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.
This May 13, 2009 photo shows Colleen, left, and Daniel Hauser at their farm in Sleepy Eye, Minn. The pair fled after skipping a court hearing over the family's refusal of chemotherapy that doctors say could save the boy's life. The pair returned to Minnesota May 25, 2009, a sheriff said.
Conflicted on this one. Uncomfortable with a child being denied treatment. Even more uncomfortable with the state making the decision for the family.
That mom cares more about her child than any one else. This is no one else’s business.
No, she loves her whackjob beliefs way more than she loves her son, as is evidenced by her actions.
The child is not being denied treatment, the family has chosen a different treatment path than what is generally used.
Me, too. I would have stronger opinions if I knew more... for example, is the treatment highly likely to cure, or only likely to postpone death at the cost of great discomfort. If it were highly probable it was a cure, I'm reluctantly with the treatment. Otherwise, I'd probably go for the family's right to make their own decisions.
bttt
>>>Conflicted on this one. Uncomfortable with a child being denied treatment. Even more uncomfortable with the state making the decision for the family.
The state NEVER has a place deciding medical treatments. This is still a free country. For now....
That’s no difference at all.
The issue is who decides. Their “preferred treatment” might very well be chanting or meditation, which is to say no treatment at all.
It's non of the state's business, IMO.
I know. I read somewhere that his chance of survival even with the chemo is very slim. We let girls decide on abortions at that age. So what if he still says he doesn;t want it, what are they going to do; restrain him so they can administer it anyway?
85% cure rate with Chemo. 0% cure rate with mama’s medicine man beliefs.
I agree but there are exceptions. If a child has Type 1 diabetes, and the parents refuse to allow insulin, the child most definitely will die. If a child has End Stage Renal Disease (Kidney Failure), and the parents refuse dialysis for their child, the child dies. In these specific instances, I think the state has a responsibility to protect the child.
As for cancer, there is no definitive treatment, so the state should butt out.
You don’t know what treatment the family was seeking.
There was a man on Fox News that went through ‘alternative’ treatment for the same cancer and is fine today.
As someone who has had chemo I can tell you it’s none of the state’s business what treatment that child gets. They aren’t the ones going through it. It will be the child and his parents who care more about him than any state agency.
>>It’s non of the state’s business, IMO.<<
So, if the family’s belief is that a child who is seen as possessed must be starved for 3 weeks, the State has no right to step in for the benefit of the child?
This is a very treatable cancer and what the parent is doing is the same as withholding food and water.
Thanx. Sorry, Mom.
Some of the court transcripts are up on the net. I’m with the judge on this one. I think he gave the mom plenty of time to Dr shop for a reasonable alternative treatment. “Ionized” water and organic greens is not my idea of reasonable even if the mom does claim 100% effectiveness.
Sometimes loons are parents too. Nobody would interfere if the woman was treating her own cancer, but she’s not... How far to we let a parent go when their lunacy is resulting in medical neglect?
No Dr. is backing her up, neither is her family. The guardian ad litem says she and the boy both need counseling because their choices stem not from research and valid belief but from irrational fears regarding the death of the mom’s sister (the boy’s aunt) from a dissimilar cancer five years ago.
It’s not like the court is operating in a vacuum, without input from the surrounding community, friends, family and the medical establishment.
I actually mistyped in my last post. The success rate for chemo and Hodkins is between 90% and 95%. The boy’s chances are fantastic if he’s treated. That’s if mama hasn’t already killed him with her whackjob beliefs.
You’re not free to kill your kids either through malice or neglect, and denying this boy the treatment that would save his life is the highest form of neglect.
That is not the case and you know it.
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.