Dad of boy resisting chemo: He's left the country

[Doughboy71]

Source: Minneapolis Star Tribune

SLEEPY EYE, MINN. -- The father of Daniel Hauser said today he believes his son and his wife have left the country, but won't say where he thinks they have gone to keep out of reach of authorities.

"I have an opinion where they are, but I can't say I know," said Anthony Hauser, adding that he has placed a call to a telephone where he believes he can reach them.

Hauser specifically said he does not believe Daniel and Colleen Hauser have fled to Canada rather than subject their 13-year-old son to the chemotherapy that doctors believe is his only hope to survive cancer.


Read more: http://www.startribune.com/local/45489212.html

---

What a schmuk. Just tell them where the kid is.

[Warpy]

1. They must really want a dead kid

because that's exactly what they're going to get.

I just hope Mom's screwball religion allows him to get pain control toward the end, poor little guy.

In any case, the people they should start leaning on are in the cult. You can bet Mom had help and is probably still getting it.

[Hepburn]

2. And...they must really be looking for a prison terms for...

...the death of a child due to withholding medical treatment.

[snooper2]

3. yep

nt

[wroberts189]

65. Seriously ..you think they want prison? Get real. nt

[marshall]

38. The kid doesn't want the treatment either

A friend of mine went through months of nauseating chemo, and she died on schedule anyway.

[Pavulon]

44. The kid is a 13 year old puppet, with idiots pulling the strings

voodoo practitioners of all types are welcome to choose their course. They can not pass a death sentence on to a minor child because they "believe" in some alternate reality.

[Crunchy Frog]

48. The kid doesn't even believe he's sick.

He's in no position to make any kind of informed decision.

[Occam Bandage]

54. He's 13 and mentally retarded to the point of illiteracy.

He does not have the capacity to decide for himself.

[kickysnana]

51. He said pain was 10/10 when they did the xray last week. n/t

[Abecca]

61. They must really want a dead kid

Sometimes people can take it too far.

[handmade34]

4. I disagree

admittedly I have not followed the story in detail... as I know it this is a very delicate situation and I tend to support personal choice and even though the son is a minor, the parents should have considerable say in how their son is treated. I have seen much worse treatment of children whose parents followed the law and professional opinion to the letter.

[Hepburn]

5. From what I have read....

...with treatment there is 90% chance that the child will live.

Without treatment? About the same odds he will die.

What the child has is a very treatable form of cancer. I have a good friend who suffered through this same cancer back in the early 1980s. He had the "traditional" treatment ~~ and did have side effects. However, he is now in his 60s, now in great health w/ no lasting effects from the cancer treatment, has had an additional over 25 years of life ~~ saw his son graduate from college and law school and pass the CalBar. The father and son now practice law together.

IMO, the parents are making a huge mistake. What they are withholding is something that most likely ~~ by great odds ~~ will cure their child and he can thereafter live for a very long time with no adverse side effects.

JMHO

[Blandocyte]

6. In this case

a reasonable person would assume that the boy had the best chance at health by following the doctors' recommendations. In this case, then, our society, with its laws designed to help parents be responsible caregivers, should charge the parents with neglect at the least.

Remember, tho, I said "reasonable person" above. Many fundies are not reasonable. Again, society should rein in its radicals as we'd expect other cultures to do.

[handmade34]

28. good point

this story just makes me uncomfortable. I usually consider myself a rational, pragmatic (and reasonable) person. I get all the opinions posted here and agree 100% that fundamentalists are a bane to our society.

note: Many people accused of being "radical" overtime have turned out to be right and appropriate for our society.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

7. Kids don't have the luxury of

"personal choice." A thirteen-year-old can't sign contracts, join the military, have sexual intercourse, or drive a car. They also cannot make "informed" medical determinations.

That's the job of responsible parents.

