevereDeceit]

I heard of a similar story less than a year ago where a 13 year old girl died because her parents would not take her to a doctor. They believed she would be healed through prayer, now her parents get to pray in their 6x6 cell, cause they got life in prison. The kid needs medical attention, if the parents won't do it, then someone else needs to step in and make sure that child receives the care he / she needs. This is absolutely absurd, shame on the parents...

[BergerKing]

As a cancer survivor and victor, I would support giving this boy a reasonable chance to live. He helps those that help thenselves.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[sodakitty]

This right here is proof of how some people/groups are using religion to keep from moving forward. Oy.

And now they disappeared. The mom and kid disappeared after the courts ordered chemo.

I mean, do they really believe that their god WANTS that child to suffer from cancer? WANTS that child to die from cancer? Prayer CANNOT cure cancer. Maybe it can help...a positive attitude, and believing you have a greater purpose and a diety that is caring for you personally, can help keep you alive. Same as someone who's a strong fighter and refuses to give in to the cancer.

Anyway.......now, when they find that kid and his mom, they should take the kid away.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[dontwalkhand]

The kid needs to be taken away, and given normal parents, who aren't religious fanatics.

Nothing against religion, but when it starts getting in the way of progress, and especially if its a matter of life and death, I am all for pushing religion aside.

[thinkamp]

This kid actually does not want to go through chemo because he thinks that is not God's way of helping him.

But as a story goes "There was a man stranded on flooding island so he prayed 'God please help me' a boat comes by 'Hey I'm here to help get on' he turns it down thinking God will help me and two more times someone comes by on a boat to help and turns those two down as well. The island floods and he dies and he gets to heaven and sees God and asks 'Why did you not help me?' God said 'I sent three boats and you turned them all down'!"

Same thing with the kid turning down chemo...God gave people the brains to be a doctor to help others yet the kid does not see that!

[syb0rg]

I personally see both sides of the story. As a future father i would want my child to be heathy and live a long life, and make something of himself.

but

from the stand point of religion - for them to heal the child they would have to sin in their eyes to put modern medicine into this child's body. And I personally would want to live with the idea that I made my god mad and send my child to **** for using modern medicine; or the idea that i'm going to **** because i had my kid go through treatments.

AND

Why should the government step in and make this kid do something that its pretty clear he doesn't want to do. And if they give this kid treatment against his will they are setting a precedent - to force medicine/medical treatments to future medical patients against their will. Which in turn will cause a ton of problems in the future.

[amazinglygraceless]

Why should the government step in and make this kid do something that its pretty clear he doesn't want to do.

For exactly that reason. HE IS A CHILD! If his parents are too stupid to see to
his care then someone, in this case the government, should compel them to.
Or take him out of their care as they clearly have not the wherewithal to be
parents. But make no mistake, this child is in no way capable of making this
decision. Especially after years of being inculcated by his ignorant, backwards
thinking parents.

And if they give this kid treatment against his will they are setting a president - to force medicine/medical treatments to future medical patients against their will. Which in turn will cause a ton of problems in the future.

The word is "precedent". These "slippery slope" arguments are becoming
as tiring as they are banal. We are talking about ONE desperately ill child.
Seeing to his care does not and will not in any way, shape or form set a
precedent. That is the same specious argument that was trotted out in the
Terry Schiavo matter and it has been roundly proven wrong. As it has so
many other times.

[SevereDeceit]

For exactly that reason. HE IS A CHILD! If his parents are too stupid to see to
his care then someone, in this case the government, should compel them too.
Or take him out of their care as they clearly have not the wherewithal to be
parents.

That's exactly my point right there...

[xxxxpradaxxxx]

1.) What ever happened to being able to practice religion freely?

Although I would never put a child through such a thing, I do feel that the government should have no say in such things.

Jehova's witnesses do not allow transfusions because they believe "God/Jehova/Whatever" gave them that blood, and they have no right to change that.

2.) This is a perfect example as to WHY religion is the BANE of all humanity and should be done away with.

Far to much death, destruction, and ignorance is tolerated due to religious freedom and practices. Between the wars in the middle east, and religion influencing public officials in office. It's all ridiculous, and should have been left in the dark ages long ago.

Regardless, that's how I feel- and there is no changing it.

