In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
13 yr old Must Undergo Chemo.
n/a
Member Posts: 168,427 ✭
Minnesota couple who refused chemotherapy for their 13-year-old son was ordered Friday to have the boy re-evaluated to see if he would still benefit from the cancer treatment _ or if it may already be too late.
Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg found Daniel Hauser has been "medically neglected" by his parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, who belong to a religious group that believes in using only natural healing methods practiced by some American Indians.
The judge allowed Daniel to stay with his parents, noting they love him and acted in good faith, but he gave them until Tuesday to get an updated chest X-ray and select an oncologist.
If the tumor has not grown and if Daniel's prognosis remains as optimistic as doctors testified last week, then chemotherapy and possible radiation appear to be in Daniel's best interest, Rodenberg wrote.
"The state has successfully shown by clear and convincing evidence that continued chemotherapy is medically necessary," he wrote, adding he would not order chemotherapy if doctors find the cancer has advanced to a point where it is "too late."
If chemotherapy is ordered and the family refuses, the judge said, Daniel will be placed in temporary custody.
It was unclear how the medicine would be administered if the boy fights it, which he said he would do, according to his court testimony unsealed Friday.
According to Daniel's court testimony, he believes the chemo will kill him, and said: "I'd fight it. I'd punch them and I'd kick them."
Calvin Johnson, an attorney for Daniel's parents, said the family is considering an appeal. For now, he said, Daniel is following the order and will have X-rays Monday.
Dr. Bruce Bostrom, a pediatric oncologist at Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota, diagnosed Daniel with Hodgkin's lymphoma in January and recommended six rounds of chemotherapy.
Wonder how it will be given if the boy refuses? tie him down and give it?.
Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg found Daniel Hauser has been "medically neglected" by his parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, who belong to a religious group that believes in using only natural healing methods practiced by some American Indians.
The judge allowed Daniel to stay with his parents, noting they love him and acted in good faith, but he gave them until Tuesday to get an updated chest X-ray and select an oncologist.
If the tumor has not grown and if Daniel's prognosis remains as optimistic as doctors testified last week, then chemotherapy and possible radiation appear to be in Daniel's best interest, Rodenberg wrote.
"The state has successfully shown by clear and convincing evidence that continued chemotherapy is medically necessary," he wrote, adding he would not order chemotherapy if doctors find the cancer has advanced to a point where it is "too late."
If chemotherapy is ordered and the family refuses, the judge said, Daniel will be placed in temporary custody.
It was unclear how the medicine would be administered if the boy fights it, which he said he would do, according to his court testimony unsealed Friday.
According to Daniel's court testimony, he believes the chemo will kill him, and said: "I'd fight it. I'd punch them and I'd kick them."
Calvin Johnson, an attorney for Daniel's parents, said the family is considering an appeal. For now, he said, Daniel is following the order and will have X-rays Monday.
Dr. Bruce Bostrom, a pediatric oncologist at Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota, diagnosed Daniel with Hodgkin's lymphoma in January and recommended six rounds of chemotherapy.
Wonder how it will be given if the boy refuses? tie him down and give it?.
Comments
Where is the line drawn between religious cult zealotry and "real" religion ??
At Waco ??
This issue confuses the devil out of me. (pun intended)
Doug
Why waste time and resources fighting them?
This it the crux of the issue, period. Government has zero business intruding into an issue such as this.
An perfect example of "Collectivism vs. Individualism" in its purist form.
One point, before all the resident collectivist do-gooders come stampeding out of the woodwork.......
There is a price to be paid for individual liberty and for living in a free society. Poor, or stupid personal/family decisions are a part of that.
Far too many people let "good intentions", "the greater good", "we know best" and other benign reasons, guide their views on such issues.
Many are more malignant in their approach to such "Statist" actions. They are deliberate in their thoughts of "knowing better", being "smarter" and in forcing "societal good" on everyone else.
Where does the State get the authority (note I said "authority" not "power") to force ANYTHING such as this on a family who has made a conscious decision?
This is a classic example of how collectivism, aka "Statism" takes root and flourishes. Many are simply not willing to let individuals and their family the choice to live, or die, as they freely choose.
Frankly, it pisses me off, badly. Just stay the F-luck out of people's business! It doesn't concern you, whether you like what is going on, or not.
Pushy, stupid, nosy, basturds, all of you who agree and the "state" too.[:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!]
