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

[southcitymom]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520690,00.html

Looks like momma and the boy are on the run. There is a nationwide manhunt for them.

Thanks - very informative link - it seems that Daniel's Father and Nemenhah Band both want him to return. His Father also now seems to be open to chemo. His Father also said of the Mother "Sometimes she reacts real quickly at things - She gets excited easily." Perhaps a little time to sort it all out will lead her and Daniel back.

I do not think she planned to completely not comply with the Court's order (though I am sure it was in the back of her mind) because she did take him to the doctor on Monday.

 

[southcitymom]

...... 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....

(respectfully snipped for length)

Me too! For me it, it would come down to so many variables.

I've never known a parent to make a prinicipled stand on no seatbelts. I'm not saying some don't, just I've never heard of that. In my experience, cases like this always involve a matter of faith/religion/spirituality. And circumstance matters. For example, if a routinely good Mom forgets to buckle a seatbelt because she's dealing with 3 children and has 1001 things on her mind and a car smashes into her and a child is killed because he wasn't buckled, I do not believe in then charging her criminally. She has already suffered the worst fate imaginable for her momentary forgetfulness.

If a Mom is drunk as a skunk in the same situation and runs a redlight, the case becomes different for me.

As to the drowning - again, I'm unaware of faith-based beliefs concerning this - but I do not believe it is reasonable to actively put a child in immediate peril yourself to then see if God or the Universe or a miracle or whatever you like will save the child.

Again, for me, context matters. If a child's appendix bursts (not that a layperson would know that, but you could see that the child was in distress) and his parents do not believe in going to doctors and have always treated with faith and prayer and that's how they actively treat their child in distress then I feel differently about that than if a child's appendix bursts and the Mother doesn't take him to the doctor because she is nodding out on heroin or turning tricks in her bedroom while he's writhing around on the floor.

And what do we do about the many uninsured children? What if a parent can't afford to go to the doctor and a child gets an illness and dies - is the parent then criminally responsible?

 

[thefragile7393]

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?

Yes I was. I can truely say that I was. Maybe you couldn't. Maybe others couldn't. You cannot assume anything because of age, and it's ignorant to try. At that age, a child can make decisions with parents. Evidence can be presented, treatment options can be presented. I would expect nothing else from my children. Since you don't know me or what situations my family faced, don't assume anything.

6angels, I definitely respect your opinion. However, you are forgetting that there are no guarantees even with chemo. The family wants treatment, just not chemo, and there should be nothing stopping them from saying "we want something else." People should have the simple right to say no, and if it's an educated decision (and no one knows for sure, since we all know how the media distorts and dosn't fully report and sensationalizes) then people need to stay out of it.

Rainbowsandgumdrops, I enjoy your post. Granted, religious beliefs really aren't coming into play here, I agree with you. It's possiblie that alternative methods could help him. It's possible that they can't. But it's the same with allopathic medicine as well....and while I don't agree the state should step in, I do see your point.

fortytwo hit it best I think:

I believe (if you'll excuse the expression ) that anyone who is certain of an answer, and thinks it to be a simple one, is not thinking the problem through.

SouthCityMom---as always, I enjoy your posts, even if I don't always agree, you definitely have an open mind, an objective mind.

Cyberlaw, the definition of medical neglect is witholding treatment. Actively seeking medical treatment is NOT medical neglect. Refusing medical treatment, for religious or other reasons, but at the same time trying to find other treatments (alternative medicine or alternative allopathic medicine) is NOT medical neglect. The family is actively seeking medical care, but they do not want chemo. so HOW is that medical neglect? They are not withholding ALL care, at least from what I've been able to see. Refusing one aspect of treatment is not medical neglect.

Your using blood transfusions as an example I find very disturbing, since I can tell you that the couple very likely wanted bloodless treatment (which is more and more commonplace nowadays and medical technology is amazing...with many bloodless surgery centers around the country as a result of these beliefs) and it was refused, or it's possible there wasn't an alternative. At any rate, even if their baby lived (since a blood transfusion isn't a guarantee of life, as I have known many who have died with blood) the parents' beliefs were violated. Do you know all the details? Do you know if there were bloodless alternatives available but doctors did not want to pursue them? It's very rarely as simple as "If you don't get a blood transfusion you will die." The media may or may not have reported the whole story. You may not agree, but their views were founded on scripture (which again, not everyone agrees on, but this was their beliefs) and if that baby lived I know they are happy to have their child, but to have something so personal violated is something that will trouble them for the rest of their life. Those were sincere religious beliefs held....not "religious" beliefs. Your post has disrespect of that and that is very disturbing. You can ridicule it, call it neglect, whatever, but I've been close to a very similar situation, and I can assure you that something like that is NOT neglect.

