Judge Rules Family Can't Refuse Chemo for Child With Cancer

[southcitymom]

This story has a bit more detail: http://tucson.cox.net/cci/newsnatio...=article&id=D989IV8O3&_action=validatearticle

It includes Daniel's feelings about chemo: "Daniel testified that he believed the chemo would kill him and told the judge in private testimony unsealed later that if anyone tried to force him to take it, "I'd fight it. I'd punch them and I'd kick them."

 

[thefragile7393]

THey can, if they wanted to, put restraints on him......which would still hinder them in getting a needle into a vein still because but they can certainly try. Pretty blasted scary when in a supposed free country you cannot refuse treatment for your children or yourself that you do not want or agree with. Absolutely disgusting this whole thing is.

 

[southcitymom]

THey can, if they wanted to, put restraints on him......which would still hinder them in getting a needle into a vein still because but they can certainly try. Pretty blasted scary when in a supposed free country you cannot refuse treatment for your children or yourself that you do not want or agree with. Absolutely disgusting this whole thing is.

In the testimony I read, the docs were asked specifically a series of question by the Haunser's attorney: "Would you be willing to restrain this child to give him chemo against his will?" "Would you be willing to anesthetize this child to give him chemo against his will?", etc...etc... IIRC, the docs all said they had never been put in such a position and, in the end, would probably not be willing to do those things.

It's sad that Daniel may feel like he has to be violent and aggressive and basically throw a tantrum in order for his decision to be heard. And he's 13 - 13 year olds are contrary to begin with.....God bless him wherever he is.

 

[fortytwo]

I'm struggling with this entire subject, and I have a great deal of sympathy with many of the sentiments expressed here, but I keep coming back to framing the question in my mind thusly...

A parent has intentionally removed her child, a developmentally challenged minor, from the potential for a treatment regimen with a proven 90% to 95% success rate when initiated early in patients of this age group.

This removal, now expressly and quite theatrically against the orders of the judicial system, places the minor child at a risk of death. How much risk? I had to search a bit to find this out. This link provided this quote,

Although it was a uniformly fatal disorder when first recognized and remains one if untreated, the majority of patients with Hodgkin’s Disease can now be cured of their neoplasm.

(bold and underline above by me)

So I have to ask myself this question.

Under what circumstances can a custodial parent intentionally place a minor in their care into a situation which is almost certainly fatal and not be guilty of willful child endangerment?

Second question leads from this. If such action leads to the death of the child then what responsibility should that parent bear for their choice?

 

[sayd]

(respectfully snipped for length)

In this case, the Judge stated it is in the child's best interest to remain with his parents, who the Judge repeatedly described in his opinion as "kind and loving parents." The Judge said it would clearly not be in the child's best interest to be removed from the home. It is, of course, within the Judge's power to remove the child (a poster on this thread - GreenEyedGirl - had that happen in her own family to traumatizing effect.)

I cannot speak for everyone with cancer, of course, but my MIL has been dancing with ovarian cancer for 7 years now. She has had three surgeries and three rounds of chemo. If she knew then what she knows now, she would have never undergone chemotherapy. She now treats solely with homeopathic measures, measures which the state of MN deem "not good enough."

Ahh..but this is HODGKINS LYMPHOMA one of the most treatable types of cancer there is. I know. I had Stage 4 (as bad as it gets) Hodgkins Lymphoma 5 years ago, and thanks to chemo, I am now considered CURED. Not in remission, but cured. Huge difference in types of cancer. Believe me people on the Hodgkin's list are very upset about this. This is a treatable form of cancer and DEADLY if not treated.

 

[Trino]

I asked before, but no one answered and maybe you know, Cyber -

What happens if he fights treatment? Let's say they find him and they take him away from his family and order treatment and he resists physically....what happens? All of the doctors who the Judge talked to said they weren't willing to fight, restrain or otherwise incapacitate this child in order to give him chemo.

This has been discussed with the court. Doctors stated they will sedate him.

