Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Kitagrl

Forcing boy to get chemo

Recommended Posts

This kind of debate comes up a lot more with Jehovah's Witnesses. Here is a case where babies were given blood transfusions against the wishes of their Jehovah's Witness parents.

Another case I remember: a 22-year old JW mother died just after giving birth to twins because she lost blood and refused a transfusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This reminds me of a guest speaker I had in college that defined critical thinking as "the ability to completely disregard everything your parents taught you."

Now he wasn't saying people should be disobedient to their parents. He was saying that if you are unable to put aside your preexisting indoctrinations, you will be incapable of critical thought analysis, which I completely agree with.


What if you were indoctrinated by your parents to believe that critical thinking means 'the ability to completely disregard everything your parents taught you'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christianity teaches it's a parents duty to "indoctrinate" their children in Christianity. Scripture is filled with admonitions to do so.

The domain of child care is the parents and the government should have no say in this.

A terminal illness means that, not matter what, a person is going do die because of this. It should not be up to the government to determine whether anyone, child or adult, fights to prolong life by any particular means, other means or no means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


What if you were indoctrinated by your parents to believe that critical thinking means 'the ability to completely disregard everything your parents taught you'?

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the FDA was truly concerned' date=' they wouldn't have allowed the chemicals, preservatives and artificial substances into our foods. Those are the real culprits. I betcha LuAnne's Grandma grew up eating natural foods and hardly any commercially processed foods.[/quote']

I couldn't agree with this more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I don't work for the government (my firm represents foreign governments). I also never claimed to be a professional doctor/psychologiest/childrearer. However, I do believe that I have enough awareness that I can say that the vast majority of people don't have common sense. People will eat red meat three times a weak all the while knowing that it causes heart disease. They will buy their kids the cereal with the cartoon character on the front which leads to a sugar addiction which in turn leads to a long life of poor health. I have studied the law and I know the reason why we have law and it is because people cannot be trusted to their own devices. We have to have laws that punish child abuse/neglect because it is a fact of life. The reason you elect congressmen is so you have someone to tell you what you need/should be doing because you yourself cannot be trusted to do those things.

I haven't given a scintilla of evidence which suggest the proper way to rear a child. I have merely stated that if a child's best interest are at objective odds with the parents beliefs/choices/wishes, then the state needs to be the one making decisions which affect the child. In my opinion, which is based on my personal experience, most people need help in this category.


What country do you live in? We don't elect politicians to tell us what to do. We elect them to represent our interests.

Most people do not have common sense? I hear this all the time. Stop and think about the people that you personally know. I guarantee you you will think most of the people you know have common sense. Most people who vote have common sense. I don't know where you get your information.

Honestly, I believe the US government has evolved to protect the wealthy and keep the wealthy people wealthy. Those with the money (and therefore the power) lobby to write laws that benefit them, and their financial interests. Just look at the USDA, the FDA, etc. They do things under the guise of public safety, and sometimes what they do is needed and good, but much of the time it is to force consolidation, give more business to the big guys, and drowned the little guys out.

Look at our farming policy, which is a total and complete failure, except to produce mass quantities of cheap, unnutritious food, to force small familiy farms out (100 years ago, the local markets and family farms abounded, due to polciy, this has changed). This is not a partisan statement, for both parties are equally guilty here.

When is a child's best interest at odd with the parents? Not very often. In the case of child abuse, the someone should intervene. In the case of neglect, someone should intervene. But we are talking about medical decisions, that the child has expressed a strong preference against. Government has no business in forcing medical decisions on someone who does not want it. Plain and simple. If I grow old, in bad health, and want to sit on my bed sores until I die at home, I have that right, even if it is against my "best interest" and if my "best interest" as society determines that is to go to a nursing home. It is differnt if I lose my mind, in which case a family member can intervene, but the state should not have that right.

In this case, the family has evaluated its decsions, and made their choice. The boy does not want the treatment. Gov't should not force it on them. That is wrong, and immoral. That is disrespecting human life, for what respect do we have if our decisions cannot stand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arrest ordered for mom of boy, 13, resisting chemo
46 mins ago

NEW ULM, Minn. ? Authorities nationwide were on the lookout Wednesday for a mother and her 13-year-old cancer-stricken son who fled after refusing the chemotherapy that doctors say could save the boy's life.