 

[southcitymom]

Steely Dan posted a poll in the Political Pavillion at this link Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community asking if the Government should be allowed to force parents into making their kids take medical treatment and referencing this case. Y'all should check it out.

 

[Trino]

Update. Father says they have left the country. I don't think the judge believes this for a minute.

http://www.startribune.com/local/45...qyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aU1yDEmP:QMDCinchO7DU

 

[southcitymom]

Update. Father says they have left the country. I don't think the judge believes this for a minute.

http://www.startribune.com/local/45...qyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aU1yDEmP:QMDCinchO7DU

Thanks, Trino.

From the article:

".......they might be with a man named Billy Joe Best, who appeared at a news conference held by the family in early May to say he supported the Hausers. Best, who said he was from Boston, told The Journal of New Ulm then that he had also been diagnosed with Hodgkins lymphoma as a teenager and was cured by natural remedies.

Doctors have said that with treatment Daniel has an 80 to 90 percent chance of survival; without it he likely will die within five years."

80-90% chance...when does the percentage allow the family to make their own choices?

 

[CyberLaw]

Since when did this become a "religious" thread.

People you are missing the point. Very much so. God does not trump the law, neither does faith. The law often trumps parents as the law is in place to protect members of the public and punish those who break the law.

Chemo has been proven to be effective, many, many outcomes and studies prove this over many, many years. There is 100% of data that supports Chemo and radiation for Cancer. Please point out the many scientific studies that "point" out that faith, god, vitamins, herbs, and water will "treat" and cure someone of Cancer. There is none nor will there ever be.

Society is in place to protect children from abuse and this is what this court cases proved.

Did you know that at one point in time, animals had the right to be protected from abuse, but not children. That meant that you could beat a child with a whip, but not an animal.

Thank God that changed. This case is akin to parents "beating" their child with a rod, then "claiming" that their "faith" and belief" in God "allows" them to do what ever they want as the child is theirs and how dare the authorities have a problem with it as it is just "discipline".

This happened in Canada and the children were removed from the "ultra" religious home for their own protection. CAS removed the kids from the home. They only returned the kids when the parents "agreed" not to hit the children with objects and/or leave marks on their bodies.

Guess what, the entire family "fled" out of Canada after that, so obviously they had no intention of ever agreeing to anything. Talk about holding yourself above the law and then some.

This is about a boys life and him staying alive. Period. These people are "simple" farmers who may not feel that their child needs to be literate as he will always live on a farm. Talk about short changing the child and risking a child's heath. My God, a child that cannot read at a pre-primer stage is a victim of educational neglect, which again is abuse.

 

[Trino]

IMO the mother may end up in jail, may end up having her other children taken from her. If Daniel dies, it could be worse.

The father? He doesn't know where she's at? I'm sure he does know. He, too, may lose his children.

 

[txsvicki]

This boy is still having very childlike magical thinking. He doesn't even believe that he is really ill. If he can't believe the doctors and look at his own Xray and even know that he has a cancerous tumor, then there's no way he can decide about chemo. There's no way he could understand or think longterm about how painful and horrible it will be to slowly die from cancer. He also seems to be listening to some guy who beat Hodgkins Lymphoma with natural treatment after he refused "more" chemo. The article I read didn't say how much chemo this guy had in the first place. Maybe the chemo is what cured him even though he didn't have more, but I guess he hasn't thought of that and is sticking his nose where it doesn't really belong. If one of his natural remedies includes something like bloodroot, then it is as bad as chemo and will make the kid feel just as horrible. The parents can talk about their IEP all they want, the kid can't even read the word "the". The IEP doesn't actually teach anything, it just sets certain things that can be done to help the child. I think they're using the medicine man thing, religion, IEPS, etc. just to try and protect their crazy views.

 

[southcitymom]

I've never seen a case like this that did NOT involve a religious component.

 

[fortytwo]

I've never seen a case like this that did NOT involve a religious component.

I'm guessing that this is a response to CyberLaw's post.

I agree with what I think you're saying to him...

... or ...

...I think I agree with what you're saying to him.

:crazy:

Yes, regardless of the terms that may be used, for all practical purposes there is always a component of faith in these situations.

This may provide us with an avenue to approach the discussion of when the state should step in and overrule personal beliefs, but it won't be pretty.

 

[southcitymom]

I'm guessing that this is a response to CyberLaw's post.

I agree with what I think you're saying to him...

... or ...

...I think I agree with what you're saying to him.

:crazy:

Yes, regardless of the terms that may be used, for all practical purposes there is always a component of faith in these situations.