A thoughtful judge has weighed the situation and issued - since you're not informed on this story - a fifty-eight page opinion. That's a very lengthy and comprehensive opinion for a case like this. And his determination was that the life of the child hung in the balance, that without this treatment, the boy will die, and so he ordered the parents to bring the kid in for the therapy.

The judge did, in a show of trust and respect, left the child in the legal custody of his parents. It now appears that that trust and respect were misplace.

Without the treatment, the boy is going to die. It's that simple, and it is NOT up to a sick thirteen-year-old child to decide what his treatment should be.........................

[handmade34]

19. I understand

and am not dogmatic about my stance. I am very sensitive about courts telling us what is best for our kids. Knowing all the facts is crucial to forming an intelligent decision or opinion and admittedly I don't know all details. I hope the best thing for the boy is done timely.

I wish ALL children who were suffering had the intervention of the courts and loving communities.

[moggie]

40. What if the parents withheld feeding?

What if they said "we believe that the best treatment for our son is to starve the cancer out of him"? Would it be reasonable for the state to stand idly by and let him starve to death?

[handmade34]

46. no, I think parents should do the best they can to

nuture, feed, shelter and keep their children safe and healthy. In this case I would hope the mother would allow her son to get treatment. My concern is with the point at which the state intercedes. Lot of fuzzy lines out there and I accept that this story may not be one of them.

I suppose because I have worked with so many abused children that also are suffering and so many times there is nothing done, I feel many times there are double standards, politics, money and other stupid things get in the way that has nothing to do with the care of the child... differnent argument I suppose

[northernlights]

10. hodgkins has a 90% *cure* rate with chemo

95% death rate without it.

Not remission. Cured, with normal healthy life after.

The boy will now almost certainly die.

[Hepburn]

12. That is exaclty what happened to my friend who had this form of cancer.

He is CURED.

[Warpy]

13. The five year survival rate is 98% with treatment

and the death rate from untreated Hodgkin's, especially in children, is much higher than 5%.

Bottom line? If somebody in that cult doesn't spill the beans soon, that kid will die, probably in agony because Mom won't consult a doctor for comfort measures.

[sledgehammer]

11. It's definitely a difficult one when you consider personal choice/freedom

But it also amounts to child abuse in some ways. A 13 year-old kid does not have the maturity to grasp the full picture.

If the child were an alcoholic, or a drug user, and the parents refused to let anyone intervene, that would be some form of child abuse. Granted, those things are illegal so it may not be the same ball park. But in the end there's a minor who needs intervention for his own good, and the parents are denying it to him.

The parents can not be seen as responsible parents in this situation, and I think the courts should have the child separated from them for a short while. Explain the entire situation to the kid - the survival rates, the side effects, the possibilities, the risks, etc. And if the child still refuses to go through treatment, then it becomes a bit tough. I can't see how tying someone down and forcing them to get treatment is a good thing.

But the parents need to be isolated from the child, and they need to clear up his brainwashing for a short time.

[Occulus]

14. Our religious freedoms should not extend to the point of putting innocent lives on the line.

That goes way too far, and if I could, I'd eliminate it for all religions.

This case, and others like it, go far over the line of religious freedom, IMO.

Oh, and- "the line" is where an innocent life will likely be lost if the tenets of that particular religion are "violated". We shouldn't allow that at all.

[sledgehammer]

18. But what if it's not religion...

Just a personal choice. Someone doesn't want treatment. Believes in natural therapy or whatever. Or in fatalism. Or believes that the treatment is more harmful (e.g. vaccinations/Autism). Or hates the medical profession altogether.

If the person has a mindset for whatever reasons (religious or otherwise) to prevent being treated, then can the state force that individual to be treated? And if so, then at what age does that authority end?

[Pavulon]

49. He can always blow his brains out when he turns 18..

settle it all up with whatever particular voodoo he has been culted into. minor children can not be held responsible for the stupidity of their parents. Parents cant decline blood transfusions or life saving treatment for any flavor of voodoo.

