13 Year Old Cancer Boy Court Case

Tools    





I agree with you, Yods. If it's 'natural' can it be suicide?
Not unless you want to reclassify every death due to illness as a suicide. Wouldn't dying of old age be classified as suicide in that case? If there is a Heaven (there isn't, but, y'know, if there was) it'd be a pretty empty place if that were the case.



I ain't gettin' in no fryer!
Is it still illegal to commit suicide? (My daughter asked me this recently.) Do they still put poor, pathetic souls who try to off themselves in prison?
Not so much in prison, but they admit them to the Psychiatric ward of a hospital for observation. My mother-in-law is a nurse and works in said ward.

Now, assisting someone in their suicide is chargeable still, just not as common since Doctor Death is no longer practicing "medicine."
__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg



Nemenhah are not Native Americans… they're charlatans… thieves who take a very, very small part of Native American culture, mix it with some mumbo jumbo idea of their own and sell it to people ignorant enough to buy it… and I do mean buy because money is at the root of this cult… just like 99.9% of the ones who've come before them…

The court needs to take the child…
__________________
You never know what is enough, until you know what is more than enough.
~William Blake ~

AiSv Nv wa do hi ya do...
(Walk in Peace)




Originally Posted by rice1245
In APGovernment today we sat and argued about this the entire hour. There is a thirteen year old boy with cancer who's refusing Chemotherapy because of his religion. His entire family refuses to let him get it. Without it there is a 90% chance that he will die and with it there is a 95% chance that he will live. I was just wondering what your guys' opinions are about when is it right for the government to impede on the right to religion and when it isn't.
When Suzanne Somers was diagnosed with breast cancer, she didn't have chemotherapy -- she took bioidentical hormones.

And she's still alive.

Now, I don't know if it's against this 13 year old boy's religion to take bioidentical hormones or if he even needs them, but... just saying.



In the Beginning...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_he_...d_forced_chemo

Judge rules family can't refuse chemo for boy
By AMY FORLITI, Associated Press Writer

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

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

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

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

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



In APGovernment today we sat and argued about this the entire hour. There is a thirteen year old boy with cancer who's refusing Chemotherapy because of his religion. His entire family refuses to let him get it. Without it there is a 90% chance that he will die and with it there is a 95% chance that he will live. I was just wondering what your guys' opinions are about when is it right for the government to impede on the right to religion and when it isn't.

I personally believe that the parents don't have the right to make that decision for him and that he as a thirteen year old doesn't have the right state of mind to be able to decide for himself yet. To me the answer is obvious to give him the Chemo.

Some arguments from the other side were that in the family's mind he can either die and go to heaven or die later and burn in hell for all eternity and the freedom of religion reigns supreme no matter what.

Sooo what does everybody else think about this? People in my class got really heated and rude and angry haha

First of all, just because it seems foolish to you and me, it doesn't mean it's foolish to the people of that sect. Yes, not getting chemo may risk his life, but in their minds giving him chemo may risk his--and their--souls. Which is most important? It's like telling a kosher Jew or Muslim, "Here, you won't starve if you'll just eat this ham sandwich." For some people, their religious beliefs outweight all other factors. That's why Joan of Arc burned at the stake.

Second, how old does a person have to be to take charge of his life? The whole concept of teenagers is a recent development of the latter 20th century. Through most of man's time on earth, a person has been either a child or an adult. People were working fulltime jobs and marrying at 13. It was only as societies and economies developed to the point that children no longer had to work to keep the family fed and clothed, that they were able to remain in school for a few more years, that anyone ever started thinking in terms of teenagers instead of young adults.

So if you force this kid to take medication, you're saying, "My viewpoint is more important than your relious beliefs. I know better than you what you should do with your own life." As a parent who has lost a child, I know what a crushing blow it is to outlive your own children. Those parents aren't putting their kid's life at risk on a lark or because they don't love him. If there were some other way to heal him, they would. But their religious principles and faith are important to him and to them and deserve to be respected by the rest of us.

Besides, what would you say to the parents if you sweep aside their deepest beliefs, give him the chemo anyway, and he still dies?