This may provide us with an avenue to approach the discussion of when the state should step in and overrule personal beliefs, but it won't be pretty.

Yes, I think we are on the same page about that - faith/spirituality/religion, whatever we call it, it is a key component in these cases.

So what do you think about the percentage question, 42? No one has responded. 80-90% chance of survival with chemo for this type of cancer...when does the percentage allow the family to be supported in making their own choice instead of being viewed as negligent child abusers?!

 

[angelmom]

Yes, I think we are on the same page about that - faith/spirituality/religion, whatever we call it, it is a key component in these cases.

So what do you think about the percentage question, 42? No one has responded. 80-90% chance of survival with chemo for this type of cancer...when does the percentage allow the family to be supported in making their own choice instead of being viewed as negligent child abusers?!

I think the numbers would have to be a lot closer together instead of a 5% chance of survival with no chemo and a 90% chance of survival with it.

Also, if it were a rare cancer without as much research or an experimental treatment; however, this is a pretty well tested protocol with excellent results. It's getting to the point that people don't totally freak out any more when they hear the words, because it is so well known to be highly treatable.

Honestly, I know 3 middle schoolers and a preschooler going through chemo right now, not to mention several adults, and I kind of feel like this kid and his mom are being on the drama queen side. The kids are all going to school almost every day, and the adults are going to work. The mom of 4 with a brain tumor is still driving freaking car pool and volunteering for field day, for Heaven's sake!

Suck it up, take your medicine, and thank whatever higher power the Nemenah Band believes in that he'll live to see adulthood. What the hell is wrong with them? Don't they know how lucky they are that there even IS a protocol? Can they not even imagine what it's like to have a doctor tell you that they can't save your baby? To have to pick out burial clothing or a plot or a casket? To plan a funeral or choose songs and pall bearers? To know that you aren't going to watch them go to prom or walk down the aisle or hold your grandchildren?

I've seen that and it SUCKS. Yes, chemo is hard. Yes, he is probably going to puke and lose weight and lose his hair and feel like crap for about 2-3 years. And then you know what? He is going to be done with treatment. There are about 9 to 1 odds that he is going to finish treatment before he is even old enough to drive a damn car and one day he might even learn to read and go to college and meet a girl and there will be people who don't even know he was ever even sick and he will have a NORMAL life.

This woman can do whatever the hell she wants with her own life. Throw it away if she wants. But if she were driving around with that kid in her car and he wasn't buckled in, she'd be cited for not protecting him. How is it possible that she can just let him die?

I have a t-shirt from a fundraiser we participate in every year in memory of a boy from our school who died of cancer. He died on the operating table having a very risky surgery that he knew might kill him, but was his best chance of survival. His parents were scared to death, but he wanted to fight until the last breath. That's what every t-shirt from the fundraisers say - "Fighting to the last breath." And they are so sad to have lost him, but they know they did everything possible for him. How could they live with themselves any other way?

That's what I wonder about this mom. How will she live with herself when he dies? Will her husband forgive her? Will her other children? Will anyone ever trust her again? And how do you find peace in that place?

 

[fortytwo]

Yes, I think we are on the same page about that - faith/spirituality/religion, whatever we call it, it is a key component in these cases.

So what do you think about the percentage question, 42? No one has responded. 80-90% chance of survival with chemo for this type of cancer...when does the percentage allow the family to be supported in making their own choice instead of being viewed as negligent child abusers?!

I can't speak for anyone else, but I haven't answered because I'm still thinking about it.

I haven't forgotten you. :blowkiss:

My first instinct is that this may be the wrong way to frame the question. This approach tends to present seemingly obvious answers at either extreme and degenerates into a matter of opinion in the middle. I can't articulate my concepts here very well yet, but I sense that it may be too simplistic a ruler to use.

I think we might profit from discussing it largely to determine where the approach fails, and then move from there.

Okay. Here goes. Daniel's chances of living with chemo treatment are high ... 90 to 95%. His chances of dying without it are as high or higher. We are addressing two separate questions here.

Does he have the right to choose a route which will nearly certainly end in his death, or does his age/maturity not permit him that choice? That's one question.

If not, do his parents have the right to make that choice for him? That's the second.

The first requires that we define the mystical point at which he attains his majority for this decision. Who establishes that definition? His parents? The state?

The second question really asks how the parents would claim that right. I think this again ends up pointing back to the state.

I'm using the term "state" in an intentionally inflammatory fashion. It's a concept which carries its own baggage, and we might as well start toting it now. I could say "the society" or "the culture", but its all really the same.

So if we go one step further and remove the child/parent aspect of the question then we find ourselves asking...

...When does the state have the right to prevent an individual from risking or sacrificing their life?

