Judge rules family can't refuse chemo for boy.

2009-05-15 15:32:14

#1

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5886

A Minnesota judge ruled Friday that a 13-year-old cancer patient must be evaluated by a doctor to determine if the boy would benefit from restarting chemotherapy over his parents' objections.

In a 58-page ruling, Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg found that Daniel Hauser has been "medically neglected" by his parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, and was in need of child protection services.

While he allowed Daniel to stay with his parents, the judge gave the Hausers until Tuesday to get an updated chest X-ray for their son and select an oncologist.

If the evaluation shows the cancer had advanced to a point where chemotherapy and radiation would no longer help, the judge said, he would not order the boy to undergo treatment.

However, he said, if chemotherapy is ordered and the family still refuses, Daniel will be placed in temporary custody.

The judge wrote that Daniel has only a "rudimentary understanding at best of the risks and benefits of chemotherapy. ... he does not believe he is ill currently. The fact is that he is very ill currently."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_he_me/ … rced_chemo
So is it "OMFG they're taking away our rights to decide our health" or "God lord those are horrible parents. Thank you legal system"?

2009-05-15 15:38:22

#2

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,060|7072|PNW

This is another odd case. If parents are slowly poisoning their kids, should the courts do something about it or not?

2009-05-15 16:54:26

#3

Diesel_dyk: Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears; +178|6295|Truthistan

Sometimes if the parents can't pay for treatment, CPS will step in, take custody and pay for the treatment

2009-05-15 17:44:24

#4

TeamZephyr: Maintaining My Rage Since 1975; +124|6830|Hillside, Melbourne, Australia

This is ridiculous. By the time the legal battle is over the kid's cancer would probably have advanced to the point that chemotherapy will provide no benefit!

Parents should really stay out of it and let the doctors do their work rather than try and be doctors themselves because it's their precious kids.

2009-05-16 00:20:00

#5

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6975|Canberra, AUS

Doctors have said Daniel's cancer had up to a 90 percent chance of being cured with chemotherapy and radiation. Without those treatments, doctors said his chances of survival are 5 percent.

The parents can go FUCK OFF.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-05-16 00:21:56

#6

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6454|what

Spark wrote:
Doctors have said Daniel's cancer had up to a 90 percent chance of being cured with chemotherapy and radiation. Without those treatments, doctors said his chances of survival are 5 percent.
The parents can go FUCK OFF.

2009-05-16 00:25:49

#7

Shahter: Zee Ruskie; +295|7076|Moscow, Russia

Spark wrote:
Doctors have said Daniel's cancer had up to a 90 percent chance of being cured with chemotherapy and radiation. Without those treatments, doctors said his chances of survival are 5 percent.
The parents can go FUCK OFF.

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

2009-05-16 00:26:49

#8

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6901|132 and Bush

Good news.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-05-16 00:27:43

#9

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,060|7072|PNW

The defense attorney called it a marginalizing blow to families. Gee, we all should be able to poison our kids without Big Brother looking over our shoulders...

2009-05-16 00:32:13

#10

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6975|Canberra, AUS

If the kid dies because of the parents' stupidity, then I think they should be liable for manslaughter at least.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-05-16 00:57:36

#11

Little BaBy JESUS: m8; +394|6449|'straya

Heard a story like this in aus a while ago... Parents were religious nut jobs and wouldn't let their daughter get medical help (i think she was around 10)... they believe she was possessed or some shit... turned out she had type 1 diabetes, which isn't curable(yet) but people can live a perfectly normal life with diabetes (my bro for example). This girl paid for her parents stupidity with her life.

Some parents are just fucked.

2009-05-16 01:04:57

#12

LividBovine: The Year of the Cow!; +175|6680|MN

I agree the parents are idiots, but do you realize what this means? Our government is able to decide what medical treatments we should have, even if we don't want them. I do not want some government idiot telling me how to take care of my children.

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)

2009-05-16 10:52:58

#13

Wreckognize: Member; +294|6786

Fuck it, the kid doesn't want treatment, then let him die. One less religious wackjob in the world.

2009-05-16 11:16:17

#14

ghettoperson: Member; +1,943|6950

Spark wrote:
If the kid dies because of the parents' stupidity, then I think they should be liable for manslaughter at least.

Agreed. People like that piss me the fuck off. Differing religious beliefs don't bother me, but when people subscribe to completely insane ideas that have utterly no basis on the Bible or any other ancient religious book it's ridiculous.

For all some of the Yanks on here like to go on about Islamists killing everyone, you're not exactly lacking in religious nutjobs that are killing their own kids.

2009-05-16 15:20:30

#15

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|6002|College Park, MD

LividBovine wrote:
I agree the parents are idiots, but do you realize what this means? Our government is able to decide what medical treatments we should have, even if we don't want them. I do not want some government idiot telling me how to take care of my children.

It's one thing to tell you how to take care of your kids, it's another to stop you from killing your kid.

