AP reports that 13-year old Daniel Hauser with his mother Colleen returned to Minnesota yesterday, after Daniel's father Anthony urged them to come home. Daniel Hauser, who has Hodgkin's lymphoma, had objected to treatment on religious grounds, and his mother fled with him after a Minnesota court overruled the objections and ordered her and her husband to obtain a new X-ray and select an oncologist for Daniel. The X-ray revealed that a tumor in Daniel's chest had grown. (See prior posting.) The arrest warrant that had been issued for Daniel's mother was lifted after their voluntary return. The FBI believe that Daniel and his mother may have been heading for one of the many alternative cancer clinics in northern Mexico. Daniel is now being evaluated at a hospital in the Twin Cities, according to the Hausers' attorney. CNN reports that while Daniel's mother intends to urge the court to permit alternative cancer treatment, she will allow her son to undergo chemotherapy if that is ordered.
UPDATE: The St. Paul Pioneer Press reports that at a May 26 hearing, a Brwon County judge retruned custody of Daniel Hauser to his parents after the parents agreed to drop their objections to his receiving chemotherapy.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Minnesota Boy's Mother Returns Him For Cancer Treatment
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
6 comments:
It seems unconstitutional for parents to be unable to choose an alternative cancer treatment for their child. Since when did our government and medical professionals decide that chemotherapy is the only acceptable form of treatment for cancer? In this case, the medical profession seems convinced that chemotherapy will cure this boy’s cancer, yet they have also stated that the cure rate is for five years. The child did complete a round of chemotherapy which is several treatments. Anyone who has watched the devastation of a cancer patient undergoing chemo would have to sympathize with this family. I am not anti-traditional medicine-or pro-alternative medicine--but I am an American who believes the courts should back off this family and allow them to seek other forms of treatment for their son if that is what they want.
What bothers me the most about this case is that our US medical professionals (and courts) are pushing this so very hard and I wonder why?
Will they soon decide to treat every patient (adult or child) they way THEY SEE FIT? Will this action lead to our own inability to choose what form of treatment we receive because "big brother knows best” and we are under their protective care without the ability to decide our own course?
According to the news, a police officer was placed at this mother's door after she returned with her son, even though the boy was taken into custody by the Social Services! This seems a bit scary to me... for all of us.
I think you are missing the point here, patricia.
It has long been the policy of the courts that when making decisions about the welfare of children, that the court must look to the best interests of the child.
The idea that deciding that a near-illiterate minor who has been deemed unable to be capable of making medical decisions for himself must receive the best medical care known to exist to treat a fatal disease will somehow lead to 'big brother' deciding medical care for everyone is pretty absurd.
Until a minor is old enough to make medical decisions for himself, someone must make decisions for him, and parents have no legal right (nor moral right if we want to examine that side of things) to choose to kill their children through their own ignorance. If necessary to protect the life of a child, the state will take the child away from the parents.
'Big brother' hasn't made any advances in the field of telling adults that they must give up their autonomy to determine medical care for themselves in the past century that the policy of determining that parents don't have the right to kill their children, and something tells me that 'Big brother' isn't going to come knocking on your door anytime soon, either.
What are courts and medical professionals supposed to try to treat the boy with, anyway? Chi realignment therapy? Examinations of his Chakras? Holding various crystals up to his body? Prayers? Thankfully, we live in a society in which a court can dutifully look to treatments which pass the "Does it work?" test instead in order to find a treatment which has a chance of extending the boy's life.
When he becomes an adult and wants to die with his disease with all of the accompanying autonomy that being an adult carries, he's free to reject treatment then. Until then, he's a minor - an individual legally incapable of making such decisions in his interests by virtue of his age and inexperience.
--MD
Perhaps you are the one missing the point-this very same court system that you uphold also tries children as adults—yes-children as young as age eight or nine are frequently retained in adult (not juvenile) facilities. So with this type of horrendous inconsistency, do they really know what is best for our children? I don’t think so!
You asked what type of alternative treatment could be used on this thirteen year old boy other than using “Chi realignment therapy,” “examinations of his Chakra,” or “holding various crystals up to his body.” I am not familiar with those practices that you mentioned, but they sound somewhat similar to the use of bloodletting and leeches that were used by doctors and approved by the American Medical Association into the late 19th century! As for your critical remark about prayer, in 1998, Duke Medical Center did an extensive study on this topic and found that patients who were prayed for by people they did not know (in Nepal, Jerusalem, and Baltimore,) did 50–100 percent better than those not in the prayer groups.
There are many highly regarded alternative medical clinics in America, and all across Europe that have a high success rate in treating cancer. Some use lower dosages of chemo, along dietary immune system boosters, while others focus solely upon immune system enhancement. All are directed by qualified medical doctors who do not necessarily view the treatment of cancer through one narrow lens. For many years, Max Gerson, M.D., treated advanced cancer patients and other chronic debilitating illnesses with dietary therapy and many were cured. The Gerson Therapy was established as a major contribution to the medical field through his publications of articles in peer reviewed medical literature. Most recently, Dr. Gerson was recognized as a pioneer in his discipline when he was inducted into the Orthomolecular Medicine Hall of Fame in Ottawa, Canada on May 14, 2005, joining seven other giants of medicine whose seminal work has been influential in the medical and scientific worlds, and are considered pioneers in their respective fields.
