Home | Non-food | Healthcare | Medical treatment vs medical freedom

Medical treatment vs medical freedom

22/05/2009 13:21:00 admin

Font size:

Friday May 22, 2009 (foodconsumer.org) -- Daniel Hauser, a 13-year-old boy with cancer who has vowed to punch or kick anyone who forces him to take chemotherapy, has missed a court-ordered hearing on his welfare.

A Minnesota judge issued an arrest warrant on Tuesday for Colleen Hauser, mother of Daniel, after she and her son missed the scheduled hearing in New Ulm, Minnesota. Daniel Hauser, who has been diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma, has repeatedly stated he preferred alternative medicines for his cancer, citing religious beliefs.

Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg also ordered that Daniel Hauser be placed in a foster home and be sent to a pediatric oncologist for cancer treatments, according to Associated Press reports.

“The court’s priority at this point is to try to get Daniel Hauser and get him the care he needs,” said Rodenberg in the AP news release.

Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a cancer which attacks the lymph nodes, is considered highly curable with chemotherapy and radiation. When Daniel Hauser quit the chemo after one session, opting for alternative treatments, authorities stepped in to seek custody.

The Hauser family, of Sleepy Eye, Minnesota, was to appear in court to report the results of a chest X-ray. The boy’s father, Anthony Hauser, appeared in court alone Tuesday, telling authorities his wife had taken Daniel.

He testified that he last saw his wife on Monday morning when she said she was leaving with Daniel. Anthony said she then added, “That’s all you need to know,” according to the AP story.

Judge Rodenberg ruled last week that the parents, Colleen and Anthony, were medically neglecting their child. If chemotherapy was ordered and the family refused, Daniel would be placed in protective custody.

The medical battle between parents of sick children and the courts is not new. In January of 2005, then 12-year-old Katie Wernecke was also diagnosed with Hodgkin’s disease. When she and her family refused chemotherapy she was removed from her parents’ custody in June of that year. After four months in state custody, Katie was returned to her parents.

In a June 2006 letter on foodconsumer.org, Katie Wernecke’s father wrote, “The battle has been about medical freedom for our children.” The blog entry stated that although Katie was doing well at that time, she still was not cancer free. The family chose to treat the cancer with high doses of vitamin C, along with other treatments.

Edward Wernecke wrote that the family, from Agua Dulce, Texas, faced more than $90,000 in legal bills in addition to required medical costs.

A year later, in June 2007, the Caller-Times newspaper reported the family filed a civil suit in federal court against the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. Filed May 31, the suit alleges violations of the 4th and 14th amendments, which protect against unlawful search and seizure and the right to family privacy, according to the Caller-Times article.

The suit seeks unspecified nominal, punitive and actual damages, as well as attorney fees.

(By Sheilah Downey, and edited by Heather Kelley)

Add to: Add to your del.icio.us

del.icio.us | Digg this story

Digg

Comments (24 posted):

heather on 22/05/2009 13:58:31

he has the right to his health and although he is under 18 he should choose if he wants to take it or not

dmax on 22/05/2009 14:03:56

heather, that's remarkably naive. Were you ever a teen or have you ever known teens? Are they known for their rational, considered judgement?

There are certainly rights, but "right to health" is something you just made up.

If America can't have a grown-up discussion about complex issues, and people who are at the lower end of the intelligence bell curve are still allowed to vote and create public policy, then we are truly becoming an idiocracy.

42fw on 22/05/2009 14:05:13

he's thirteen and brainwashed, obviously. Hodgkin's is incredibly curable and his parents are ignorant bible thumpers.

Ken on 22/05/2009 14:07:42

There is a problem when the government tells us what we NEED to do. This family as a whole made up their minds including the actual victim which is the child. The government needs to stay out at that point. It would be an entirely different matter if the child wanted to be treated by not allowed.

Shomeir on 22/05/2009 14:09:30

If you think there is no freedom of choice when it comes to medical treatment, it will be much worse when the government takes over our health care. Big government means less freedom.

outraged on 22/05/2009 14:09:37

Who is paying for the expensive medical treatment? Hodgkins is not 100% curable with chemo either. This is outrageous. If a family wants to opt out, let them do so. I can understand forcing vaccines down the kids systems, for reasons of public health, but forcing chemo? It is outrageous!