They can make those choices for themselves, not for their kids.

[sledgehammer]

52. There are 13 year olds who take their own lives.

And 13 year olds who murder others. So I don't think they necessarily will wait till 18 if they are so inclined.

I do agree that these parents are stupid, and I think the child should be taken away from them temporarily. But can a child refuse treatment? And can the state force them to receive treatment, even if he is brainwashed into not wanting it? I guess it comes down to who decides what's best for children. Parents? State? Child? Doctors?

Something like chemo is not a one shot thing - it's a process. If someone is unwilling to be treated, it's hard to treat them.

But I think that after talking to the child, and explaining everything to him, he will be more willing to be treated.

He needs to be separated from his parents asap!

[Pavulon]

93. Not making light of suicide, this topic has brought out the kooks

i mean the batshit insane. Since when is it ok to allow your kid to die for your belief system. Like letting a kid make the call in a divorce. They just get spun up by parents.

The child should be treated. What a mess this turned into. You think people would agree on this one.

[sledgehammer]

94. Of course the child should be treated

I don't think anyone denies that at all (except his a-hole parents).

The question is whether the state can force a child to receive treatment.

BTW, children may not make a call in divorce, but their voice is sometimes heard when they choose which parent to go to. And the state eventually decides whatever they see fit, regardless of the child kicking and screaming.

So with that precedent, the state might be able to force a child to get treatment. But it just concerns me where it goes from there. Can the state force a child to get immunized? It does in certain ways i.e. the children may not be admitted to school, etc. But they don't forcibly inject the child. And then what next?

It's that sort of stuff that brings up a lot of questions.

No one denies that treating this child is the right thing to do. But can you force a child to be treated by regular chemotherapy?

I think once you separate him from his effed up parents, you will have a child who is very, very willing to be treated. Get him away from his abusive parents asap!!!

[Zhade]

59. It's absolutely child abuse.

But then, so is forcing kids to go to church.

[sledgehammer]

80. I agree it's child abuse...

And I am 100% for temporary separation of the child from his parents.

But what next after that? Is it a good idea for the state to force this child (or any child for that matter) to receive treatment? Especially with a non-contagious condition.

This could open up a whole can of worms.

[Zhade]

91. It appears the state has the best chance of making a reasoned decision.

The kid can't (he's developmentally disabled). The parents can't (they're delusional). The state can (they have the facts -- that chemo has a 90%+ cure rate for this disease -- and aren't saddled with superstitious nonsense).

Yeah, it's tricky, but I side with the judge in this case.

[sledgehammer]

92. I tend to agree in this case

But I just get scared at the potential abuse if the state can decide what is better for you medically.

Regardless, the state needs to intervene here. At least put these parents away for a while! And then work on the child.

[ooglymoogly]

20. The key words here, which you seem to be missing,

"Only hope", only, that means only. Maybe you need to google that word.

[DeSwiss]

24. Maybe this is one of those details you might have missed:

"Philip Elbert, Daniel's court-appointed attorney, said he considers his client to have a "diminished capacity" for reasons of his age and the illness and that he believes Daniel should be treated by a cancer specialist. Elbert added that he does not believe Daniel -- who, according to court papers, cannot read -- has enough information to make an informed decision regarding his treatment."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/19/minnesota.forced.chemo/index.html?eref=rss_topstories">MORE

- He's 13 years-old and can't read.

[handmade34]

29. that is troubling

[aquart]

31. Are they believing God is going to relieve them of their imperfect child?

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

41. two works: "home skooled"

But I bet he can tell you all about the UN conspiracy to exterminate christians and legalize inter-species canine-feline marriage.