But perhaps most importantly here is the fact that according to our Constitution, the rights of the child are expressed through the rights of the parents. Indeed it is very “Big brotherish” for a court to step in and make parental decisions on the part of the child! The attitude you portray here is a collectivist approach that is Marxist oriented.
I do hope you are correct in your assumption that “Big Brother” will not soon be knocking on my door—but I’d wager a bet that Big Brother will be ringing my door bell long before doctors resume making house calls!
I find it very interesting that so many will argue on behalf of the court's ruling in this case; i.e., that a parent has no right to determine the course of treatment of their child. What amazes me more is the fact that so many who make this defense of an all-powerful court would in the same breath defend the awful practice of abortion. Court activists, typically Marxists, argue that the state has the final authority over children, but they typically ignore the murder of unborn children in the womb. Why is a parent not free to determine the medical treatment of a child who is post-natal? But, if that child were in utero it would be perfectly acceptable to pay a doctor to scrape that child out and dispose of it as a bio-hazard...and a judge would defend that "right" as it has been held to be okay by a panel of almighty judges.
What is the difference here? Political differences. Marxist ideals typically claim control of peoples as human resources as well as encourage women to dispose of unwanted children (eugenics). Free peoples tend to support a child's opportunity to be born, and at the same time support the parental right to seek whatever treatment they wish for their children.
I'm not seeing the relevance of the criminal law practice of determining whether a child is developed enough to be able to understand the concepts of right and wrong, and know that he has a duty to follow the law to the entirely separate act of determining whether a child is mentally developed enough to be able to tell what types of medical treatments are appropriate for him in a given context.
I think it is quite clear that being developed in one capacity does not bear any sort of necessary relation to the other capacity, so it is not only possible, but I dare say normal, for a child to understand that it is wrong to kill others and that he isn't supposed to do so while simultaneously not knowing whether antiretroviral drugs offer a higher life expectancy as a treatment option than do gene therapy treatments.
As for the historic practices of the AMA, one might as well look to the historical practices of alternative medical sources and compare them as well. Should we visit the snake oil salesmen and those peddling 'cure-all tonics'? The relevant test to use here is 'Does it work?' The very criteria that invalidates snake-oil salesmen also invalidates every 'alternative' medical treatment from homeopathy to crystal therapy to aura readings.
And as for prayer studies, no study that has ever withstood critical scrutiny has ever shown an effect beyond that of a placebo. Indeed, in meta-studies (studies that aggregate the data of other studies), there have actually been found to be negative correlations between prayer and recovery (though as to be expected from a placebo effect, the correlations are not statistically significant).
If an 'alternative' medical treatment wishes to be taken seriously, it has to only demonstrate one thing - that it works. That's it. There's no magic involved, no secret societies, no password to utter. The practice simply must demonstrate using controlled studies that meet the rigorous strictures met by conventional medicine that it does what it claims to do. When alternative medical practices can regularly put studies in the Lancet or the NEJM, they'll become conventional medicine. Until then, they and their followers must understand that they are deemed to be taking unnecessary risks precisely because they have not yet been able to demonstrate that their treatment actually does anything.
I'm not sure what you mean by "According to our Constitution, the rights of the child are expressed through the rights of the parents." What Constitution are you talking about? If you are referring to the Federal Constitution, you may need to cite the specific language that says this, because in all my readings of the document (as well as my courses in Constitutional Law), that particular amendment escaped my notice.
If you're talking about the interpretations of various Constitutional language through Court decisions, I think the courts are very firmly on my side in this that parents' rights over their children do not generally extend to neglecting those children to death by failing to provide them with medical care and instead relying on actions which have no demonstrable positive results.
--MD
Anonymous1,
I don't see where the Court has long held to upholding "the best interest of the child" in these cases. The longstanding tradition dates back to 1923 in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, where the Court ruled that parents have the fundamental right and "high duty" to direct the upbringing of their children.
I agree with Patricia that the restriction of parental authority by the government--in this case, arbitrarily--is at least borderline unconstitutional, and at worst a flagrant violation of parental rights. While the government has a vested interest in protecting its citizens, that interest (according to this Court's jurisprudence) ONLY trumps parental authority in the event of child abuse or child neglect. The government needs to have a strong compelling interest to tell this child to do something that neither he nor his parents support.
Let us not forget that "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union...and ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity DO ORDAIN and establish this constitution for the United States of America." If we established the Constitution to protect our rights and the rights of our children, it is bogus to say that the government can arbitrarily make a decision for a child.
Patricia (and viewer), I would highly encourage you to check out this site I found, www.parentalrights.org, for more information on what you can do to protect parental rights.
Search for the truth,
Defend it to the death,
Centaur
"I watch the stars, Badger, for it is mine to watch, as it is your's to remember." -- Glenstorm
Post a Comment