42fw on 22/05/2009 14:15:37

again, the kid is only thirteen and can't possibly know what's good for him. i understand the medical bills are incredibly expensive (which, btw wouldn't matter if the conservatives pulled their heads out of their butts and nationalize healthcare, but that's a different story...) but it's the child's life! I'm sorry but letting the kid sit there and rot on vitamin C & prayer will do no good.

David on 22/05/2009 14:21:00

I agree with Ken. This is a very dangerous precedent. What are the limits of the governments ability to control our health? If they can force a child to receive chemo, can they force a child onto medication for something like autism or ADHD? Where does it stop? Children? Felons? The Poor?

John OBrien on 22/05/2009 14:21:57

Got the book, "What doctors don't tell you" will reveal many good treatments for this condition. It will also reveal that a large % of this condition is caused by the medical community in the first place.
I have had three members of my family die at the hands of the medical establishment and their "medications" I am not sure at all what I would do in this case. The MD that I go to insists that you know the good and bad side of treatment. He says that if the medication don't kill you, it may cure you.

nocroman on 22/05/2009 14:22:54

Freedom gives every human being the right to choose. If they are not old enough then it is up to the paerent to make the choice. That is what I and millions of other men and woman have fought for. No one has the right to impose their will upon another regaurdless of their good intentions. People seem to think if its a child or they believe it is the right thing to do they have the right to interfere in a families decision. Just because you think your right does not make it so. The freedom of these people is being violated by a moronic judge that is trying to impose his beliefs upon others. Thats not what our laws and this country is all about. Like the choice or not, it is the God given right of every human being to make their own choices concerning themselves and their family and no one elses.

All Things Considered on 22/05/2009 14:32:09

At first I thought this brainwashed child should be given the medical care he needs and the parents should be jailed for neglect.
But consider what the child would do with his continued life; He might very well reproduce. More little morons running around this world ruining life for sensible people.
Let's instead give the mother a commendation for breaking one of the many cycles of stupidity. Thank you for assisting natural selection Colleen.

can'tbelieveit on 22/05/2009 14:33:41

Dmax- Many children and teenagers go through experiences that make them grow up much faster. I.E..Addiction, Divorce, Death, Illness, etc.. this list could go on. Heather was not being naive but just stating a fact. This boy has every right to choose whether or not he wants to put chemo in his body. He did try it. He knows how it has affected him. I'm pretty positive that you probably have not undergone chemo, or otherwise you would probably be more understanding and sympathetic. And yes, there is a 'right to health', everyone has a right to choose what goes into their body without Goverment interference for religious beliefs or not. Or otherwise our meals should be planned and provided by the man, along with paid doctors visits, paid medicine, and paid living expenses in general. Oh and by the way, I say they should give you a big dose of painkiller cocktail for a week and tell me how you feel. And further more for another example.. what about the many immigrants that do not have to vaccinate their children before sending them in to public schools because of religious beliefs? I believe you are only looking at it from a conservative point of view and pretty much calling the 'naysaying treehugging liberals' Krazy with a big capital K.

42fw on 22/05/2009 14:40:22

as a 'naysaying treehugging liberal' myself, (by the way it is extremely conservative to want less governmental interference, can'tbelieveit) i have watched many friends and relatives go through chemptherapy- some old, some young. the younger ones who pushed the the undeniably tiresome and tragic treatment and are in remission are extremely thankful. I doubt they would've made it with vitamin C & prayer. All though, "all things considered" has a very good point. kudos.

42fw on 22/05/2009 14:43:44

chemotherapy**

can'tbelieveit on 22/05/2009 14:49:05

All I'm saying is it is his and his family's choice. Regardless. The country was built on the principal of freedom, leaving commonwealth law because Government interference and hindrance.

jackbnimble on 22/05/2009 14:54:47

"he's thirteen and brainwashed, obviously. Hodgkin's is incredibly curable and his parents are ignorant bible thumpers."

in addition, the child has a learning disability and cannot read. generally i agree that an individual should be entitled to choose the treatment they receive, but i very much doubt daniel is well informed enough to be making this kind of decision on his own, and as noted above, its clear his parents are the ones making the decision despite professional opinions as to his best interests. i think parents should be allowed to make these kinds of decisions for their kids insofar as they are acting in the best interests of the child. this doesnt appear to be the case in this situation, as their refusal of treatment is certainly not informed by his medical needs, nor does it seem to reflect a reasonable attempt to improve his quality of life. unreasonable people shouldnt get to let their children die for unreasonable reasons - can you imagine that slippery slope if we allow parents to just deny their children medical treatment on a whim?

also, what religious beliefs? they are roman catholics. thats a bunch of hooey.