Colleen Hauser and her son, Daniel, who has Hodgkin's lymphoma, apparently left their southern Minnesota home sometime after a doctor's appointment and court-ordered X-ray on Monday showed his tumor had grown.

Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg, who had ruled last week that Daniel's parents were medically neglecting him, issued an arrest warrant Tuesday for Colleen Hauser and ruled her in contempt of court. Rodenberg also ordered that Daniel be placed in foster care and immediately evaluated by a cancer specialist for treatment.

The family belongs to a religious group that believes in "natural" healing methods. Daniel has testified he believed chemotherapy would kill him and told the judge that if anyone tried to force him to take it, "I'd fight it. I'd punch them and I'd kick them."

The boy's father, Anthony Hauser, testified he didn't know where his wife and son were but had made no attempt to find them. He testified he last saw his son Monday morning, and he saw his wife only briefly that evening when she said she was leaving "for a time."

As of Wednesday morning, the mother and son still had not been found, said Carl Rolloff, a sheriff's dispatcher.

Officials distributed the arrest warrant nationwide. Brown County Sheriff Rich Hoffman said Tuesday that investigators were following some leads locally, but declined to elaborate.

"It's absolutely crazy. It's very disappointing," James Olson, the attorney representing Brown County Family Services. "We're trying to do what's right for this young man."

A message left at the Hauser home in Sleepy Eye early Wednesday wasn't immediately returned. But in an interview in Wednesday's editions of the Star Tribune of Minneapolis, Anthony Hauser said he knew places where his wife might have gone though he did not know where she was.

He said he and his wife had a plan for Tuesday's hearing and he was a "bit disappointed" she didn't follow it. "We were going to present a treatment plan to the court. If they didn't go with it, we would appeal it," he told the newspaper.

"I know many people around here who have had cancer, they did the chemo, it would come back," Hauser told the newspaper. "They did the chemo again and again and they are all in the grave. Chemo isn't foolproof."

Olson, the family services lawyer, had considered asking the judge to hold Anthony Hauser in contempt as well, but he said Wednesday he decided against that.

"I'm thinking that he probably doesn't know where his wife and child are," Olson said.

Daniel's Hodgkin's lymphoma, diagnosed in January, is considered highly curable with chemotherapy and radiation, but the boy quit chemo after a single treatment.

The judge has said Daniel, who has a learning disability and cannot read, did not understand the risks and benefits of chemotherapy and didn't believe he was ill.

The Hausers are Roman Catholic and also believe in the "do no harm" philosophy of the Nemenhah Band, a Missouri-based religious group that believes in natural healing methods advocated by some American Indians. Colleen Hauser testified earlier that she had been treating his cancer with herbal supplements, vitamins, ionized water and other natural alternatives.

The founder of Nemenhah, Philip Cloudpiler Landis, said it was a bad idea for Colleen Hauser to flee with her son. "You don't solve anything by disregarding the order of the judge," Landis said.

The family's doctor, James Joyce, testified by telephone that he examined Daniel on Monday, and that an X-ray showed his tumor had grown to the size it was when he was first diagnosed.

"He had basically gotten back all the trouble he had in January," the doctor said.

Joyce testified that he offered to make appointments for Daniel with oncologists, but the Hausers declined, then left in a rush with lawyer Susan Daya.

"Under Susan Daya's urging, they indicated they had other places to go," Joyce said.

Daya did not immediately respond to a call Tuesday from The Associated Press. The court also tried to reach her during the hearing, but got no answer.

Minnesota statutes require parents to provide necessary medical care for a child, Rodenberg wrote. The statutes say alternative and complementary health care methods aren't enough.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090520/ap_ ... rced_chemo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the husband is being truthful (and I have no reason to think he's not...just saying if), I think the mother was wrong to run with the son. Abraham Cherrix didn't run and he was able to defeat his cancer with alternative treatment.

It's a mess for the whole family, for sure!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the husband is being truthful (and I have no reason to think he's not...just saying if), I think the mother was wrong to run with the son. Abraham Cherrix didn't run and he was able to defeat his cancer with alternative treatment.

It's a mess for the whole family, for sure!!


The way things are today it's almost impossible that this mother and son can successfully avoid being caught.

That said, I can understand her reasoning and probably why the son would be in favor of such.

Run or remain behind, it's a horrible situation that will not end well.

Had the government kept their claws out of this family matter there would not be this problem and the family could be dealing with their family crisis as they see best.