I wonder if the court will deal with the other children. I also wonder if the mother did/did not tell her husband where she went. She doesn't have a lot of money. Is the "church" hiding her?

 

[southcitymom]

I'm struggling with this entire subject, and I have a great deal of sympathy with many of the sentiments expressed here, but I keep coming back to framing the question in my mind thusly...

A parent has intentionally removed her child, a developmentally challenged minor, from the potential for a treatment regimen with a proven 90% to 95% success rate when initiated early in patients of this age group.

This removal, now expressly and quite theatrically against the orders of the judicial system, places the minor child at a risk of death. How much risk? I had to search a bit to find this out. This link provided this quote,
(bold and underline above by me)

So I have to ask myself this question.

Under what circumstances can a custodial parent intentionally place a minor in their care into a situation which is almost certainly fatal and not be guilty of willful child endangerment?

Second question leads from this. If such action leads to the death of the child then what responsibility should that parent bear for their choice?

These are good observations and questions - ones I have been considering as well.

I will say that I do not think we know that the Mother has taken the child away. The child may have run away or threatened to run away and the Mother may have followed. I think it more likely that the Mother and child decided together to go away and defy the order. A Mother of course has some control over a 13 year old boy, but both the Mother and boy seem to be of the same mind regarding the Judge's position.

I try to put myself in her shoes. If my 13-year-old said, "Mom - I don't care what the Judge says - I'm not letting them give me chemo" and I agreed with him 100%, it would be very difficult to convince him to obey. If it were my child and I believed in the rightness of his desires, I would want to respect and honor them and it would be difficult not to.

My other option would be to say to the child, "I'm going to take you because if I don't, I'll get in huge trouble and go to jail. So I'll take you and I'll just let you handle resisting it on your own." That is an option I would consider, but it seems fairly lame to throw the child to the wolves solo just because I don;'t want to go to jail. I'd much rather stand by my child.

We can talk about percentages and what we believe will happen until we are blue in the face, but the fact remains that this boy does not think chemo (ie. poison) is the best course of action and his mother does not think chemo (ie. poison) is the best course of action and they both seem (at least the Judge wrote that they seemed) VERY sincere in this belief. It's not like this Mom believes her son is going to die without the chemo, and so she's not going to let him have it because she wants him to die.

Your last question is the most interesting - if the Mom and boy keep him away from the chemo and the boy dies, can she be charged with murder. I think under MN law, she can and I will bet money that she knows this if her attorney is worth a salt.

To me the most interesting question remains - how far are they willing to go to make this boy take chemo into his body and how far is this boy willing to go to make sure that doesn't happen? A Judge surely has power, but I'd say things would get even more heated against the State and Western medicine if the Judge ordered brute force and the docs were willing to dish it out - all in the name of putting poison in someone against his wishes and the wishes of his family.

 

[southcitymom]

This has been discussed with the court. Doctors stated they will sedate him.

I wonder if the court will deal with the other children. I also wonder if the mother did/did not tell her husband where she went. She doesn't have a lot of money. Is the "church" hiding her?

Why would the Court do anything to her other children?

I personally think the Husband knows but he is not talking.

I do not recall the Docs saying they would sedate him - I don't have much medical knowledge - don't you have to run an IV to sedate someone or would they just shoot at him with a tranquilizer gun?

If they're clever, I doubt they'd go to the church - seems like that'd be one of the first places authorities would search for them. I don't know what their resources may be.

 

[KaylynnCouture]

This case is so sad. I really don't have any words for it. I just hope these parents wake up and do whats right to save their sons life, and bring him back to court instead of fleeing with him. That just makes it worse.

My thoughts and prayers go out to this precious child.

 

[CyberLaw]

Medical Neglects on the books in ALL STATES and most likely many "developed" countries for a reason.

In a nutshell, the parents are not acting in the child's best interest. They are "teaching" their child myths. Period.

So lets looks at the facts. The child will live(hopefully if it is not too late already)with treatment and the child will 95% die without it.