[Occam Bandage]

53. He's developmentally delayed. Mentally retarded. Can't blame the parents for that. nt

[LeftyMom]

66. Fuck that. My kid is homeschooled and was reading whole books unassisted when he was four.

The kid in the story is developmentally delayed. For that matter, his parents appear to be New Age fundies, not Jesus fundies. :shrug:

[moggie]

43. He's developmentally disabled

The situation probably hasn't been helped by his being home schooled by idiots: he might have done better if he'd had the benefit of experienced special-needs teachers. Instead:

Not only could Daniel neither read nor understand the affidavit he signed saying he preferred "native" treatments over chemotherapy for his Hodgkin's lymphoma, but he also could not read. Period. When tested by his teacher for entrance into a charter school, according to court documents, Daniel, who had been home-schooled, could not identify the following word:

"The."

http://www.startribune.com/local/45190127.html

According to the judge in the case, the kid doesn't even believe he's ill. So I don't much like the headline in the OP: it makes it sound like the boy has reached a reasoned decision, when this is not the case.

As for "native" "treatments": these are white folk playing at being Native American.

[Pavulon]

45. State yanks rights for idiots of all stripes

dont believe in transfusions for your kid, loose custody. It is simple, they cant kill their kid for personal belief systems.

These people are criminal scum, and stupid to boot.

[Zhade]

58. Parents have no right to murder their kid for their personal delusions.

NT!

[cboy4]

8. Why is it every story that causes me to shake my head is

associated with screwball religious people?

Unbelievable.

[MineralMan]

9. So, what's mom going to say to her son when

he's dying a few months from now? "Well, there it is. God's will, I guess." Will she say that?

Will she say, "Hmm...oh well. I thought it'd work. Guess not."

Or, "Sorry son, I guess we should have gone the other way."

Life's likely to suck pretty hard for mom before long. I wonder how much thought she's given to that.

[Posteritatis]

22. She'll probably just blame The Man

If they didn't make us flee the country without treatment in order to, uh, avoid treatment, none of this would've happened! Etc.

The kid's still alive right now, but as far as I'm concerned his mother's halfway to being a murderer already.

[Freddie Stubbs]

25. She can always blame it on the stress of having to go into hiding

[MineralMan]

26. Whatever the case, she still has to face a dying

young son, who was depending on her to do the right thing. I cannot imagine a worse situation for a parent. Seeing your child die, when you had the means to prevent that death, but chose some stupid religious nonsense instead. How would you live through such a thing.

Yes, chemo sucks. Dying of cancer sucks a lot worse, though. Mom will get to see the results of her misthough decision.

[DeSwiss]

30. Yeah, I figured Yahweh was involved in this travesty....

...some kinda way.

"The Hausers are Roman Catholic, but 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. Colleen Hauser testified earlier that she had been treating his cancer with herbal supplements, vitamins, ionized water and other natural alternatives."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-05-20-forced-chemo_N.htm?csp=34

- But that's all covered under the MWC.....

[mitchum]

33. It appears that they embrace two types of voodoo

how...openminded...of them

[MineralMan]

36. If praying to Jebus cured cancer, there would be lots and lots

of success stories to read. Oddly, it seems that all the successful stories also include medical treatment by the evil doctors. But, it was Jebus who did the healing.

If you pray and die, though, you'll hear that Jebus had another plan for you.

Feh! You might as well visit a shaman.

[mitchum]

37. Hey, he can't cure cancer and determine the winner of a high school football game at the same time

[question everything]

63. And the head of that religious groups calims that all he offers

is spirituality, not medical advice.

[joshcryer]

15. Surprisingly few people supporting murderers in this thread.

Wonder why, is it too early? The last thread had a lot of people supporting murderers.

[BadDonkey]

16. I am all for alternative medicine

but the organization in question sounds a little fishy

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. A little fishy?

You think that, maybe, it's because the guy running it did time in prison for medical fraud?

You are a master of understatement.

And welcome to DU!

[MineralMan]

27. Why are you all for alternative medicine?

Have you found that it works better for cancer than chemotherapy, radiation therapy, or surgery? Please provide some concrete examples of what makes you be "all for" what does not work.