[beavercountyemt]

Sry but god put these great brains on this earth to heal us. I'm sry but if my son god forbid have cancer. I'd want them to do everything possible to save him. I honestly feel that if this childs parents believe that chemo is not the right answer then they need to have their son taken away from them.

I'm all for letting each parent raise their children how they see fit but this story ond ones like it are totally absurd. Ur sentrncing ur child to death cause u fell it's gods way. I doubt it.

I honestly think some people need a off switch for producing children. Until u are a certain saneness or iq the switch is left off.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[xxxxpradaxxxx]

I'll play devil's advocate here-

If you need to pass a test to drive...

If you need to pass a test to get into college...

Then... why not to be able to do one of the most miraculous thing in the world?

Rearing a child is a much grander task than manning a vehicle.

You can just as easily raise a killer, just as much as you can run over a person.

[SevereDeceit]

Look, I do not have kids, but if I did I can tell you that nothing would get in the way of my child getting the proper care he / she needs, period... I understand the whole freedom of religion, i have nothing wrong with that. It's called being a parent and doing the right thing, if you think your child might die, then take them to a doctor, good god...

[amazinglygraceless]

Look, I do not have kids, but if I did I can tell you that nothing would get in the way of my child getting the proper care he / she needs, period... I understand the whole freedom of religion, i have nothing wrong with that. It's called being a parent and doing the right thing, if you think your child might die, the take them to a doctor, good god...

Why this ^^ is difficult to understand confounds me.

I will put my Catholic/Christian bona fides up against anyone's but if a doctor
says to me "this will save your little boys life" and my priest says "it is against
God's will" I will be dancing in h3ll for all eternity.

Religion and faith aside, no child should suffer, let alone die, because of their
parents ideology, which mind you, that child lacks the capacity to understand.

[SevereDeceit]

We are on the same page AG...

[ChefKitty]

I think, if he is thirteen and can't read, something else is going on..

An illiterate thirteen-year-old shouldn't be allowed to decide what medical treatment is right for him.

[Username0223]

Just an update people - as I'm eating breakfast with a cup o'joe- I read in The Record that the mother, Colleen Hauser, has taken off with her son, Daniel to avoid the chemo treatments. They were both last seen on So.Cali on Tues morn and authorities think that they may be in Mexico by now. The father, Anthony Hauser, has put out a statement pleading to his wife "to please bring Danny home so we can decide as a family what Danny's treatment should be."

If they refused to treat Danny before hand, will this actually make a difference his plea that he made to the mother??

(If this was already known-i apologize-it was just in The Record paper today )

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[jdoc77]

I hate to pull the old, "I have some experience with this issue..."

But.. um..I do!

Over the years I have seen many people refuse what I thought were life-saving treatments with varying results.

I will tell you about two cases in the ICU that came in through the ER where I work.

The first is a man who had metastatic colon cancer and refused surgery, chemo, radiation etc. after it recurred. He was 56 years old. Instead of traditional treatments which, I must admit, are harrowing (My own son is a liver cancer survivor) ... he opted for Cancer Treatment Centers of America. Six months after becoming a patient, I was there when they stopped life support on him in our ICU. I went upstairs to watch, because his wife asked for me...

The second is a woman who was a Jehova Witness and had severe anemia. I wasn't directly involved in her care, so I don't know why she had the anemia, only that 4 days after I admitted her, she died when nothing more than a blood transfusion would have saved her life.

I have also seen a young man on dialysis refuse medication that would reverse his anemia only to find... that after months of weakness, his red-blood-cell would rise several points on it's own... (this is normal, actually) ... but to him and his family, it was a "miracle"...

For kids, it's a totally different story, however... if we can remove kids from a house for abuse, we have an absolute responsibility to to care for them when they can't make that decision for themselves - and that includes the parents!

The congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Means one thing only... congress shall not ever sponsor (establish) a STATE religion. There is NO such thing as separation of church and state per se. Period. It's a misnomer.

[syb0rg]

The congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Means one thing only... congress shall not ever sponsor (establish) a STATE religion. There is NO such thing as separation of church and state per se. Period. It's a misnomer.