The parents will allow their child to die with no treatment(except say for cotton candy, rainbows, sunshine, vitamins and herbs) and he will die.

Then the courts step in to prevent this child's death. That is not difficult.

Gee....I wonder where this "child" got the ideas that a)he is not sick b)Cancer will not kill him c)that he is a medicine man d)that herbs and vitamins and prayer will cure him and e)Chemo is fatal.

Could those ideas have been told to him as "fact" by the people whom he loves and trust, his parents. He has not thought for himself.

I am sure also, that he "was coached" into aggressive and violent opposition to the future chemo treatments by again, his parents.

Then now his Mom leaves and does not show up in court. Lets nominate Mom and Dad for parents of the year award.

Forgot about other winner parents also. A 15 month old baby died. All she would have needed was to been seen by a Doctor and an RX for antibiotics. Her parents prayed to cure her. It did not work. They were charged. What about the 11 year old who died. Again a Doctor would have treated her diabetes and she would have a long life.


Those children did not have a choice to live. This boy does.

BTW, Canadian courts have ruled on this issue also and the have the same results.
​

 

[southcitymom]

......
BTW, Canadian courts have ruled on this issue also and the have the same results.
​

(Respectfully snipped)

The same results in terms of people running away to escape Court rulings or the same results in terms of upholding the belief that Western medical opinion sets the expected standard of care - or both?

 

[Trino]

http://www.twincities.com/ci_12404162

Story from the Pioneer Press, St. Paul.

 

[CyberLaw]

A child of the same age as this BOY, decided not to have treatment for his Cancer. Well the parents decided to "side" with the boy's wishes.

Guess what. Medical Neglect. The Judge ruled against the parents and boy and the BOY received treatment.

You see adutls are adults, children are children. It is not like a 13 year old is an adult and has the "rights" of an adult.

He is a BOY, barely a teen. If the parents don't want to step up to the plate and be adults and parents, well then the courts will. All in the name of saving a BOY's life and acting in the "childs" best interest.

 

[southcitymom]

http://www.twincities.com/ci_12404162

Story from the Pioneer Press, St. Paul.

Thank you for posting that, Trino. The Father seems very "non-involved" for lack of a better word - at least in this whole legal issue. He had not read the Court's opinion and I do not recall that he testified at all in any of the documents I read. What do you make of that? What do you make of the mystery attorney that went with Daniel and his mother to the doctor yesterday?

 

[thefragile7393]

A child of the same age as this BOY, decided not to have treatment for his Cancer. Well the parents decided to "side" with the boy's wishes.

Guess what. Medical Neglect. The Judge ruled against the parents and boy and the BOY received treatment.

You see adutls are adults, children are children. It is not like a 13 year old is an adult and has the "rights" of an adult.

He is a BOY, barely a teen. If the parents don't want to step up to the plate and be adults and parents, well then the courts will. All in the name of saving a BOY's life and acting in the "childs" best interest.

Excuse me? Does he not have a brain? A mouth to speak? He dosn't have a right to choose his own treatment? He dosn't have a right to say no because he isn't the magic age of 18? Wow.

It's a basic human right to say no to something we don't want, and when you start dictating who can and who cannot say no to something, then you start losing humanity. He has tried chemo, he does not want it. Very simple. His parents support him, as they should. They aren't saying no to treatments, they JUST DON'T WANT CHEMO. It is HIS life. Not anyone else's, not a court, not doctors. It is not the court's life or the doctor's lives, they don't have to live with any consequences or side effects. If they have researched everything and choose to do something else, that is their own personal right and business. As long as a well-informed decision is made, that is their choice. There's plenty being unsaid, and no one knows how much research this family has or has not done, so no assumptions can be made. There is no guarantee he will be cured even with chemo. There is no guarantee his alternative treatments will work either, but they should be allowed to try. Stats are nice, but NO ONe can guarantee a cure. For some people, the "do whatever you want to me so I can live" attitude isn't worth it. For some people, the supposed cure is worse than the disease itself. You may not like it, understand it, whatever, but no one has the right to take away anyone's decision making when it comes to medical treatment for themselves or their minor children. Again, you don't have to like anything about the decision or agree, but just because they don't want to do what the doctors and courts tell them to do does NOT make them bad parents...they are supporting their child with his choice.