What the hell do you think the end result of this kind of crap is going to be. Idiots.
Hodgkins has a very high cure rate.
Too bad.
Yes, it is too bad, but it is not the governments business, nor within what should be their "authority".
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
Hodgkins has a very high cure rate.
Too bad.
Yes, it is too bad, but it is not the governments business, nor within what should be their "authority".
+1
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
Hodgkins has a very high cure rate.
Too bad.
Yes, it is too bad, but it is not the governments business, nor within what should be their "authority".
+1
I remember as a kid , kicking and screaming about getting a shot..I got it anyway, whether I wanted it or not..
This is a question of Religion VS Medicine...Do you want your kid to die because of your belief...???
quote:The boy doesn't want it. His parents don't want it.
This it the crux of the issue, period. Government has zero business intruding into an issue such as this.
An perfect example of "Collectivism vs. Individualism" in its purist form.
One point, before all the resident collectivist do-gooders come stampeding out of the woodwork.......
There is a price to be paid for individual liberty and for living in a free society. Poor, or stupid personal/family decisions are a part of that.
Far too many people let "good intentions", "the greater good", "we know best" and other benign reasons, guide their views on such issues.
Many are more malignant in their approach to such "Statist" actions. They are deliberate in their thoughts of "knowing better", being "smarter" and in forcing "societal good" on everyone else.
Where does the State get the authority (note I said "authority" not "power") to force ANYTHING such as this on a family who has made a conscious decision?
This is a classic example of how collectivism, aka "Statism" takes root and flourishes. Many are simply not willing to let individuals and their family the choice to live, or die, as they freely choose.
Frankly, it pisses me off, badly. Just stay the F-luck out of people's business! It doesn't concern you, whether you like what is going on, or not.
Pushy, stupid, nosy, basturds, all of you who agree and the "state" too.[:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!]
What the hell do you think the end result of this kind of crap is going to be. Idiots.
+1
Tell me, something, if you will.
Have you ever seen an iron lung ?
Not relevant to my point. Not...one...bit...
I guess just because the kid dont want it, dont give it to him???...Well, Hell kids all across the country fight getting injections that save their lives. so I guess we stop giving any kid that dont want a shot , a shot???
I remember as a kid , kicking and screaming about getting a shot..I got it anyway, whether I wanted it or not..
This is a question of Religion VS Medicine...Do you want your kid to die because of your belief...???
Mighty convenient that you skipped over that whole pesky "parent" thingy....
Nor did you choose to tackle the issue of a free society vs. governmental authority to meddle with said individual liberty.
Go figure....
I have yet to see a scripture specifying that one should not seek prudent medical attention.
No one has ever seen an iron lung ?
That's interesting.
I wonder why ?
Another convenient diversion into religion.
My point had zero to do with religion, but, rather, it dealt entirely with lack of government authority to meddle with individual/family choice on how to live, or die as they see fit.
Kinda like the whole Constitutional Republic vs. fascist/socialism/ totalitarian society argument, huh?
Collectivism vs. Individualism is the battleground and where the rubber meets the road in the battle for the future of America.
The collectivists and their arguments step up and swing, but miss, with great regularity.
Go figure....
This is a question of Religion VS Medicine...
No, its a question of "choice"
I thought you supported "choice" [}:)]
"Medicine" is an abstract in your argument, as is "religion". I suspect that you deliberately side-stepped the whole "government backed/forced medical "treatment" thingy.
It boils down to the age old philosophical divide of collectivism/statism vs. individualism/individual-liberty.
People free to run their lives as they choose, vs. government and do-gooders through government, forcing their intentions and wishes upon free individuals for their "collective" or "statist" reasons and beliefs.
A swing......and a huge miss.
Stay the "f" out of peoples business please. It doesn't concern you and if it seems like it does concern you enough that you want government to impose its will over the free-choice of the family, well, then you are a do-gooder and a collectivist.
It is what it is.
When the child is old enough to make his own dicisions (I think 18 is the age of emancipation) someone must make the decisions for them, if the parents are too stupid to take care of the kid then someone should..
Hell , leave the Government out of everything. lets have no laws protecting children from religious nuts, that would let them die instead of seaking treatment, lets not have laws preventing parents from beating their kids to death..Lets not have any freakin laws that you think might be intruding on your precious rights..