Sadly, liberalism believes a utopian society can be achieved by their means and methods and they are willing to use any force necessary to achieve their perception of utopia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, John, I have a hunch that this religious group she's involved in has aided her. If they are anything like the Amish, those two can disappear and never be heard from again!! The Amish are very good at protecting their own, and these other people might be, I don't know.

It is a horrible situation, but that doesn't mean it couldn't end well - like I said, Cherrix's did. That's not to say the government isn't getting worse and worse. It definitely is, and we haven't seen the end of its oppression yet!

We have some friends who just had their baby taken from them (not saying from where, but it's not in our area). Don't know who called on them - but that baby was well loved and cared for, and the welfare just came in and took her. 'Course, they ended up gettinga warrant, again, don't know why, but I know they weren't abusing or neglecting her. I was with them just a couple of weeks before it happened, and I know them well....Please pray for them, that they get their baby back!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting aside the discussions about whether a treatment works and whether the boy gave consent, there is quite a bit of talk about how child care is the parent's responsibility and the state should not intervence if the child is not being abused. But to me that only shifts the argument to what is care and what is not; what is abuse and what is not.

Cases come up now and then where children die for want of medical treatment for ailments that are not considered terminal, such as diabetes and wound infections, because the parents do not believe in conventional medical treatment. JW's have in the past refused blood transfusions for their children where Doctors thought that doing so would save the childrens' lives. Then there are sects, such as snake handlers in the US, that practice dangerous rituals. I have no idea whether snake handlers test their children with poisonous snakes, but it's not implausable that such a practice could exist.

Now, in cases such as these, it could be argued that the parents very much care for their children and are doing their best for them according to their own beliefs. Even exposing a child to a very dangerous ritual could be both necessary and caring in the eyes of the parent. Yet to others, denial of medical care that is obviously life-saving would be deemed neglect and exposure to harmful practices, such as snake handling, would be considered abuse.

Unless we submit that the treatment of children should be the sole responsibility of the parents no matter what, we still end up with the question of who gets to decide what is 'abuse' and 'neglect' and what is not...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


What country do you live in? We don't elect politicians to tell us what to do. We elect them to represent our interests.

Most people do not have common sense? I hear this all the time. Stop and think about the people that you personally know. I guarantee you you will think most of the people you know have common sense. Most people who vote have common sense. I don't know where you get your information.

Honestly, I believe the US government has evolved to protect the wealthy and keep the wealthy people wealthy. Those with the money (and therefore the power) lobby to write laws that benefit them, and their financial interests. Just look at the USDA, the FDA, etc. They do things under the guise of public safety, and sometimes what they do is needed and good, but much of the time it is to force consolidation, give more business to the big guys, and drowned the little guys out.

Look at our farming policy, which is a total and complete failure, except to produce mass quantities of cheap, unnutritious food, to force small familiy farms out (100 years ago, the local markets and family farms abounded, due to polciy, this has changed). This is not a partisan statement, for both parties are equally guilty here.

When is a child's best interest at odd with the parents? Not very often. In the case of child abuse, the someone should intervene. In the case of neglect, someone should intervene. But we are talking about medical decisions, that the child has expressed a strong preference against. Government has no business in forcing medical decisions on someone who does not want it. Plain and simple. If I grow old, in bad health, and want to sit on my bed sores until I die at home, I have that right, even if it is against my "best interest" and if my "best interest" as society determines that is to go to a nursing home. It is differnt if I lose my mind, in which case a family member can intervene, but the state should not have that right.

In this case, the family has evaluated its decsions, and made their choice. The boy does not want the treatment. Gov't should not force it on them. That is wrong, and immoral. That is disrespecting human life, for what respect do we have if our decisions cannot stand?


If you want to sit on your bed sores until you die, that's fine. But if you want to make your 13 year old child (or brain wash him into making that choice "himself") sit on his bed sores until he dies, then you belong in prison with all the other child abusers.

You do know that this argument also goes against our position on abortion, don't you? If a parent has the right to decide what is the best medical treatment for themselves and their children, despite clear evidence to the contrary, then why can't an unwed pregnant teenage mother decide what's in the best interest of her unborn child?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, John, I have a hunch that this religious group she's involved in has aided her. If they are anything like the Amish, those two can disappear and never be heard from again!! The Amish are very good at protecting their own, and these other people might be, I don't know.