 

[LLC]

Excuse me? Does he not have a brain? A mouth to speak? He dosn't have a right to choose his own treatment? He dosn't have a right to say no because he isn't the magic age of 18? Wow.

It's a basic human right to say no to something we don't want, and when you start dictating who can and who cannot say no to something, then you start losing humanity. He has tried chemo, he does not want it. Very simple. His parents support him, as they should. They aren't saying no to treatments, they JUST DON'T WANT CHEMO. It is HIS life. Not anyone else's, not a court, not doctors. It is not the court's life or the doctor's lives, they don't have to live with any consequences or side effects. If they have researched everything and choose to do something else, that is their own personal right and business. As long as a well-informed decision is made, that is their choice. There's plenty being unsaid, and no one knows how much research this family has or has not done, so no assumptions can be made. There is no guarantee he will be cured even with chemo. There is no guarantee his alternative treatments will work either, but they should be allowed to try. Stats are nice, but NO ONe can guarantee a cure. For some people, the "do whatever you want to me so I can live" attitude isn't worth it. For some people, the supposed cure is worse than the disease itself. You may not like it, understand it, whatever, but no one has the right to take away anyone's decision making when it comes to medical treatment for themselves or their minor children. Again, you don't have to like anything about the decision or agree, but just because they don't want to do what the doctors and courts tell them to do does NOT make them bad parents...they are supporting their child with his choice.

Yes, he has a brain and a mouth. No, at 13- he does not have the right to make decisions or refuse treatment. Were you able to make life altering decisions at 13?

 

[southcitymom]

Excuse me? Does he not have a brain? A mouth to speak? He dosn't have a right to choose his own treatment? He dosn't have a right to say no because he isn't the magic age of 18? Wow.

It's a basic human right to say no to something we don't want, and when you start dictating who can and who cannot say no to something, then you start losing humanity. He has tried chemo, he does not want it. Very simple. His parents support him, as they should. They aren't saying no to treatments, they JUST DON'T WANT CHEMO. It is HIS life. Not anyone else's, not a court, not doctors. It is not the court's life or the doctor's lives, they don't have to live with any consequences or side effects. If they have researched everything and choose to do something else, that is their own personal right and business. As long as a well-informed decision is made, that is their choice. There's plenty being unsaid, and no one knows how much research this family has or has not done, so no assumptions can be made. There is no guarantee he will be cured even with chemo. There is no guarantee his alternative treatments will work either, but they should be allowed to try. Stats are nice, but NO ONe can guarantee a cure. For some people, the "do whatever you want to me so I can live" attitude isn't worth it. For some people, the supposed cure is worse than the disease itself. You may not like it, understand it, whatever, but no one has the right to take away anyone's decision making when it comes to medical treatment for themselves or their minor children. Again, you don't have to like anything about the decision or agree, but just because they don't want to do what the doctors and courts tell them to do does NOT make them bad parents...they are supporting their child with his choice.

I agree. There were lots of questions I would have liked to ask Daniel that weren't asked - I mean maybe they were but are just not in the documents available.

It's interesting. It seems that the because of the stats, people really agree with the Court's decision in this case and I think the stats went a long way in the Court's decision. I wonder - what percentage would the "maybe good news" have to be before it switches back to being the decision of the person with cancer and/or his parents - 10%, 35%, what about 49%. At what magical percentage do you suddenly become able to exercise your basic human right regarding health and at what percentage is it yanked away from you by people who know better?

 

[southcitymom]

Yes, he has a brain and a mouth. No, at 13- he does not have the right to make decisions or refuse treatment. Were you able to make life altering decisions at 13?