The point is the life of a child hangs in the balance. I would hope you would rule in favor of the child and not worry about intrusion..[:(][:(][:(]
Some of you are more passionate about your rights than the life of a person..[xx(][xx(][xx(]
Well, if you would simply answer the question, perhaps you would get to see where it would lead.
Glad to, although it has nothing to do with my argument. I have not personally and physically see an iron lung, nor have I, or any of my family been confined to one.
Happy now?
Lead on......I can hardly wait.
When "Parents" neglect their children whether it be for selfish or religious reasons just who the hell is going to step in and take care of them... YOU??? I didnt think so...
When the child is old enough to make his own dicisions (I think 18 is the age of emancipation) someone must make the decisions for them, if the parents are too stupid to take care of the kid then someone should..
Hell , leave the Government out of everything. lets have no laws protecting children from religious nuts, that would let them die instead of seaking treatment, lets not have laws preventing parents from beating their kids to death..Lets not have any freakin laws that you think might be intruding on your precious rights..
The point is the life of a child hangs in the balance. I would hope you would rule in favor of the child and not worry about intrusion..[:(][:(][:(]
Some of you are more passionate about your rights than the life of a person..[xx(][xx(][xx(]
Due to your collectivist views, the whole point of the argument posed by me, is lost on you, seemingly.
Hyperbole and diversion, again.
Lets boil it down, shall we?
Correct me if I am wrong, but you want the "state" to have the "power" to step in and override what a family can decide to do, because in your view, the parents are making a wrong or stupid decision (regardless of the motivation for that stupidity) and regardless of its non-effect outside that family, right?
Two questions, if I may......
How are you affected (other than emotionally) by their free choice of not partaking of medical treatment, even if it were to save his life?
How is individual liberty affected by granting government the "authority" to intervene in such personal choices against the wishes of the individual, or the family?
And to address your last statement, yes, I am far more concerned about the preservation of individual liberty, than I am about the "life of a person".
Hands down, no contest.
No wonder we are losing the Republic.
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
Well, if you would simply answer the question, perhaps you would get to see where it would lead.
Glad to, although it has nothing to do with my argument. I have not personally and physically see an iron lung, nor have I, or any of my family been confined to one.
Happy now?
Lead on......I can hardly wait.
Do you know why you haven't seen one ?
Bar, either make your point, or move on please.
How about we either address the issue of forced governmental intervention into what should be a private decision, particularly in this Republic, which was founded on the principals of individualism, or we don't, okay?
Robbie: The point is the parents refused to act!!!!!!!! Now who speaks on behalf of the child??? The government intrusion was invited by the parents who refused to treat the child..Had they treated the child, the judge would not have been involved.
Good Lord in Heaven!
Arguing individual liberty with you, would be completely pointless, as evidenced by your post.
Collectivism vs. Individualism folks. You want to know why we have a government moving to tyranny and totalitarianism, you see it, right here.
This is a perfect illustration of the battle for the Republic. The "collective" vs. the "individual" and all that that entails.
It is what it is.....
School is in session.
There is no better method to stimulate understanding of these basic principals and philosophies than these type arguments.
This argument illustrates the reasons why our government is moving toward tyranny and totalitarianism, far more clearly than anything else that I can think of.
I offer myself up to argue on the side if individual liberty vs. the statist/collectivist position.
Lets go boys.
Robbie: The point is the parents refused to act!!!!!!!! Now who speaks on behalf of the child??? The government intrusion was invited by the parents who refused to treat the child..Had they treated the child, the judge would not have been involved.
The child speaks on behalf of the child. Just like a 13 yr old girl who chooses to have an abortion. Federal law says a parents, in most cercumstances, cant stop a 13 yr old girl from having an abortion. Conversely, a parent cant FORCE a 13 yr old girl to have an abortion.
From what I understand about this boy and his family, they prefer "natural treatments" generally used by native american cultures over conventional treatments in America. As far as the law is concerned, I think it would be sufficient to order the child to undergo "some form of treatment" and I would limit it to that.
I would go more deeply into cancer treatments to make my point, but I dont think thats the issue. The issue is CHOICE and the utter importance of NOT HAVING the government force medical procedures on citizens.
Yes, society does have a common shared interest in things that present threats to it's very existence.
Last time I checked, cancer isn't contagious.
This child's body being wracked by cancer poses precisely zero threat to society's existence.
Puzzle this out....
