Treatment by force

[farmer]

I am sure most here have heard of this. What do you all think? What would you do if it was your kid?

Tough decision but I think in the end I would make my kid get treatment However if I were in these folks shoes right now the buck would stop with me. The kid is 13 and should have some say and apparently he does not want it and niether do the parents. The gov. needs to shove off and let freedom ring. I say run and fight

Warrant Issued for Mom of 13-Year-Old Boy Resisting Chemo

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

* Print

* ShareThis

AP

A judge has ruled Daniel Hauser, 13, must get medical treatment for a highly treatable form of cancer.

NEW ULM, Minn. — Authorities sought to arrest the mother of a 13-year-old boy with cancer who refuses chemotherapy after she fled with her son and missed a court hearing Tuesday on his welfare.

A judge issued an arrest warrant and ordered that Daniel Hauser be placed in a foster home and be sent for an immediate examination by a pediatric oncologist so he can get treated for Hodgkins lymphoma.

Related: Judge Rules Teen Must Get Chemo

"The court's priority at this point is to try to get Daniel Hauser and get him the care he needs," Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg said.

The cancer is considered highly curable with chemotherapy and radiation, but Daniel quit chemo after a single treatment. With his parents, he opted instead for "alternative medicines," citing religious beliefs. That led authorities to seek custody. Rodenberg last week ruled that Daniel's parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, were medically neglecting their son.

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 family was due in court Tuesday to report the results of a chest X-ray and their arrangements for an oncologist. But only Daniel's father appeared. He told Rodenberg he last saw his wife Monday evening.

"She said she was going to leave," Hauser testified. "She said, `That's all you need to know.' And that's all I know."

He said Colleen Hauser left her cell phone at their home in the southern Minnesota town of Sleepy Eye.

Anthony Hauser now agrees that Daniel needs to restart treatment, said Calvin Johnson, an attorney for the parents.

The founder of Nemenhah, Philip Cloudpiler Landis, said it was a bad idea for Colleen Hauser to flee with her son.

"She should have gone to court," Landis said. "It's how we work these things out. You don't solve anything by disregarding the order of the judge."

The arrest warrant has been distributed nationwide and a crime alert was being issued to businesses around the country, Brown County Sheriff Rich Hoffman said. He said investigators were following some leads, but declined to elaborate.

The family's doctor, James Joyce, testified by telephone that Daniel's tumor has grown and he needs immediate assessment by a specialist.

Joyce said he examined Daniel on Monday, and an X-ray showed that 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.

Daniel said he had pain on the right side of his chest, which he rated a 10 on a scale of 1 to 10, Joyce said.

Joyce said the pain was around the port that was inserted into Daniel's chest to administer chemotherapy. He attributed the pain to the growing tumor, which is pushing the port out of place.

He said Daniel was at risk of substantial physical harm if no action is taken.

Daniel was accompanied to the appointment with Joyce by his mother and Susan Daya, a California attorney.

Joyce testified that he offered to make appointments for Daniel with oncologists, but the Hausers declined. He also said he tried to give Daniel more information about lymphoma but that the three left in a rush.

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

Daya did not immediately return a page left on her cell phone Tuesday by The Associated Press. Her voice mailbox was full. The court also tried to reach her during the hearing, but got no answer.

In his ruling last week, Rodenberg wrote that he would not order chemotherapy if Daniel's prognosis was poor. But if the outlook was good, it appeared chemotherapy and possibly radiation would be in the boy's best interest, he wrote.

Daniel's lymphoma was diagnosed in January, and six rounds of chemotherapy were recommended. Daniel underwent one round in February but stopped after that single treatment. He and his parents sought other opinions, but the doctors agreed with the initial assessment.

State 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.

He also wrote that 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.

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."

[the Ogre]

Oh yeah, DCFS needs to do a snatch and grab here. Daniel has a far better chance of survival with the chemo than without. This is one of those times the parents are behaving criminally.

