Arrest warrant issued for mother of boy resisting chemo (Mom flees with son)

[Ian David]

Source: Associated Press

A Minnesota judge has issued an arrest warrant 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 is ordering that Daniel Hauser be placed in protective custody so he can get proper medical treatment for Hodgkins lymphoma.

Daniel and his parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, were due in court Tuesday to tell the judge results of a chest X-ray. But Daniel's father was the only one to appear. He told Rodenberg that he last saw Colleen Hauser on Monday evening, and she told him she was leaving. He said that was all he knew.

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


Read more: http://www.startribune.com/local/45423747.html

---

See also:

The case of chemotherapy refusenik Daniel Hauser: I was afraid of this

Category: Alternative medicine • Cancer • Medicine • Politics • Quackery
Posted on: May 19, 2009 4:00 PM, by Orac

Maybe I was wrong.

I praised the decision of Judge Rodenberg last Friday, in which he placed chemotherapy refusenik Daniel Hauser in the custody of his parents and ordered them to take him to an oncologist and have him undergo repeat staging studies in order to determine the extent of his Hodgkin's lymphoma. I did mention my one reservation was that leaving Daniel in the custody of his mother did run the risk of their fleeing to avoid the court order. Unfortunately, shades of Katie Wernecke, that's exactly what they appear to have done:

<snip>

This is, of course, disastrous for Daniel, as there is no way of knowing how long it will take for child protection authorities to find them. Meanwhile, his tumors are growing. It also makes me wonder if Anthony Hauser agrees with his wife and her decision to support Daniel's rejection of chemotherapy, given that he didn't go with them. I'm having a hard time deciding if he's an accessory or simply unable or unwilling to challenge his wife on this. Either way, the path is clear now. When Daniel is found, now there will be no choice but to take him the custody of his parents.

My only fear now is that the Judge will broker some sort of dubious "compromise," as was done in the case of Katie Wernecke, allowing her to travel to Kansas to undergo high dose vitamin C therapy, or Abraham Cherrix, who was allowed to accept a highly questionable and dubious form of "immunotherapy" in addition to radiation therapy and instead of chemotherapy.

<snip>

Of course, if Daniel dies, the alt-med enablers who facilitated his death will blame the initial course of chemotherapy and the stress of the court, rather than admit that their woo doesn't work and they led him to his death.

More:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/05/the_case_of_chemotherapy_refusenik_danie.php

[Old Coot]

1. See this other thread on this subject:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3884311&mesg_id=3884311

[emilyg]

2. Chemo works. I'm

living proof.

[bobshin]

3. Good to hear you regained your health but...

that doesn't mean it works. Almost everyone I know who went that route died from the chemo, not from the cancer. But that's not proof of anything either.

[emilyg]

4. In my nursing days

I've seen many people cured with chemo. I am very sorry your experiences have not been good. This boy has a 90% chance of chemo helping - I'd go for it. Tough decision for his parents.

[Lars39]

5. I'm alive because of chemo also.

I would have been dead within a year without aggressive treatment.

[bobshin]

6. I find that statement interesting...

if you believe chemo works, and as many here believe that it's immoral not to use chemo on this kid, how would you know if you survived because of the chemo or in spite of it?

I know several people who believe that cancer can't live in someone that eats only raw food. But how would anyone know? A study of such a belief would never be allowed on moral grounds and it's a theory that the medical industry would not tolerate. Who would fund such a study? Who would make money- the incentive- to discover such a result?

Living in the midst of a community that went through the "aids" crisis, I witnessed many who died from AZT poisoning. The original case studies for AZT use to treat "aids" were stopped for moral reasons. Instead of finding out if the drug was effective, the study was never permitted to play out. As a direct result, many people who died of "aids" in the late 80's and early 90's actually died of the overly high doses of AZT. Everyone using that drug became the guinea pigs because the initial study was stopped.

[Lars39]

15. Because I had a tumor the size of a golfball, with lymph node involvement.

I was staged at 3b, with there only being 4 stages. You are seriously misinformed if you think chemo does not save lives.

[Dogtown]

13. They died from cancer, not chemo.

Chemo can help but it often doesn't. Cancer is pernicious.

For now, chemo/radiation/surgery are all we have to fight cancer. It's a mistake to blame an innefectual cure as the cause of death, though. For some, perhaps only a few, chemo helps them reclaim a bit of life.

[DesertDiamond]

11. I'm happy for you. I know 16 people in the past four years who have had chemo

Most of them have died already. Some directly because of the chemo. I have one more friend who has been on it for years and appears to be on her last legs, with a horrible quality of life for the entire time. I know three more who have made it through, but with horrible destruction to their bodies, requiring surgery after surgery to try to repair the damage. Are you saying that becaus it worked for you, these parents should be forced to put their child through this?

[LittleGirl]

7. Wait a minute: What's the difference...

between forcing this family to give chemo to the kid or forcing a woman/teen/child to have a child or to have an abortion? Please educate me because I don't see any difference here. The gov't is telling this family what to do to their son's body?

If I had cancer, it is still my choice to have medical intervention, isn't it? If I choose not to, then why have a COURT decide for me. I don't care if I'm 12 or 50. It's my body, my decision!!!

I can say all day long, keep your laws off my body in regards to abortion, why not chemo?

[ChazII]

8. Interesting question. n/t

[LeftyMom]

9. There's a standard here called "informed consent"

Since there's ample evidence, aside from age, that the boy can't give informed consent- he's developmentally disabled, does not believe that he is sick, and is unable to read in order to learn about his disease and treatment options. Normally in minors in that case, the parents decide. However, in cases involving medical decisions or other parenting issues where the parents do not appear to be acting in the child's best interest, the courts sometimes step in to defend the rights of the child.

In a case like this where the parents' belief does not appear to be bona-fide (the religion is an obvious scam, they started chemo before their sudden conversion to the church of woo) and because neither the parents nor the child appear to understand that he is sick and will die without real, effective treatment, the courts can and should step in.

As for your goofy argument about abortion: first of all please do not equate girls, teens and women. And again the informed consent standard applies.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[timtom]

14. Precisely my point several days ago on a similar thread.

The issue is quality of life. Whether that means longevity at whatever cost, so be it. It is that person's decision. The court has no say in this matter.

[galileoreloaded]

10. It is really hard to make people do stuff they don't want to do....

isn't it??? Funny how that works.