I know of no evidence that alternative therapy for Hodgkins Lymphoma has any beneficial effect. Do you know of some such evidence? If so, point us to it, please.

[joshcryer]

34. The sad part of this is: *if* the kid is found and *if* he gets chemo and *if* he dies...

...then people (including some irrational people in this debate) will blame the chemo.

[MineralMan]

35. Yeah...that's true, sadly.

And the guy who founded this "native" religion is a convicted felon, besides. Convicted for fraudulent health scams. We, as a people, are horribly gullible, it seems. Nobody wants the side-effects of chemotherapy. So, the charlatans and quacks sell their services to desperate cancer patients. Then they die:

"Don't take that nasty chemotherapy! Come to Invincible Healing Acres and drink our pleasant-tasting natural cancer-fighting tonic while you get relaxing, restorative therapy in our mineral springs. Just $5000/week, and all without the vomiting and nausea traditional medicine makes you suffer. Click here to read the many testimonials from our clients."

(The above is not a come-on from any particular "alternative" health company. It is a pastiche of such claims.)

[Zhade]

60. How is quackery good for anything?

NT!

[krabigirl]

21. Poor kid :(

[madrchsod]

23. everyday that he does not have treatment the cancer gets a lot worse

from what i have read the mass is growing and the pain is severe. a mother who refuses to relieve her sons pain and suffering deserves what ever punishment the state and public deems fit.

[Cass]

32. I hope this boy can be found in time to get treatment for his cancer.

This is so aggravating. The cancer the boy has is quite treatable with chemo - by refusing this treatment they are likely signing the poor kid's death warrant. What is wrong with these people that they would risk their child's life like this?

[David__77]

39. Just one example of the problem of children being treated as personal parental property.

Children must be protected by the state, and that includes their most fundamental right - to life. The "family unit" must in no way be proclaimed to be paramount.

[handmade34]

42. I guess I'm the one playing devil's advocate here

just having a passionate discussion with my partner here and why this story disturbs me...
Yes, parents are care givers until children become capable of making decisions for themselves. My kid would get the treatment if I were the parent here but that does not negate my discomfort.
...and by reports, the father is not necessarily supporting the mother... maybe he isn't the schmuk

Gibran on Children.... (one of my guiding forces during formative years)
Your children are not your children. They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself...
You may give them your love but not your thoughts, For they have their own thoughts.
You may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them like you...

[Crunchy Frog]

47. This might be a good occasion to utilise waterboarding. n/t

[bemildred]

50. I just wish we were so concerned about making sure every child in the USA has food,

shelter, clothing, excellent education, and basic health care.

I'm OK with the kid getting chemo, FWIW.

[Jack_DeLeon]

55. Right or wrong parents alone should make the medical decisions for thier children...

unless the parents are intentionally causing harm, I see no reason for them to be denied the right to decide for their family.

Yes it sucks if the parents are hardheaded or ignorant, but its their right as parents, it is not the governments right to decide these things.

[question everything]

56. Will you say the same thing if the kid dies, which he may?

Hodgkin's lymphoma is treatable, and the first treatment did shrink the tumor. But a recent X-Ray revealed that the tumor is growing and is pressuring on his chest.

So, yes, they are intentionally causing harm.

[Jack_DeLeon]

57. Yes...

also they arent "causing" harm, they arent responsible for the cancer. Their actions certainly arent helping the situation, but they havent caused it.

Its would be sad if the child dies, but their are many children in the world and many of them die for one reason or another. We are currently in no danger of running out of children in the world, however we are certainly in danger of having more and more of our individual liberties taken from us by various levels of government deciding that they know what is best for us and that if we dont comply they will use force to make us. If this child dies his parents will have to live with it, not me, not you, so I say let them decide.

[Zhade]

62. That's total fucking bullshit. They don't have the right to kill their kid for their delusions.

You speak of liberty -- well, guess what? They don't have the liberty to force THEIR beliefs on HIM.