[spiritseeker]

IMO a young man of 13 yrs of age has the right to decide how much medical treatment he recieves. If this young man and his family wish to try alternative medicines more power to them. The goverment is once again getting involved where they do not belong! Chemo and radiation are putting poisons into your body I don't believe they are always the best solution. I mean what's next if your religious beliefs are contrary to what the goverment deems acceptable they can come in and take our children??? Wait a minute that already happened ! Remember the FLDS?????

[Elgama]

I am not clear had he had chemo in January? and the tumour had come back?

-Charley

[the Ogre]

IMO a young man of 13 yrs of age has the right to decide how much medical treatment he recieves . . .

That's fine, but the press has reported he has a learning disability. They might be lying, but I doubt it (in this case).

[Bluejay]

Hi, Spiritseeker

IMO a young man of 13 yrs of age has the right to decide how much medical treatment he recieves. If this young man and his family wish to try alternative medicines more power to them.

At 13, you can't really believe that the boy knows the relative benefits of chemo vs alternative medicine. I think we're kidding ourselves if we believe that the boy's personal opinion has anything to do with the decision that is made.

I agree that parents should be given sovereignty when it comes to their children, and that the government should not be given the authority to override parental sovereignty, except in very extreme cases.

But, parents need to make responsible decisions, which means they shouldn't try to put their own judgment up against the judgment of experts.

Do you trust your own opinion over the mechanic's when your car breaks down?

Do you trust your own opinion over the lawyer's when you're in legal trouble?

Of course not: so why is it different for doctors?

Doctors are not infallible, of course, and they still make mistakes. But, surely they're more capable of determining the proper medical care than you are: what do you stand to gain by poopooing their expertise?

It's not like you can't still pray for the kid while he's taking chemo!

Edited May 20, 2009 by Bluejay
"what" is the appropriate question word

[Just_A_Guy]

Do you trust your own opinion over the mechanic's when your car breaks down?

Do you trust your own opinion over the lawyer's when you're in legal trouble?

I'm not sure about mechanics, but a good lawyer will inform the client of all the options and then--this is the important part--let the client make the decision.

[Just_A_Guy]

Do you trust your own opinion over the mechanic's when your car breaks down?

Do you trust your own opinion over the lawyer's when you're in legal trouble?

I'm not sure about mechanics, but a good lawyer will inform the client of all the options and then--this is the important part--let the client make the decision. As a lawyer, if my client wants to do something completely boneheaded--that's his prerogative (as long as he doesn't try to make me do something unethical in the process).

[ADoyle90815]

My opinion might be unpopular, but I think that child should be removed by CPS and given chemotherapy. I have no problems with modern medicine at all, sure doctors might make mistakes, but they're human like the rest of us. I think that prayer when used with modern medicine can help someone heal, since it's not that difficult to pray for a successful outcome of the chemotherapy treatments. When used alone, prayer is no better than a placebo pill, and in many cases has led to the death of someone who would have recovered through modern medical treatment.

Edited May 20, 2009 by ADoyle90815

[SMG]

According to my (very flawed) understanding, this young man is not yet legally able to speak for himself. The actions of his parents are very likely to lead to to great pain and possible death. In my opinion, he would be better served to undergo the chemo treatments. Call me what you want, I do NOT care! I am very biased, as I am a student nurse and of the mindset that all means should be employed to save a life if the quality of life after the treatments will be decent.

I would be singing a different tune if this young man were 18 years old, but he is just a child at this moment in time.

[DigitalShadow]

From what I can tell from the article the boy had one treatment of chemo therapy, that shrunk the tumor but the parents refused any more subsequent treatments opting to use "alternative" treatments and now the tumor has grown again and the child is complaining of severe chest pain.

Is it a parents right to let their child die? The "alternative" treatments are obviously not working since the tumor is growing rather than shrinking so by letting the parents continue with it you would be basically sentencing the kid to probable death. No matter what the parents believe religiously or otherwise, if it is clearly endangering the child, the law will have to intervene. If it were some parents religious belief that children don't require food or water, would it not be right to go against the parents religious beliefs and give the child a chance at living?