The commission of a specific and punishable "bad act", ala murder, as in your example; as opposed to forced, and unwelcome (also unconstitutional) government intrusion (forced medical care against the wishes of all concerned) into what should be a free choice.
See any difference?
Okay, that's great.
They are no longer needed because the reason there were entire hospitals devoted to their use in every state across the country, for those who did survive and come to need them, is because polio has been eradicated in this country.
Again, that's wonderful.
Swimming pools no longer close every summer, parents no longer fear for the lives and safety of their childrens' health, you have never even seen nor heard of the scourge and the burden and deaths and society is not at the mercy of a wild viurs circulating through every community because people were forced to be immunized against polio.
Yep, public health laws.
Okay, a good result came from public health laws. So you pose this as an argument for "statism"?
We likely can't quantify how many people were "forced" to take the vaccination vs. how many either grudgingly conceded or willing stepped up and did so.
There are a myriad of government methods to gain compliance with "public health laws", most do not involve holding someone down and forcing "whatever" on them, but rather, are achieved through restrictions for non-compliance, education and other methods. This is much like how Samuel forces the states to comply with Fed rules right now; things such as withholding highway funds, refusing grants, etc..
Doesn't make it right, but we are into apples and oranges here.
You have never seen anyone with smallpox, either, and no one you know has ever had a brain damaged child or deformed family member born because of rubella infection.
Okay, you make a case for acceptance to inoculations, or are you still advocating "forced" acquiescence.
There are arguments on the other side of the inoculation coin, but that isn't the point here.
Your life span is not 45 years, as it was for males in this country at the beginning of the last century, mainly because of government action.Don't want none of that "collectivist" public health stuff ?
Correct, I do not want government to "force" something on an individual against their will. That being said, there is no prohibition on legislation preventing such an individual from infecting others by virtue of their refusal to comply, which, I think, is what you are driving at.
This is where the fork in the road is found between individualism vs. collectivism. One allows for free choice where it affects only the individual, the other works for government power to force something on an entire group, class or population.
Individual liberty crosses into the "common" area, when what an individual does, directly affects another negatively. Nothing about individualism prevents appropriate "public health laws", but then, not all public health laws are appropriate; which brings us back to the appropriate role of government in a free society.
Cancer isn't contagious, the things your mention to make you case are, although I would opt for segregation vs, forced inoculation, I certainly concede that forced inoculation is the more effective method.
So what? Two different scenarios.
Try Bangaladesh, then. Or syphillis. Or multiple drug resistant tuberculosis. Typhoid is not very pleasant, and neither is cholera.
While Hodgkin's Lymphoma is not a communicable disease as far as we know, the implications are clear.
Yes sir, the implications are perfectly clear.
The implication is that you are willing to grant government the legitimate authority to force medical care against the free choice of all concerned.
The implication also leads me directly to my point, that being, that such acquiescence to government authority leads to totalitarianism and tyranny in government, inevitably.
You attempt to use virulent communicable diseases to bolster your argument for forced government intervention into an area that your argument is simply not applicable to.
Glad to open a new thread to discuss virulent communicable diseases and potential, or actual, appropriate government actions taken to address them, but that ain't what we are discussing here, is it?
There is room for "common good" where individual liberty directly and negatively affects others, primarily through "bad acts", but certainly even in the "public health" area.
That is part of having, and living in, a functional society. It is perfectly in-tune with this Constitutional Republic and our founding principals.
Yes, society does have a common shared interest in things that present threats to it's very existence.
As stated above, yes. Now, tell me where the case in point threatens you, this nation and our very existance.
Allow me to answer that question, since from my side of the argument, I can make the case that forced government intervention in these cases absolutely presents a direct threat to the very existance of this Republic.
You, well, your argument in this case simply can't make that case, now can it?
States can and do have the power to protect their citizens.
From themselves?
Is that you, Sarah Brady?
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
States can and do have the power to protect their citizens.
From themselves?
Is that you, Sarah Brady?
Big difference between a government having the "power" vs. that government having the legitimate "authority", don't you think Rack?
I think LT already laid out about the individuals rights being changed when it has an effect on others rights.
Nobody is going to "contract" cancer from another through lack of treatment.
lt496, your argument is not necessarily persuasive simply because you say it is, or wish it to be.
Neither is yours
The point, I think, is whether government can abrogate the rights of citizens under some situations, with due process. Of course they can, and they do. Including medical decisions.