[WildEyedLiberal]

67. You speak about him as if he isn't a real person who deserves to live on his OWN merits

He doesn't belong to his parents! They don't have the "right" to let him die when his death is 100% preventable! Yeah, his parents will have to live with it, but HE won't be alive at ALL, and HE never had a choice in the matter. And that doesn't bother you at all?

God, DU is beyond fucked up.

[AlphaCentauri]

82. I don't think this boy is Terri Schiavo n/t

[jberryhill]

76. Sorry - it's about individual rights

The parents don't have the "right to decide" here.

Only an individual has the right to refuse medical treatment. When the individual is incompetent to make that decision, it is made on the basis of a "best interests" standard. That individual's right doesn't go somewhere else.

Same thing in the Schiavo situation. Neither the husband nor the parents had the "right to decide". The decision was made after a court determined, on the basis of evidence, what Ms. Schiavo herself would have wanted.

Children have individual rights and are not chattel of their parents.

[brendan120678]

88. Not wanting to bring in an unrelated procedure...

but if "parents alone should make the medical decisions for their children," what's your opinion on mandatory parental notification (or Court permission) for minors to get abortions?

[Jack_DeLeon]

90. I support it.

[wroberts189]

64. Leave the family alone myofb. What do you need? A Disney escape movie?

This poor family is going through extreme trauma, have disagreements with our institutions on complex decisions, they are getting the hell out of here with the kid .....and there are those here who basically say "off with their heads"..???

Sad....

[FunkyLeprechaun]

69. This is a treatable form of cancer

Without the treatment, Daniel's experiencing pain and suffering. This amounts to child abuse and I don't think the parents are fit parents.

By your reasoning and logic, you could support Haringey Council's decision to return Baby Peter to his mother (he suffered shocking abuse and neglect and died as a result of that).

[WildEyedLiberal]

68. No, parents don't have the "right" to commit negligent homicide

Parents don't have the "right" to beat their children.

They don't have the "right" to starve their children.

They don't have the "right" to sexually abuse their children.

They don't have the "right" to murder their children.

The fact that this is not agreed on by 100% of DU is dismaying in the extreme.

[Jack_DeLeon]

70. Any patient, or those responsible for them have the right to refuse treatment...

yes it will be sad if this child dies, but any patient absolutely has the right to refuse treatment. In the case of children that decision should be up to the parents not the government.

I'd hate to see how this country ends up if we make laws that take medical decisions away from individuals and gives it to the government all for the sake of "the children." :eyes:

[WildEyedLiberal]

71. No, you DO NOT have the "right" to decide that for another person

Wackadoo adults who believe in "faith healing" can refuse treatment all they like. They DO NOT have the RIGHT to impose their belief systems on a MINOR who IS NOT CAPABLE and does not have the FREEDOM of making that decision for him/herself.

Children are not property, and I'd really hate to live in your Libertarian fantasyland where they apparently are.

[Jack_DeLeon]

72. Parents have the right to decide for thier children...

or do you think that government should make all the decisions involving children instead of parents?

[LeftishBrit]

73. Government does make the decision that parents can' t kill, neglect or abuse their children

Do you think that parents should have the right to starve or beat their children if it fits in with their religious ideology?

[jberryhill]

78. "Government" did not make the decision here

I'm surprised a liberal does not get the concept of individual rights.

Children are people and have individual rights.

[jberryhill]

84. That's Not The Law

You are entitled to your opinion.

The law does not agree with you. The right of self determination in medical decisionmaking is not assignable, and a "best interests" standard will apply when parents refuse lifesaving treatment against imminent death.

[WildEyedLiberal]

89. Yes, if the parents' "decision" leads to the harm or death of the child

Do parents have the right to ritually abuse their children according to whatever arcane belief system they might choose to practice?

[jberryhill]

77. "or those responsible for them"

No, again, it remains the patient's right, and the patient's right alone.