[Carter]

I would like to know why he is choosing not to go through chemo. I don't know if all the people around him are really a better judge over his body. Its a rough place, the rational side of me says of course intervene save this kids life, but the freedom part of me says if he is old enough to cope with the reality of death then he is old enough to make appropriate decisions about his own body. Even if I don't agree who am I to tell anyone else how to live, or heal.

[mikbone]

I assume that this family has been informed of their options concerning the medical treatment. If not the treating physician did a horrible job and probably has a lousy bedside manner. In my opinion this physicain sucks, he should have been able to explain the importance of the procedure. If the family was absolutely nuts then the next step is taking the issue to a medical ethics board. Not the press. Having this issue get to front page material is out of control.

100 years ago this would not have been an issue because we just recently learned about this disease and how to treat it.

It is true that this form of cancer is highly treatable with 90% cure rate in his age group, but that means that there is a 10% rate of no improvement.

The pain that he is experiencing is not from the tumor, its from the intravenous line that was placed to assist in the cemotherapy treatments.

People have a right to determine their own destiny.

[Islander]

The issue here is multifaceted. But from a purely legal standpoint a child has no legal right to receive or refuse medical treatment on his/her own. Sexual behavior excluded (that seems more a political issue than a medical one), children can not seek or receive medical treatment on their own. They enjoy protection under the law and they become a ward of the state whenever parental protection is absent or negligent.

For example, the parents could be arrested and the children removed by the state if it is found that they are not providing adequate health care. This case is in reverse. The state can compel a child to receive care for he is willfully and intentionally endangering himself.

From the family standpoint I wonder how is it that he rather die than get better. The family must have some serious issues.

[mikbone]

The issue here is multifaceted. But from a purely legal standpoint a child has no legal right to receive or refuse medical treatment on his/her own. Sexual behavior excluded (that seems more a political issue than a medical one), children can not seek or receive medical treatment on their own. They enjoy protection under the law and they become a ward of the state whenever parental protection is absent or negligent.

Nothing in the original document has given me any indication that the parents were negligent or absent. The Father showed up to the court.

On the flip side there seems to be lots of holes on the part of the medical and legal portion.

The Doctor couldn't even be bothered to come into court? Was only available by phone...

And the statement that the tumor has returned right back to where it was before the first treatment. Like you can see a significant effect after one single treatment...

I assure you that the turmor was not pushing on the IV catheter.

[DigitalShadow]

I would like to know why he is choosing not to go through chemo. I don't know if all the people around him are really a better judge over his body. Its a rough place, the rational side of me says of course intervene save this kids life, but the freedom part of me says if he is old enough to cope with the reality of death then he is old enough to make appropriate decisions about his own body. Even if I don't agree who am I to tell anyone else how to live, or heal.

He also wrote that 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.

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."

The boy has a learning disability, can't read and has apparently been told by his parents that the chemo would kill him. I don't think there is any question that this kid is not in a position to make an informed decision on the matter and his parents seem perfectly content to continue ineffective alternative medicines and would probably let their son die because of their faith in those alternative medicines.

[DigitalShadow]

From the family standpoint I wonder how is it that he rather die than get better. The family must have some serious issues.

I don't think that is the case. It sounds like the kid does not understand the dangers he is facing and from his statements he thinks that chemo is what would kill him, not the cancer he currently has. I would be willing to bet that it is his parents who told him this and he is not going to believe a doctor over his parents.

[Elgama]

it depends on the learning disability I have a learning disability doesn't take away my capability of making decisions about my own body.

There are worse things in life than death and if it was my child they would have a say in how they wanted to be treated, at 5 my daughter has a certain amount of say in how her eyes are treated and her seizures.

However an issue here seems to be the parents don't agree

-Charley

[the Ogre]

The issue, IMHO, is: can the state supersede the rights of parents and the freedom of religion in order to save the life of a minor child?

