Posted on 05/25/2009 3:39:41 PM PDT by JoeProBono
A woman and her 13-year-old son who were on the run from court-ordered cancer treatment for the boy have returned to Minnesota, the Brown County Sheriff's Office said Monday.
"Daniel Hauser and his mother have been returned to Minnesota," according to a news release. It did not reveal any additional details, but said there would be a news conference Monday evening.
The FBI's affidavit in support of an arrest warrant for Colleen alleges she fled the state Tuesday to avoid being prosecuted on two state counts of depriving another of custodial or parental rights in Brown County.
The FBI said the pair flew from Minnesota to Los Angeles last Tuesday on Sun Country Airlines. Investigators suspected they might have headed to one of a number of alternative cancer clinics in northern Mexico.
ACtually, not really (unless you consider 60 or so a long life—it’s not bad, but it’s not the 76 that same person would expect today).
This is an interesting chart, and if you look you will see that age at death as continued to increase (disregarding infant mortality—altho that has also improved greatly).
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html
I thought he had hodgkins. Highly curable if treated early.
However, I am too conflicted with this one.
I'll ask again, where do the Founding Fathers give government the right to control you and your family?
This kid got a clot from the treatment. The clot could hit his heart or brain and kill him. That is in the Court transcript.
I have also been doing research on this.
The overall five-year survival rate is 85%
So, you disagree that the Constitution tasked the govt with protecting your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I mean I’m sure that’s one interpretation (because it mentions that our Creator endowed us with those rights) but are you making the argument that the govt has no obligation to protect citizens? If so, how do you make an argument for laws against murder (and are you for the govt staying out of making laws against abortion)?
I certainly understand why you would want him to live to be 80! I'm happy you're giving him your support and I just said a prayer for him.
I understand the mother in this case for wanting to remove the pain for her child but his pain now may save his life. How can she not see that?
I hate government intervention in our lives but when it will almost certainly save his life, intervention is required.
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves.” William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783
Would you feel the same way if the family members were rejecting the customary treatment for a comatose wealthy woman? BTW, the family members making the decision are the beneficiaries of her will.
I am sure the kid probably didn’t like the side effects. I know when my son had his chin stitched up, had I left the choice up to him he would have not done it, he was terrified by the needles). But, if the mother said yes to the chemo and the kid said no, would you side with the kid or the Mom?
we can also go the Beacon Hill Mass school system -— re: CPR training, too ..........
You don’t know panic until it’s your child or grandchild. Thank you for your prayers. Thank you for reminding me to give a prayer of thanksgiving.
Don’t mix apples and oranges. And you’ve got quite the argument going for socialized medicine. Let the government decide because the Constitution tasked the govt with protecting your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
This is a child who will die if his ignorant Mother has her way. THe conservative/liberal argument is bogus. Would you who see yourself as a fine conservative have the state allow this woman to do an action that kills a child when there is a 90 plus Percent cure rate for non hodgkins lymphoma. He has one treatment, it was working and this loon has decided to let him have water.
There is no choice here on the part of the state with the health of a minor child. It is not as if she is feeding him twinkies,,she is denyhing him life.
My family truly believes in God and prayer...we also believe that God has given man ability to use the gifts He has given us to help each other. We should always seek God and use the tools He has provided.
If the cancer doesn't kill him the treatment might so I guess it's moot. Deep vein thrombosis is serious.
Stalker? Quote mining? I cant let that stand, get real. The only other board I know you from is darwin-central, and it was no secret when you went over there. The rants you and other ex-freepers made against freeprs such as AG were so obscene and vulgar that even darwin-central had to shut the site down and delete the threads.
But I dont want this to turn into another FD2003 thread so you can have the last word.
You keep saying this as if people will then drop dead after 5 years.
This article indicates that this type of cancer is CURABLE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hodgkin_disease
Most patients who are able to be successfully treated (and thus enter remission) generally go on and live long and normal lives, due to a remission success rate of 90% to 95%.
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The parents are depriving their child of life. You believe in abortion? You believe in beating your child to death? I know you don't believe in any of those things, this is the same. They are depriving their child of his life and pursuit of happiness.
Does the government have the authority to take children away from their parents if they are exposing the children to second hand smoke or going out to McDonald's to eat?
Just as a general rule, I'd prefer not to start sliding down the slippery slope of leaving the decision to the government on where the line gets drawn on getting involved. I've seen too many cases of the government's willingness to manipulate the information available (and even lie outright) in order to get the result they desire.
Read the court transcript. It caused a blood clot that could kill him.
I think you’re doing the mixing. Do you not believe the govt has any obligation to protect the lives of citizens in any case? In some cases? In cases you like? I’m really trying to get a handle on what you believe. I understand you don’t like them making medical decisions for people (as a rule I don’t either). On the other hand is there ANY case in which you think they should? Abortion? Child abuse? Come on, simply answer my questions and stop trying to paint me as a socialist because we disagree on this issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.