Of course - 13 year olds make life-altering decision all the time! Alas, some of them may not be good ones.

Children join churches at a much younger age than that - I walked down in front of the Baptist congregation at 10 - my decision. Pretty life-altering. At 12, I made the decision to go live with my Dad and not my Mom after the divorce. Very life-altering.

I do understand that the Court believes this 13-year-old is not informed enough to make such a decision. I do not know how much weight the Court gave the age factor. Would the Judge have allowed an eloquent, well read 13-year-old to refuse treatment? I do not know.

 

[fortytwo]

These are good observations and questions - ones I have been considering as well.

I will say that I do not think we know that the Mother has taken the child away. The child may have run away or threatened to run away and the Mother may have followed. I think it more likely that the Mother and child decided together to go away and defy the order. A Mother of course has some control over a 13 year old boy, but both the Mother and boy seem to be of the same mind regarding the Judge's position.

I try to put myself in her shoes. If my 13-year-old said, "Mom - I don't care what the Judge says - I'm not letting them give me chemo" and I agreed with him 100%, it would be very difficult to convince him to obey. If it were my child and I believed in the rightness of his desires, I would want to respect and honor them and it would be difficult not to.

My other option would be to say to the child, "I'm going to take you because if I don't, I'll get in huge trouble and go to jail. So I'll take you and I'll just let you handle resisting it on your own." That is an option I would consider, but it seems fairly lame to throw the child to the wolves solo just because I don;'t want to go to jail. I'd much rather stand by my child.

We can talk about percentages and what we believe will happen until we are blue in the face, but the fact remains that this boy does not think chemo (ie. poison) is the best course of action and his mother does not think chemo (ie. poison) is the best course of action and they both seem (at least the Judge wrote that they seemed) VERY sincere in this belief. It's not like this Mom believes her son is going to die without the chemo, and so she's not going to let him have it because she wants him to die.

Your last question is the most interesting - if the Mom and boy keep him away from the chemo and the boy dies, can she be charged with murder. I think under MN law, she can and I will bet money that she knows this if her attorney is worth a salt.

To me the most interesting question remains - how far are they willing to go to make this boy take chemo into his body and how far is this boy willing to go to make sure that doesn't happen? A Judge surely has power, but I'd say things would get even more heated against the State and Western medicine if the Judge ordered brute force and the docs were willing to dish it out - all in the name of putting poison in someone against his wishes and the wishes of his family.

On the subject of the child's competence to make this decision for himself, I have to say that in this instance I don't believe that he is competent.

Under normal circumstances you will find my opinions to be all over the map on the subject of legal minority/majority and competence. To be honest I'm inclined to find many legal "minors" frequently exhibiting more "mature" judgment than their theoretically "competent" elders. In some cases I wonder if the commonly assumed vector of maturity isn't reversed.

However,that being said I believe that circumstances in this case clearly suggest that the minor in question is not in any fashion making an informed decision based on careful consideration of all the facts.

This leads us to the subject of the guardians' participation. I am not convinced that this parent would be unable to influence the child's behavior regardless of her personal convictions, but the point is moot, since she is clearly unwilling to.

So now the question becomes framed by the validity of a custodial parent's beliefs as opposed to socially accepted practice.

This deserves some analogy. If a parent believes that wearing a seat belt is more dangerous than going without, and their child is thrown through the windshield and killed in an otherwise survivable accident what is their culpability? What if they believe that the proper way to teach swimming to a three year old is to throw them in the water, turn, and walk away? What responsibility do they bear if the child drowns?

I could go on endlessly, and I'm sure you could help.

This sort of question is easily answered except when certain topics are involved. Religion is one such. For reasons I have never understood the quality of "belief" is more authoritative when it is religious than when it is not.

Another seems to be medicine. I find this particularly puzzling when so many aspects of medicine are demonstrably quantitative. Facts trump belief. I concede that there may be times when facts can appear to be in contention, but this in no way improves the argument for "belief", it merely indicates the need for further analysis of available data, or for the pursuit of new data.