The patient here is an illiterate 13 year old who does not believe he is sick. The decision was made on a "best interests" standard after full testimony and evidence from the child, the parents, and medical professionals.

[workinclasszero]

74. That poor kid just received the death penalty

from his own parents. WTF is wrong with these people!?

[ima_sinnic]

75. what about parents who can't afford such treatment? do "they" come after them also?

do these parents have the resources?
if they are opposed to medical interventions, might we assume they do not have insurance?

[AlphaCentauri]

81. That's my question too, who is paying for the treatment?

did the judge establish that doctors and hospitals must provide free treatment to save the boys live?

I knew a man who spend all his saving trying to save his 60 year old wife from cancer at the end she die, years later when he was diagnosed with cancer of the pancreas he almost lost his house and he toll his children not pay for any treatment so he die refusing to take the treatment, he didn't want to see his children going into bankruptcy trying to save him.

[NoodleyAppendage]

87. They have enough scratch to leave the country. In any event, this isn't about cash....

The child has a right to live. He has no control over his medical care (presumably that is the responsibility of his parents), but they gave up that right when their actions put the child in immediate danger (i.e., "faith healing" crap).

J

[The2ndWheel]

79. Are a people of, by, and for the government?

Is a child of, by, and for the parents?

As is usually the case, does it come down to might makes right?

You've got the child, the parent, and the state. Is the parent an inefficient middleman in the process of ensuring that the child grows up to be a productive tax paying member of society? How can we leave so much of the child's life to chance? The state tries to help, but there are still too many variables if you have the state requiring one set of standards, and the parents with a possibly different set of standards. That is a waste of time, money, energy, and resources. Should the role of parent be eliminated outside of a professionally trained, government regulated, occupation? As we've seen in this post, there are any number of ways a parent can screw up a child. How can a society that needs to function efficiently allow the type of diversity that exists in the parent/child relationship to continue?

[davsand]

83. There is nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing parents the right to kill the kids.

I'm pretty sure I'd have remembered if that little gem was in there...

The parents have decided they will choose to kill this child rather than give him chemo, and as a result he's gonna die. I don't think you can hide this behind a "right to religion" argument, nor do I think you can hide it behind some notion of the sovereignty of the family. Pure and simple they are choosing to kill this kid.

On a completely different note, I do think this one probably does something to affirm Darwin, and THAT makes me feel kinda queasy.


Laura

[proteus_lives]

85. If he dies, prison for them both.

Mom and dad, the rest of their lives. They may as well put a bullet in his head.

[NoodleyAppendage]

86. Let the kid die then and then charge both DUMBASS PARENTS with 1st degree MURDER.

If there ever was a test case for the responsibility of the State to protect persons from DUMBASS religious bullshit, this would be it. Unfortunately, it looks like its going to require the death of a child to pull this one into the sphere of the Justice Dept.

J

[Nevernose]

95. If the kid were bleeding profusely and the parents refused to help...

If the kid were bleeding profusely and the parents refused to help, citing religion as their reason, would the people opposed to chemo agree to that? Basic first aid is a facet of Western medicine after all, and has a lot more evidence to support it than treating a compound fracture with medicine and vitamins does.

If the kid had, say, a compound fracture. He was bleeding. The doctor could administer antibiotics and clean the wound before resetting the bone, and the parents refused because their son didn't want it (he's in shock and feels no pain at the moment and is terrified at the inevitable pain of resetting the broken limb) or because they believe that doctors are just tools of Big Pharma (or well-meaning dupes of Western Medicine). Instead they want to treat the broken bone with prayer and vitamins. If not treated soon, the boy will die from the infection and/or blood loss.

Do we say, "Well, the kid in junior high has clearly made the choice that's best for him?" Do we say, "It's the parents' decision?"

The hypothetical scenario I've set up is in no way different than a the poor kid with Hodgkin's whose family won't get it treated.