Posted on 05/20/2009 5:37:37 AM PDT by Abathar
SLEEPY EYE, Minn., May 20 (UPI) -- An arrest warrant was issued for the mother of a Minnesota teen after the pair missed a court hearing on the son's fight against chemotherapy, police said.
Colleen Hauser and her son, Daniel, 13, have been missing from their Sleepy Eye, Minn., farm since Monday after they went to a medical appointment that indicated the son's cancer was worsening, the St. Paul Pioneer Press reported Wednesday.
Only the boy's father, Anthony Hauser, was in court Tuesday for the hearing called to review a court-ordered X-ray to assess whether the younger Hauser's Hodgkin's lymphoma was getting worse. The father said he didn't know the whereabouts of his wife or son.
Brown County, Minn., District Judge John Rodenberg ruled last week Daniel Hauser must receive chemotherapy even though the treatment goes against the family's spiritual beliefs and wishes. The Hausers belong to the Nemenhah, a quasi-American Indian group favoring natural remedies and opposes medicine that attacks or harms the body.
(Excerpt) Read more at upi.com ...
I do too.
> Having government (however well-meaning) force treatments and drugs upon people against their will sets up a nightmarish scenario in which everyone will find themselves in soon enough, once universal health care sets in.
Mom, your risk with Universal Healthcare is more likely to be unable to access treatments and drugs rather than have them forced upon you. Canada is a good example of that.
Speaking personally, I am in favor of Universal Healthcare PROVIDING ONLY that one has the choice to use private healthcare instead/as well. This is how it is in New Zealand where I live, and it is a great system. But we are a small country and our systems, infrastructure and economy have all been designed for this. It would never work in the US.
I am one of the ones you just mentioned, and I do believe in freedom, but when does it cross the line to abuse?
Lets change it from cancer to something else entirely, like nutrition and see if your argument is the same:
A Vegan couple have a child, and the baby is losing weight and is getting more sick each day so they decide to take the child to a pediatrician.
They are informed that the child can’t metabolize the vegetable proteins or some such argument, a medical fact, and that the child can’t stay on their chosen diet or he will die from malnutrition.
Do you feel the parents have the same right then, to sit there and watch their child starve to death because it goes against their belief to have it eat something that comes from an animal?
I would gladly put them in prison for doing that, I don’t see a difference here at all.
such a shame too, when i got mine i was doing some research and this type of cancer was very lethal just a few years ago. Now its easily treated...
10 or 15 years ago, there would be protests outside the house or the hospital to give the child treatment, now the government just immediately (and I mean it when I say IMMEDIATELY) intervened and force the kid to go against his will to take a modern medication. I agree they are making a horrible mistake by proving a point with their kid's life, but we don't want to make this a judge's decision.
I also thought about the family suing the government for forcing a child to pain and suffering. Sounds nuts but if you didn't know what chemo was except for what people tell you, then you should be able to turn it down just on that account!
Again I say, this is not the road I would take I'm just trying to think like the family....
We disagree. This is not a question of human sacrifice, of murder, or of negligent homicide. It's a personal decision, where people can reasonably refuse cancer treatment because the treatment can be so terrible. If a personal decision based on the costs and benefits is acceptable, then one based on the costs, benefits, and religious beliefs is both acceptable and constitutionally protected. I believe the mother is making the wrong choice, but the boy is old enough to make an informed decision. If they both agree, then the government should have no role in the decision.
And, yes, the First Amendment is nearly absolute.
> And, yes, the First Amendment is nearly absolute.
By definition, there is no such thing as “nearly absolute”. It is a concept like “mostly dead” or “flexibly rigid”.
In this case, the First Amendment is not absolute: any religion that prescribed and carried out human sacrifice would of course be trumped by government and its laws against murder. No question about it: no ifs, ands, or buts.
In fact, none of your rights in America are absolute. Not one. Not even your Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Should they be? That’s a different debate.
> We disagree. This is not a question of human sacrifice, of murder, or of negligent homicide. It’s a personal decision, where people can reasonably refuse cancer treatment because the treatment can be so terrible.
Except the person in question is a minor, or an “infant at law” as we say in the Commonwealth. He cannot enter into a contract, and he cannot make decisions for his own welfare by himself. His guardians alone can do that, or the courts in their default.
His guardians have made / are making a decision on his behalf that has great potential to harm him, to put him at risk of damaged health or death. In default of their obligations to attend to his safety, it is the natural AND CORRECT role of the courts to do so on his behalf.
American society is not particularly tolerant of groups who choose isolation from mainstream society. Perhaps this was always the case: why were the Mormons forced to flee to Utah over 150 years ago? It is a peculiar development as several of the 13 original colonies were founded as havens for dissenters from England's religious disputes: Plymouth, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, and Maryland.
I would not personally be willing to hold this struggling child down while doctors administered toxins to him against his and his parents' objections. Consequently, I don't want some judge and CPS agents doing it on my behalf.
I see children die with cancer. The treatment is brutal and extremely painful. All the cells in the body have to be killed by chemotherapy. Their immune systems are non-exhistant. the children cry from suffering the constant needles into their little bodies. When in treatment, they are so fragile they can not go to school or visit with friends. Some families are torn apart because of the constant care and stress involved. But, the thing that hurts me most is the extreme pain they go through for months and years - some, after all the treatment and pain, finally die, leaving their parents devastated. I wonder sometimes whether the doctors prolong the inevitable. I know every life is precious. Sometimes the children come to a point that they are ready to die - some know the exact time, some see angels or family members and are ready to go. I could go on and on without giving an answer to you or myself. God put on my heart, when I was asking why when a child died I was close to and he said - I heal in two ways, here on earth and in heaven. Than is my comfort. I pray for the little one, knowing either way, he will be healed. Sorry for the length of my response.
As far as ‘freedom’ goes...who gets to decide? A 13 year old is not old enough nor mature enough to make this type of decision.
The parent is seeking alternative methods for a minor. These methods have a 95% chance of leading him to an early grave. Does she have the right to prevent medical care for a minor?
I have in fact held my own child down for medical treatment, many times and knowing that the result would be indescribable pain. That is a decision that I have the right to make as a parent and with informed consent, and I expect to have to make that decision again within the next year.
I would leave the country before consenting to a judge imposing such a trial on my child against my will and against my child's will. If one of my children ever reaches the point where the decision to stop medical treatment is reasonable based on a better quality of life than going through the medical nightmare that we have repeatedly experienced, then I will make sure that the decision is respected. Even without a religious justification, the ability to make that choice is an essential part of freedom.
I agree. Freedom has inherent, sometimes fatal risks to it. Looking to the state as savior is almost invariably fatal.
Couldn’t agree more. By any definition, chemo is poison. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. Like you, I’ve lost two close relatives to “treatable” cancer via chemotherapy. It’s no more reliable than birch-bark and probably a lot less reliable than apricot pits—neither of which produces the nearly intolerable side-effects of even a single dose of chemo.
I personally know three people with lymphoma that were cured by chemo, and one that was not, although she was 83 and the other three were in their 20’s and 30’s.
Chemo does work.
Ed
Nemenhah is deep into the use of peyote to “cure all things”. There’s no question in this case that the court is acting in the child’s best interest and the mother is not.
End of story.
At least he would comfortable when he died then...
In the meantime don't blame this one on God. What we have is a high probability of a cure and this peyote using skank woman is keeping the kid from participating in it.
Her teeth may fall out of her own volition, but the kid is going to sacrifice a lot more than teeth.
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.