When the two are combined, religion and medicine, all rationality seems to flee.

If this child had been diagnosed with acute appendicitis and the parents had behaved in exactly the fashion that they have, would your opinion of their behavior be the same? Bear in mind that a ruptured appendix just might be more survivable without treatment than the Hodgkin's. Certainly a merely inflamed one would be.

I'm not comfortable with the concept that belief, regardless of how sincere it might be, should have a great measure of weight when considering culpability. Perhaps this is because I am most accustomed to seeing the concept applied as an explanation for the refusal to consider evidence in contradiction of said belief.

The more I contemplate the particular circumstances of this case the more inclined I am to feel that these parents should be held responsible in the event of the child's death, if that death results from a refusal of treatment.

I am much more conflicted about your final point. The larger question of forced treatment, absent the consideration of competency, is a perplexing one. I'd love to pursue it, and I don't have any general position to start from. Is this thread a suitable forum?

 

[southcitymom]

On the subject of the child's competence to make this decision for himself, I have to say that in this instance I don't believe that he is competent.

Under normal circumstances you will find my opinions to be all over the map on the subject of legal minority/majority and competence. To be honest I'm inclined to find many legal "minors" frequently exhibiting more "mature" judgment than their theoretically "competent" elders. In some cases I wonder if the commonly assumed vector of maturity isn't reversed.

However,that being said I believe that circumstances in this case clearly suggest that the minor in question is not in any fashion making an informed decision based on careful consideration of all the facts.

This leads us to the subject of the guardians' participation. I am not convinced that this parent would be unable to influence the child's behavior regardless of her personal convictions, but the point is moot, since she is clearly unwilling to.

So now the question becomes framed by the validity of a custodial parent's beliefs as opposed to socially accepted practice.

This deserves some analogy. If a parent believes that wearing a seat belt is more dangerous than going without, and their child is thrown through the windshield and killed in an otherwise survivable accident what is their culpability? What if they believe that the proper way to teach swimming to a three year old is to throw them in the water, turn, and walk away? What responsibility do they bear if the child drowns?

I could go on endlessly, and I'm sure you could help.

This sort of question is easily answered except when certain topics are involved. Religion is one such. For reasons I have never understood the quality of "belief" is more authoritative when it is religious than when it is not.

Another seems to be medicine. I find this particularly puzzling when so many aspects of medicine are demonstrably quantitative. Facts trump belief. I concede that there may be times when facts can appear to be in contention, but this in no way improves the argument for "belief", it merely indicates the need for further analysis of available data, or for the pursuit of new data.

When the two are combined, religion and medicine, all rationality seems to flee.

If this child had been diagnosed with acute appendicitis and the parents had behaved in exactly the fashion that they have, would your opinion of their behavior be the same? Bear in mind that a ruptured appendix just might be more survivable without treatment than the Hodgkin's. Certainly a merely inflamed one would be.

I'm not comfortable with the concept that belief, regardless of how sincere it might be, should have a great measure of weight when considering culpability. Perhaps this is because I am most accustomed to seeing the concept applied as an explanation for the refusal to consider evidence in contradiction of said belief.

The more I contemplate the particular circumstances of this case the more inclined I am to feel that these parents should be held responsible in the event of the child's death, if that death results from a refusal of treatment.

I am much more conflicted about your final point. The larger question of forced treatment, absent the consideration of competency, is a perplexing one. I'd love to pursue it, and I don't have any general position to start from. Is this thread a suitable forum?

This is an excellent post, fortytwo, and I'd like to fully respond. DH is, however, giving me the "it's time for bed look," so please allow me to revist your post tomorrow.

As to your last question - I think it would be okay to discuss it here - let's give it a go and if it runs too amiss or people think it's not a right road go down, we can perhaps start a new thread!

I would also appreciate it if you would take a look at my post above about percentages and share some of your thoughts on that.

Sweet dreams!