Many people are going to be offended by this story and others like it (like the couple of similar stories here in Utah).

In extreme cases like this, I side with the state, however, I do think the time will come that most health choices for children will be taken out of the hands of parents. This is the biggest concern I have. It is similar to the idea of mission creep. It starts as one thing and then morphs into another.

[DigitalShadow]

it depends on the learning disability I have a learning disability doesn't take away my capability of making decisions about my own body.

Actually I've just read some other articles on the subject and it is not even clear whether he has a learning disability or what that disability is. I think it was inferred that he has one since he is 13 and can't read, but since he was home schooled it is entirely possible that his parents may not have even attempted to teach him how to read.

[DigitalShadow]

The issue, IMHO, is: can the state supersede the rights of parents and the freedom of religion in order to save the life of a minor child?

Many people are going to be offended by this story and others like it (like the couple of similar stories here in Utah).

In extreme cases like this, I side with the state, however, I do think the time will come that most health choices for children will be taken out of the hands of parents. This is the biggest concern I have. It is similar to the idea of mission creep. It starts as one thing and then morphs into another.

I agree for the most part but in my opinion the legal boundaries of "freedom of religion" are very clear. People have the freedom of religion and can believe whatever they want and even do whatever they want in accordance with their religious beliefs as long as it doesn't break any laws. For example, if your religion requires human sacrifices, freedom of religion does not mean your religious beliefs can absolve you of murder charges.

I do think that this case is further defining the rights of the parents vs the state but I don't think religion has anything to do with it. If it is illegal for them to refuse treatment in this situation it should still be illegal regardless of what religious beliefs the parents hold. The only real question here is whether it is legal and/or ethical for parents to be able to refuse medical treatment their children in life threatening situations. In my opinion it is not ethical and even though I'm not a lawyer, I'm pretty sure it's not legal either since 13 is not old enough to give consent on these matters even if he were literate enough to read what he was signing.

[Elgama]

Actually I've just read some other articles on the subject and it is not even clear whether he has a learning disability or what that disability is. I think it was inferred that he has one since he is 13 and can't read, but since he was home schooled it is entirely possible that his parents may not have even attempted to teach hill be latim how to read.

most unschooled children learn to read around 8 and move straight to chapter books - some will be 12-14 and usually are dyslexic.

-Charley

[ploomf]

You know usually I'm right on the side of the parents when it comes to making medical decisions for their children. There are very few cases where I think the state is justified for stepping in but I think this is one of those cases. If the kid had actual facts about the drawbacks and benefits of chemo and was aware that he would most likely die if he didn't receive the chemo and still decided he didn't want to receive it I would be right there on his and his parents side. But this is a boy who has a learning disability (the article I read said it was severe) can't read, his parents seem to have him convinced that the chemo will kill him and he is suffering severe pain from this tumor (he rated it as a ten on scale from one to ten). I don’t think this child is in a position where he can make an informed decision about his treatment. So in this case I think the state was right to step in (as much as it pains me to say this because I really do hate it when the state tries supersede a parents authority).

Also of interest in this case, they had to issue an arrest warrant for the mother. She took the boy and ran. I hope they find her soon so the poor kid can get the treatment he needs. The father is saying he has no idea where they are (whether he is telling the truth or not is another story).

[Bluejay]

Hi, Just a Guy.

I'm not sure about mechanics, but a good lawyer will inform the client of all the options and then--this is the important part--let the client make the decision. As a lawyer, if my client wants to do something completely boneheaded--that's his prerogative (as long as he doesn't try to make me do something unethical in the process).

I am not advocating treatment by force: I am advocating deference for an expert's judgment.

Surely you believe that your client would be better off listening to you than to someone like me, whose knowledge of the law comes from watching Law & Order, right?

You are approaching the problem from the viewpoint of the professional: I am approaching it from the viewpoint of the parent. And, as a parent myself, I don't understand why a mother wouldn't listen to her kid's doctor.