As far as I'm concerned, when the decision affects only oneself the government has no authority to intervene.
If you want to live in a country where the government is in the buisiness of protecting people from themselves, there are plenty to choose from.
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
lt496, your argument is not necessarily persuasive simply because you say it is, or wish it to be.
Neither is yours
Amazing where all of this leads isn't it?
Is the government going to tell me I can't have a beer anymore because it might result in liver cancer?
Can't smoke or chew because it might cause lung, or oral cancer?
Let's not even get into obesity which IS a huge problem in this country.
When does the Gov quit screwing around in folks private lives?
Answer,.....Never!
Is the government going to tell me I can't have a beer anymore because it might result in liver cancer?
In Barzillia's world, yes.
quote:
Can't smoke or chew because it might cause lung, or oral cancer?
In Barzillia's world, yes.
quote:
Let's not even get into obesity which IS a huge problem in this country.
In Barzillia's world, yes.
quote:
When does the Gov quit screwing around in folks private lives?
The simple fact is that if we allow the government power to interfere in something as private as our own medical care, we've opened the flood gates for interference in everything else.
That is a clear misrepresentation of what I said.
Shame on you.
Here's your quote, in case you forgot.
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
States can and do have the power to protect their citizens.
Nothing I said was any way a misrepresentation of what you said....only the logical conclusion to your way of thinking.
What public health laws are you suggesting , then, that we do away with ?
A nice start would be the one that allows a judge to force someone to unwillingly undergo treatment for a non-communicable disease.
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
What public health laws are you suggesting , then, that we do away with ?
A nice start would be the one that allows a judge to force someone to unwillingly undergo treatment for a non-communicable disease.
+1
I believe that is the main point we are all trying to make.
As most of the staunch "collective", or "statist" citizens are for public health laws that grant government the ability to use brute force against America's citizens for the "public health/public good"; I wonder how these persons would view a requirement that Samuel absolutely shut down the borders and refuse admittance to any who could not show proof of inoculation for any and all communicable diseases.
This includes our contiguous borders, seaports and airports. Nobody gets in for any reason, unless proof is provided that they bring none of the mentioned dreaded diseases.
Reference illegals aliens, shouldn't they be found, held and checked for reasons of the "public health", if not for reason of sovereignty?
Shouldn't their children be refused admittance into the public schools and general public areas, unless inoculation can be proved and then a subsequent follow-up by "public health officials" to their homes to prove that the illegal parents are not carrying some infectious disease?
If, as has been postulated here, the "power" of government can rightfully be used against our very own citizens in the interest of "public health", how then can we justify NOT taking my hypothesized actions on foreign persons, desiring entry, or illegally entering, who are not under the protections of the US Constitution, and when these actions, if administered, would likely pass the test of constitutionality?
This is not meant as an argument in-line with those already made about the proper and limited role of government related to the original post, but are merely offered as an expansion of the line of thinking brought about by the previously offered defense of "public health laws" and their necessity in a free society.
I'll check back later on it.
Heading out for a movie, but I had a fleeting thought that I'd like to pose....
As most of the staunch "collective", or "statist" citizens are for public health laws that grant government the ability to use brute force against America's citizens for the "public health/public good"; I wonder how these persons would view a requirement that Samuel absolutely shut down the borders and refuse admittance to any who could not show proof of inoculation for any and all communicable diseases.
This includes our contiguous borders, seaports and airports. Nobody gets in for any reason, unless proof is provided that they bring none of the mentioned dreaded diseases.
Reference illegals aliens, shouldn't they be found, held and checked for reasons of the "public health", if not for reason of sovereignty?
Shouldn't their children be refused admittance into the public schools and general public areas, unless inoculation can be proved and then a subsequent follow-up by "public health officials" to their homes to prove that the illegal parents are not carrying some infectious disease?If, as has been postulated here, the "power" of government can rightfully be used against our very own citizens in the interest of "public health", how then can we justify NOT taking my hypothesized actions on foreign persons, desiring entry, or illegally entering, who are not under the protections of the US Constitution, and when these actions, if administered, would likely pass the test of constitutionality?
This is not meant as an argument in-line with those already made about the proper and limited role of government related to the original post, but are merely offered as an expansion of the line of thinking brought about by the previously offered defense of "public health laws" and their necessity in a free society.
I'll check back later on it.
Simply perfect!