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg

2009-05-16 16:42:31

#16

LividBovine: The Year of the Cow!; +175|6680|MN

Hurricane2k9 wrote:
LividBovine wrote:
I agree the parents are idiots, but do you realize what this means? Our government is able to decide what medical treatments we should have, even if we don't want them. I do not want some government idiot telling me how to take care of my children.
It's one thing to tell you how to take care of your kids, it's another to stop you from killing your kid.

If you were a parent, would you really want the government making that decision for you? Where do you draw the line? This one seems pretty cut and dry, but I know many are not. It is not worth letting government into deciding when that line is crossed.

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)

2009-05-16 18:25:34

#17

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6975|Canberra, AUS

LividBovine wrote:
Hurricane2k9 wrote:
LividBovine wrote:
I agree the parents are idiots, but do you realize what this means? Our government is able to decide what medical treatments we should have, even if we don't want them. I do not want some government idiot telling me how to take care of my children.
It's one thing to tell you how to take care of your kids, it's another to stop you from killing your kid.
If you were a parent, would you really want the government making that decision for you? Where do you draw the line? This one seems pretty cut and dry, but I know many are not. It is not worth letting government into deciding when that line is crossed.

If you were a parent, presumably you wouldn't be so stupid and dickheaded to do what these fuckers have. The government has an obligation to protect those in need. I see this as little different from criminal behaviour and child abuse.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-05-16 18:27:17

#18

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,060|7072|PNW

Spark wrote:
LividBovine wrote:
Hurricane2k9 wrote:
It's one thing to tell you how to take care of your kids, it's another to stop you from killing your kid.
If you were a parent, would you really want the government making that decision for you? Where do you draw the line? This one seems pretty cut and dry, but I know many are not. It is not worth letting government into deciding when that line is crossed.
If you were a parent, presumably you wouldn't be so stupid and dickheaded to do what these fuckers have. The government has an obligation to protect those in need. I see this as little different from criminal behaviour and child abuse.

And some parents think drowning their babies in a bath tub is a good idea. Should we let them have free reign?

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2009-05-16 18:27:33)

2009-05-16 18:37:37

#19

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6454|what

Wreckognize wrote:
Fuck it, the kid doesn't want treatment, then let him die. One less religious wackjob in the world.

Is a 13 year old able to make an informed decision on Chemotherapy?

2009-05-16 18:40:12

#20

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,060|7072|PNW

AussieReaper wrote:
Wreckognize wrote:
Fuck it, the kid doesn't want treatment, then let him die. One less religious wackjob in the world.
Is a 13 year old able to make an informed decision on Chemotherapy?

For all we know, his parents drilled horror stories into his brain.

2009-05-16 19:44:09

#21

LividBovine: The Year of the Cow!; +175|6680|MN

Spark wrote:
LividBovine wrote:
Hurricane2k9 wrote:
It's one thing to tell you how to take care of your kids, it's another to stop you from killing your kid.
If you were a parent, would you really want the government making that decision for you? Where do you draw the line? This one seems pretty cut and dry, but I know many are not. It is not worth letting government into deciding when that line is crossed.
If you were a parent, presumably you wouldn't be so stupid and dickheaded to do what these fuckers have. The government has an obligation to protect those in need. I see this as little different from criminal behaviour and child abuse.

AGAIN, I do not agree with their actions. I would force my own kid/kids to go through it to have a great chance at life vs. little to no chance. I just don't want the government stepping in at every turn to run our lives.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:
For all we know, his parents drilled horror stories into his brain.

Or he went through one round of it already and doesn't want to do it again.

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)

2009-05-16 19:45:47

#22

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6454|what

LividBovine wrote:
unnamednewbie13 wrote:
For all we know, his parents drilled horror stories into his brain.
Or he went through one round of it already and doesn't want to do it again.

So does that qualify the 13 year old to make an informed decision on the benefits and risks of chemotherapy as opposed to no treatment at all?

The cancer will kill him if it is not treated.

2009-05-16 19:51:23

#23

LividBovine: The Year of the Cow!; +175|6680|MN

AussieReaper wrote:
LividBovine wrote:
unnamednewbie13 wrote:
For all we know, his parents drilled horror stories into his brain.
Or he went through one round of it already and doesn't want to do it again.
So does that qualify the 13 year old to make an informed decision on the benefits and risks of chemotherapy as opposed to no treatment at all?

The cancer will kill him if it is not treated.

Read my previous posts. You seem to have missed the 2 times that I said I disagree with the parents.

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)

2009-05-16 20:06:42

#24

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5886

You get cancer when your cells lose control over their ability to regulate their growth. I think.

2009-05-17 12:55:41

#25

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6830|Global Command

Chemo kills. It is poison. Especially the way it is administered.

BF2S Forums Judge rules family can't refuse chemo for boy.

Spark wrote:

Spark wrote:

Spark wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

Spark wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Wreckognize wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Wreckognize wrote:

Spark wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Board footer