I'm still trying to determine my own thoughts on this subject, and as you can see, I'm not expressing them very coherently. I 'm beginning to suspect that Daniel's age and the subject of parental rights are actually distractions from the root question.

 

[southcitymom]

I think the numbers would have to be a lot closer together instead of a 5% chance of survival with no chemo and a 90% chance of survival with it....

(respectfully snipped for length)

Would it be okay for the Judge to call this Mom negligent and force this boy to undergo chemotherapy he doesn't want if there was a 40% chance that the chemo would cure him?

 

[southcitymom]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I haven't answered because I'm still thinking about it.

I haven't forgotten you. :blowkiss:

My first instinct is that this may be the wrong way to frame the question. This approach tends to present seemingly obvious answers at either extreme and degenerates into a matter of opinion in the middle. I can't articulate my concepts here very well yet, but I sense that it may be too simplistic a ruler to use.

I think we might profit from discussing it largely to determine where the approach fails, and then move from there.

Okay. Here goes. Daniel's chances of living with chemo treatment are high ... 90 to 95%. His chances of dying without it are as high or higher. We are addressing two separate questions here.

Does he have the right to choose a route which will nearly certainly end in his death, or does his age/maturity not permit him that choice? That's one question.

If not, do his parents have the right to make that choice for him? That's the second.

The first requires that we define the mystical point at which he attains his majority for this decision. Who establishes that definition? His parents? The state?

The second question really asks how the parents would claim that right. I think this again ends up pointing back to the state.

I'm using the term "state" in an intentionally inflammatory fashion. It's a concept which carries its own baggage, and we might as well start toting it now. I could say "the society" or "the culture", but its all really the same.

So if we go one step further and remove the child/parent aspect of the question then we find ourselves asking...

...When does the state have the right to prevent an individual from risking or sacrificing their life?

I'm still trying to determine my own thoughts on this subject, and as you can see, I'm not expressing them very coherently. I 'm beginning to suspect that Daniel's age and the subject of parental rights are actually distractions from the root question.

I feel like they are. That's why the percentage question is so important to me (and I won't rush you - it's a darned near impossible question to answer, IMHO. If your number is 49%, then are you really willing to call the parents neglectful child abusers if they choose differently at 50%). At what percentage do we say, "Hey, we respect that you don't want to poison your body and feel like hell for what may be the rest of your days if Western medicine only gives the chemo a _____% chance of curing you. We will honor your choice and let you travel this path with dignity."

You express your thoughts very eloquently. Even though age and parental rights are distractions from what I see as the root issue, they are undoubtedly worthy of contemplation. They are not unimportant.

 

[Trino]

Update. The father says the mother and son are in California. However, investigators don't necessarily believe him.

 

[southcitymom]

Update. The father says the mother and son are in California. However, investigators don't necessarily believe him.

This link says they were confirmed in Cally and are possibly heading to Mexico for treatment: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520690,00.html.

 

[southcitymom]

.....I have a t-shirt from a fundraiser we participate in every year in memory of a boy from our school who died of cancer. He died on the operating table having a very risky surgery that he knew might kill him, but was his best chance of survival. His parents were scared to death, but he wanted to fight until the last breath. ...

Angel, do you really think this child's parents or his greater community would have respected him or honored him any less had this boy chosen NOT to have that risky surgery? I am not being insensitive here. It is laudable that he was willing to fight against high odds until the very end, but is that necessarily any more noble than a person who says, "No more - enough - I'm not going to try that."

Both responses to cancer are valid and brave and should be honored with dignity.

 

[Glow]

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?

I have just read this entire thread and I picked you to quote because I really like your logical approach.



That aside, I thought of an answer to your question above.

The answer is quite simply, abortion.

There you have a circumstance where Daniel's mother had the right 121/2 years ago to not only not take "measures" to protect his life but the legal "right" to end his life.

Legally sanctioned.

The reasoning behind that legislation is that the woman has physical possession of her body and therefore the child's. That "possession" continues thought out pregnancy and as a society we all recognize that as the best thing. That is why the medical community will do all it can to keep that same child in its mothers body when it is 24 weeks old and 32 weeks old etc...

So at what point exactly in the last 12 1/2 years did Daniel's mother lose that moral right to decide if he lives or dies?

And when she lost that right who did it pass too? If Daniel was 18 we would say it passed to him but he isn't. So at what age is this "no mans land" that falls between a woman's right to abort a human and that humans right to speak for itself?

And do we want that answer to be decided by a nameless faceless entity (which is what a government actually is)?


Everyone on this thread has one thing in common, they want to see Daniel live.

That is not the real debate here, as I see it.