It is a horrible situation, but that doesn't mean it couldn't end well - like I said, Cherrix's did. That's not to say the government isn't getting worse and worse. It definitely is, and we haven't seen the end of its oppression yet!

We have some friends who just had their baby taken from them (not saying from where, but it's not in our area). Don't know who called on them - but that baby was well loved and cared for, and the welfare just came in and took her. 'Course, they ended up gettinga warrant, again, don't know why, but I know they weren't abusing or neglecting her. I was with them just a couple of weeks before it happened, and I know them well....Please pray for them, that they get their baby back!


I responded to his a few minutes ago but for some reason I don't see my post. I won't try to rethink it all now and repost it, I'll just hit the main point.

It's terrible the government has the power to steal ones baby. I pray this may be resolved swiftly and the baby restored to the parents. :pray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Putting aside the discussions about whether a treatment works and whether the boy gave consent, there is quite a bit of talk about how child care is the parent's responsibility and the state should not intervence if the child is not being abused. But to me that only shifts the argument to what is care and what is not; what is abuse and what is not.

Cases come up now and then where children die for want of medical treatment for ailments that are not considered terminal, such as diabetes and wound infections, because the parents do not believe in conventional medical treatment. JW's have in the past refused blood transfusions for their children where Doctors thought that doing so would save the childrens' lives. Then there are sects, such as snake handlers in the US, that practice dangerous rituals. I have no idea whether snake handlers test their children with poisonous snakes, but it's not implausable that such a practice could exist.

Now, in cases such as these, it could be argued that the parents very much care for their children and are doing their best for them according to their own beliefs. Even exposing a child to a very dangerous ritual could be both necessary and caring in the eyes of the parent. Yet to others, denial of medical care that is obviously life-saving would be deemed neglect and exposure to harmful practices, such as snake handling, would be considered abuse.

Unless we submit that the treatment of children should be the sole responsibility of the parents no matter what, we still end up with the question of who gets to decide what is 'abuse' and 'neglect' and what is not...


That's the position I take; parents are the sole responsibility of the parents. Scripture makes that clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to sit on your bed sores until you die, that's fine. But if you want to make your 13 year old child (or brain wash him into making that choice "himself") sit on his bed sores until he dies, then you belong in prison with all the other child abusers.

You do know that this argument also goes against our position on abortion, don't you? If a parent has the right to decide what is the best medical treatment for themselves and their children, despite clear evidence to the contrary, then why can't an unwed pregnant teenage mother decide what's in the best interest of her unborn child?


Here, the child does not want the medical treatment either.

The fact that their religious beliefs influence their view of medicine compllicates this even further. If government can force a child into doing something, that is against the religious belief of the family and the child just because those beliefs do not match society as a whole, then where does this stop? This is in direct opposition to the Constitution.

This is not a case of child abuse, or a case where the child wants medical care that can save his life, but the parents refuse to consent. This is a case where the parents, nor the child (who is 13, and seems to know what he wants) want to the medical treatment.

This does not come close to child abuse at all. It is a medical decision that ought to be left to the parents and child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If government can force a child into doing something, that is against the religious belief of the family and the child just because those beliefs do not match society as a whole, then where does this stop?

This is not a case of child abuse...

So what is child abuse: something that is defined by the religious beliefs of the family or society as a whole? If we submit that a family can be accused of child abuse even when the practice is sound according to their own beliefs, then where does this stop?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what is child abuse: something that is defined by the religious beliefs of the family or society as a whole? If we submit that a family can be accused of child abuse even when the practice is sound according to their own beliefs, then where does this stop?


Abuse I would define as intentionally causing physical or emotional harm to a child. I don't think there is any question as to what constitutes abuse. Hitting a child. Locking a child in a cage.

Neglect is not providing the physical needs for the child. Failing to feed a child. Leaving a child unattended for long periods. Failing to bathe a child, etc.

No religion that I know of permits child abuse or neglect.

That is not what I am saying at all.

We are not talking about that, as no one would be arguing if this mother said it was ok to abuse her child.

This comes down to who has the right to make personal, medical decisions for an individual. I submit that is a decision to be made by a family. First and foremost, the wishes of the individual should be respected. A child who is 13 is old enough to have input in these decisions. A four year old would not, and that would be the parents sole responsibility.