The child isn't the property of the parents . . .
In most countries, he's not the property of the state, either. There have been times when governments though they knew better than the parents how to raise their children. That happened in Nazi German, in the Communist USSR, in Communist China, in Laos, and even in the US in the late 19th century when government policy took away Native American children to distant schools to be raised as "whites" and assimilated into the dominant culture. Every one of those examples are condemned today by rational compassionate people.



You guys need to read up on this case. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible. The parents say they are "medically" treating their child using Native American treatments and that their "religion" forbids destruction of the body. They say that chemo is poisonous and destroys the body. The mother is quoted as saying that she approves of "mainstream" medical treatment in the case of an emergency but that her son's health hasn't reached any emergency state. I just googled "13 year old boy cancer", and there were several articles about it.
Now wait a minute, Mark. The Supreme Court has said Native Americans can use in their religious ceremonies peyote and other drugs unlawful for whites. And now people expect that same judicial system to say that Native American medicine is inferior to mainstream medicine? If faith-based use of drugs is right, how can faith-based use of folk medicine be wrong? May be fatal, as may be the drugs, but how can the court permit one and condemn the other? Sounds like this case will drag on until the kid is 18 and able to decide for himself--or else dead.



Let's try to be broad-minded about this
First of all, just because it seems foolish to you and me, it doesn't mean it's foolish to the people of that sect. Yes, not getting chemo may risk his life, but in their minds giving him chemo may risk his--and their--souls. Which is most important? It's like telling a kosher Jew or Muslim, "Here, you won't starve if you'll just eat this ham sandwich." For some people, their religious beliefs outweight all other factors. That's why Joan of Arc burned at the stake.

Second, how old does a person have to be to take charge of his life? The whole concept of teenagers is a recent development of the latter 20th century. Through most of man's time on earth, a person has been either a child or an adult. People were working fulltime jobs and marrying at 13. It was only as societies and economies developed to the point that children no longer had to work to keep the family fed and clothed, that they were able to remain in school for a few more years, that anyone ever started thinking in terms of teenagers instead of young adults.

So if you force this kid to take medication, you're saying, "My viewpoint is more important than your relious beliefs. I know better than you what you should do with your own life." As a parent who has lost a child, I know what a crushing blow it is to outlive your own children. Those parents aren't putting their kid's life at risk on a lark or because they don't love him. If there were some other way to heal him, they would. But their religious principles and faith are important to him and to them and deserve to be respected by the rest of us.

Besides, what would you say to the parents if you sweep aside their deepest beliefs, give him the chemo anyway, and he still dies?
13 year olds aren't fit to make those kinds of decisions, the boy is also slower than most kids his age he is a couple years behind intelligence wise he doesn't even believe he's sick which nobody can deny. The 'religion' that the parents are are one that the mother found on the internet created by a man who was formerly charged with fraud they had to pay $250 dollars just to get accepted into it, like Caitlyn said it's the Nemenhah that are borderline cult.


And now people expect that same judicial system to say that Native American medicine is inferior to mainstream medicine?
According to the statistical evidence and success rate it is...

Also read this

http://www.startribune.com/local/447...13;iiUiacyKUUr



Let's try to be broad-minded about this
Sounds like this case will drag on until the kid is 18 and able to decide for himself--or else dead.
According to Sleezy's article the judge has already ruled



According to Sleezy's article the judge has already ruled
Yeah, I saw that after I posted my statement. Doesn't necessarily mean the case is settled, however. Judicial decisions are appealed everyday.



All very interesting but what does what I said have to do with what you said?
Simply that there is a judicial precedent supporting Native American beliefs that run counter to laws and beliefs of most US citizens. Never underestimate the propensity of some judges to make odd rulings.



The 'religion' that the parents are are one that the mother found on the internet created by a man who was formerly charged with fraud they had to pay $250 dollars just to get accepted into it, like Caitlyn said it's the Nemenhah that are borderline cult.
Yeah, and Scientology was started by a man with a history of mental treatment. The folks who died at Waco and in Jonestown all defined themselves as followers of a religious creed. Mormons were outlawed and persecuted for decades in their early history. The Amish were not readily accepted at first. Rev. Moon's church is odd, to say the least. And there are people today who show their faith by handling deadly snakes.

In fact, I find the basic claims of every religion to be unbelieveable, but other people build and attend houses of worship every week. Just because a specific religion sounds foolish or even criminal to you and me doesn't prevent someone else from embracing it.