WikiBelieving with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State...no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities

This has nothing to do with "church and state" this has everything to do with the government forcing the child to under go treatment that the family wants nothing to do with. If this this child asked for help in any why/shape/fashion or form i would understand the state stepping in. but he hasn't. You can throw the "well he is unable to make sound choice" card. Then why can't we play it on pulling the plug on those in coma's or abortions?

(just food for thought)

like i said earlier i feel the child should be treated- on his or the parents own will but i feel the state government has no place forcing anyone to be treated if they are unwilling to be treated.

[amazinglygraceless]

MJ you cannot possibly be serious. This boy is thirteen and he can't
read, but you want to leave his care to (a) the parents that denied
him an education and (b) a child who again can't read and probably
has zero appreciation for the gravity of his circumstances.

One of the roles of government is to do the things for people that
they simply and realistically cannot do for themselves. This is
a prime case for government intervention.

In any right thinking persons mind this is straight up child abuse
and as such these "parents" have abdicated their rights to be such.

This child should not have to suffer and possibly die because the
people that brought him into the world are abject !diots.

And as to your WIKI quote, that is not from the Constitution or
any other of this nations founding documents. That is from a letter from
Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury (CT) Baptist to allay their
fears that the government would make Congregationalism the national
religion.

Pull up a copy of the US Constitution and do a word search. Neither the
word "church" or "separation" appear anywhere in it.

[jdoc77]

... i feel the state government has no place forcing anyone to be treated if they are unwilling to be treated.

By your reasoning, anyone who comes into my ER who has just attempted suicide... I should just... let whatever drugs they have put into their system, or injuries run their course while I stand back and watch.

Think about what you are saying.

[SevereDeceit]

Man, after that AG, I have nothing to say, but right on brotha...

[syb0rg]

MJ you cannot possibly be serious. This boy is thirteen and he can't
read, but you want to leave his care to (a) the parents that denied
him an education and (b) a child who again can't read and probably
has zero appreciation for the gravity of his circumstances.

One of the roles of government is to do the things for people that
they simply and realistically cannot do for themselves. This is
a prime case for government intervention.

In any right thinking persons mind this is straight up child abuse
and as such these "parents" have abdicated their rights to be such.

This child should not have to suffer and possibly die because the
people that brought him into the world are abject !diots.

And as to your WIKI quote, that is not from the Constitution or
any other of this nations founding documents. That is from a letter from
Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury (CT) Baptist to allay their
fears that the government would make Congregationalism the national
religion.

Pull up a copy of the US Constitution and do a word search. Neither the
word "church" or "separation" appear anywhere in it.

I said this isn't a Separation of church and state issue it's personal/family issue. And as far as my quote goes - I understand that. I'm aware that it isn't verbatim from the original document.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[exelant]

The child has been raised to have a set of beliefs that will lead him to his death, and his Mother choses to withhold the whole truth from him. He trusts her and she is betraying his trust. The end result is he will die because she withheld the knowledge he needs to make an informed decision about his own care. He is 13 and does not have a true understanding of what he is facing - or the consequences of his actions. In a case like this child services should save his life. Let him make life and death decisions for himself when he is an adult equipped with the maturity to understand - not before. His mother should be ashamed of herself. Let her take her own life, not that of her indoctrinated child.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[syb0rg]

By your reasoning, anyone who comes into my ER who has just attempted suicide... I should just... let whatever drugs they have put into their system, or injuries run their course while I stand back and watch.

Think about what you are saying.

I have - my mother who is a RN and my sister who was a ER assistant & now a XRay Tech both have helped suicide attempt victims, both agree with me on my statement that the state has no business mandating treatment.

1) The person who is laying on your ER table had a friend or family member bring them to you-someone wanted the treatment for that victim. Its obvious that they do not want treatment for this child.

With that being said - - -

2) No one has brought this child to the doctor to be healed. Has it crossed you mind that in certain sub cultures or sects that - someone that cannot produce a product or offer a service to their respective society are considered out cast and no longer needed/wanted. I have a really close friend of our family that has custody of a 30 year old man that has the intellect of a 3 year old. The man was born in England and the moment they discovered he was mentally ******** the put him up for adoption, and they have had him ever since, so please don't tell me that doesn't happen.

We are not in this families shoes - its very hard for someone on the out side looking in to say what should be done.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com