Moon Howler on 22/05/2009 15:18:36

Daniel Hauser should have the sole discretion to choose or reject chemotherapy. I don't care if he's 13 or 30. His human rights still remain.

jackbnimble on 22/05/2009 15:46:17

"Daniel Hauser should have the sole discretion to choose or reject chemotherapy. I don't care if he's 13 or 30. His human rights still remain."

Really? Thats pretty tenuous. What if he was 10? Or should a 4 year old be able to decide whether they want to live or die? I know a lot of 13 year olds that i wouldnt trust to choose what to wear to school, let alone to make important medical decisions.

As I said before, I agree in spirit and think that typically people are entitled to make those kinds of decisions, but rights are not absolute. Thats why we have courts - to arbitrate in extenuating circumstances and in this case to judge whether he is (or his parents are)competent to make such a life determining decision

touting personal freedom and self-determination is great and all, but i think some of you people need a reality check.

mike on 22/05/2009 15:51:16

if the government can step in and take control of this then they will control you and everything you do. they will not stop at this and will continue to make efforts to controll you like turkeys. anyone who thinks that a persons religious beliefs or the parents decision is wrong then its your opinion but to say that the government should do this then just say gobble gobble.

dmax on 22/05/2009 16:38:26

It's been made clear in the past that adults have every right to decide to be martyrs for their faith. No argument.

It's also been made very clear that no parent has the right to make their child become a martyr. The courts have found that you can't make your child die just to support your beliefs.

Again, how many of you were teens? Did you become an adult, still believing everything that you did as an adolescent?

This is absolutely not an issue of turkeys and government control - but of common sense and protecting the young from the bad/damaging/fatal decisions of their parents.

The big bad government "makes" us all stop at traffic signals and we should Fight The Power? No. This country is NOT based on anarchy, but on a set of rules designed to protect us (including children) from being harmed by the acts of others. A teenager is not an adult, and is protected - as they should be.

This kid shouldn't be forced to die before he gets a chance to develop an adult perspective and be able to make his own choices.

mike on 22/05/2009 17:39:58

children are not adults unless they are being tried for murder by the government and then they are tried as adults in many cases as adults. enough said.

mike on 22/05/2009 18:37:30

It is obvious that dmax does not have kids. who would put their own kid through torture especially when there are other methods to deal with the cancer and 5 years to do it in. could you put you child through this while they plead not to? are you so insensitive just because you belive it is right?

"If there was no God then there would only be opinion & perception and no end to justification."
by mike

Fred Moolten on 22/05/2009 18:48:33

One reason for confusion by the public about the results of chemotherapy in this case is that Daniel Hauser's cancer - Hodgkin's Disease - is very different from most cancers in its response. The majority of advanced cancers are rarely cured by chemotherapy, which at best, prolongs life without altering the eventual outcome. In contrast, Hodgkin's Disease, at the stage suffered by Hauser, is totally curable in 90% or more cases, whereas it is almost uniformly fatal in the absence of effective treatment by chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy. It is the dramatic and now thoroughly documented difference between the results of chemotherapy as opposed to "natural remedies" or no therapy that drives the urgency to find Hauser while his prospects for cure remain high. If he is not found, his death from the disease is almost inevitable. Of interest, an individual often cited as having previously fled from chemotherapy - Billy Best Jr. - also suffered from Hodgkin's Disease. Although he claimed to have been cured by natural remedies, he had in fact received multiple chemotherapy courses at the time he fled, and his cancer was almost gone. He was fortunate that his failure to complete the final courses did not cost him his life. In contrast, Hauser has received only the beginnings of treatment, and his latest x-ray showed his cancer to have regrown following the cessation of that early treatment. His window of opportunity is closing fast.

StanS on 22/05/2009 21:08:38