If the parents ignored the illness, and said, "I don't care, we are not going to a doctor because we don't want to pay." That would be neglect. These people went to the doctor, received medical advice, had a round of chemo, and then decided it was not for them. The child does not want it, and says he will kick and hit if someone tries to force it on him. They decided to forego the treatment and seek alternatives.

What if society says that it is harmful to a child to have religious indoctrination, raided my church's Sunday School, and gathered up all the children to take them away from parents? The same thing is being done here. Society does not agree with the decision that was made. The parents are not neglecting medical care, the family is saying that they have considered it and do not want it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abuse I would define as intentionally causing physical or emotional harm to a child. I don't think there is any question as to what constitutes abuse. Hitting a child. Locking a child in a cage.

Neglect is not providing the physical needs for the child. Failing to feed a child. Leaving a child unattended for long periods. Failing to bathe a child, etc.

No religion that I know of permits child abuse or neglect.

That is not what I am saying at all.

We are not talking about that, as no one would be arguing if this mother said it was ok to abuse her child.

This comes down to who has the right to make personal, medical decisions for an individual. I submit that is a decision to be made by a family. First and foremost, the wishes of the individual should be respected. A child who is 13 is old enough to have input in these decisions. A four year old would not, and that would be the parents sole responsibility.

If the parents ignored the illness, and said, "I don't care, we are not going to a doctor because we don't want to pay." That would be neglect. These people went to the doctor, received medical advice, had a round of chemo, and then decided it was not for them. The child does not want it, and says he will kick and hit if someone tries to force it on him. They decided to forego the treatment and seek alternatives.

What if society says that it is harmful to a child to have religious indoctrination, raided my church's Sunday School, and gathered up all the children to take them away from parents? The same thing is being done here. Society does not agree with the decision that was made. The parents are not neglecting medical care, the family is saying that they have considered it and do not want it.

:goodpost: I was trying to think how to say this, but you have put it so much better than I could!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abuse I would define as intentionally causing physical or emotional harm to a child. I don't think there is any question as to what constitutes abuse. Hitting a child. Locking a child in a cage...We are not talking about that' date=' as no one would be arguing if this mother said it was ok to abuse her child. [/quote']

Indeed, and neither am I arguing this. I am asking the question, what if a parent did these things out of love and a conviction that they were the right things to do? It's not inconcievable that a sect could believe that beating, locking in cages and stuff like that could be in a child's best interests. Seeing whether you get bitten by a poisonous snake would in my eyes be foolish and it would be manslaughter if you did it to someone else. But in the eyes of those that are doing it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Abuse I would define as intentionally causing physical or emotional harm to a child. I don't think there is any question as to what constitutes abuse. Hitting a child. Locking a child in a cage.

Neglect is not providing the physical needs for the child. Failing to feed a child. Leaving a child unattended for long periods. Failing to bathe a child, etc.

No religion that I know of permits child abuse or neglect.

That is not what I am saying at all.

We are not talking about that, as no one would be arguing if this mother said it was ok to abuse her child.

This comes down to who has the right to make personal, medical decisions for an individual. I submit that is a decision to be made by a family. First and foremost, the wishes of the individual should be respected. A child who is 13 is old enough to have input in these decisions. A four year old would not, and that would be the parents sole responsibility.

If the parents ignored the illness, and said, "I don't care, we are not going to a doctor because we don't want to pay." That would be neglect. These people went to the doctor, received medical advice, had a round of chemo, and then decided it was not for them. The child does not want it, and says he will kick and hit if someone tries to force it on him. They decided to forego the treatment and seek alternatives.

What if society says that it is harmful to a child to have religious indoctrination, raided my church's Sunday School, and gathered up all the children to take them away from parents? The same thing is being done here. Society does not agree with the decision that was made. The parents are not neglecting medical care, the family is saying that they have considered it and do not want it.[/quote]

Society, and the law, will tell if your religious indoctrination is harmful to children and will take your children away from you if you continue such indoctrination (see the Mormons). Just because one hides behind a veil of "religion" does not give that person the right to treat/teach/precribe for their children any way they want.

I don't believe you appreciate the science and research involved in treating cancer, and I know a 13 year old child doesn't, so, despite his ability to make a decision, that decision is not rational and should not be considered. Do you think the law cares which parent a child wants to live with in the event of divorce? Absolutely not. It is the law's responsibility to do what is best for the child, not what the child wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 34 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...