Arrest ordered for mom of boy, 13, resisting chemo

[DizBelle]

I guess it all goes back to societies viewpoint that, in general, humans under a certain age (18 in most states) do not have the maturity, intelligence, etc., to make informed decisions on their own behalf (hence they cannot enter into contracts, etc).

So here we have a youth, viewed by society as being unable to make informed choices for himself, faced with a disease that, left untreated, will cause his death.

His mother and father are responsible for making decisions on the boys behalf. The latest article I read states clearly that the father wants the boy returned for the chemothreapy treatment. The mother has made the unilateral decision to treat her son with unconventional means (indeed, if the article is correct, even the 'founder' of the faith-based movement she is a member of is calling for her to return the boy).

Using a 'reasonable person' standard, I believe that most reasonable people would opt to have the youth treated with the convention, proven, chemotherapy, rather than almost certainly letting the boy die. The mother is herself exhibiting irrational behavior.

As for the mother 'not having the child in the first place', that is Monday morning quarterbacking. I imagine that if we could fly back in time and talk to the mother and father before this boy was conceived we may not detect any logical reason to deny them children.

Yes, if the mother had said back then "If I have a son, and he developes a deadly cancer years from now, I will not have him treated with chemotherapy but with herbs", then perhaps an argument could have been made for sterilization. However, that is not how the real world works.

Finally, the 'government' (state governments) used to have laws (back in the 1930s for the most part) that prohibited certain classes of people from procreating: mentally ********, people with certain diseases, etc. Heck, I seem to recall that one state even made it unlawful for people with Bipolar disorder from procreating (or what was called bipolar back then). A slippery slope indeed!

I agree that it is definitely a slipperly slope. But, if we want the government to stay out of our reproductive and parenting business, we HAVE to be ok with them staying out of everyone's reproductive and parenting business - even if we believe those parents are complete idiots. You just can't have it both ways.

 

[legalsea]

I agree that it is definitely a slipperly slope. But, if we want the government to stay out of our reproductive and parenting business, we HAVE to be ok with them staying out of everyone's reproductive and parenting business - even if we believe those parents are complete idiots. You just can't have it both ways.

Well, I just do not believe that a parent has a right to allow their children to die of disease in the name of religion. He is too young to protect himself or to make informed choices for himself.

True, we can go back in time to the good ol' days when parents had absolute power over their children, with the only real exception being killing them. As the years passed we, as society and through our government representatives, have passed laws (mostly state and local levels, but some Federal) to protect children. Often from their parent's poor choices.

There were people outraged when laws began being passed to prohibit children from smoking and drinking. After all, people said, parents had the absolute right to decide if their toddlers smoked and drank. Yet, most rationale people felt that such parents were being irresponsible and so the laws were passed.

There are still plenty of opportunities for parents to make ill-choices for their children. The law does not prohibit you from feeding your child fast-food every day, for instance.

 

[Scurvy]

I agree that it is definitely a slipperly slope. But, if we want the government to stay out of our reproductive and parenting business, we HAVE to be ok with them staying out of everyone's reproductive and parenting business - even if we believe those parents are complete idiots. You just can't have it both ways.

This seems unreasonable and unrealistic to me. Using this "all or nothing" logic, no one could ever do anything about cases of child abuse. Parents could lock their kids in a closet as punishment and leave them there to starve to death. They could beat them to death as a form of punishment. They could refuse to send their kids to school and never teach them anything, leading to the children being completely unable to function in the "real world". Obviously it's difficult to decide where the line should be, but clearly not all parenting choices are acceptable and there should be a point where CPS should step in to protect children from dangerous parenting choices.

 

[Laura]

This seems unreasonable and unrealistic to me. Using this "all or nothing" logic, no one could ever do anything about cases of child abuse. Parents could lock their kids in a closet as punishment and leave them there to starve to death. They could beat them to death as a form of punishment. They could refuse to send their kids to school and never teach them anything, leading to the children being completely unable to function in the "real world". Obviously it's difficult to decide where the line should be, but clearly not all parenting choices are acceptable and there should be a point where CPS should step in to protect children from dangerous parenting choices.

Indeed. If this were a cancer case where the chemo hasn't been shown to work or may not work (causing more harm than good), the parents would be well within their rights to refuse treatment for their son. But here, chemo had been shown to work. Kids need protection from parents, sometimes.

 

[cteddiesgirl]

I agree that it is definitely a slipperly slope. But, if we want the government to stay out of our reproductive and parenting business, we HAVE to be ok with them staying out of everyone's reproductive and parenting business - even if we believe those parents are complete idiots. You just can't have it both ways.

OK. So you're saying you're just fine with letting this child die from a curable disease?

You're saying it's OK to let parents beat their children to death.
You're saying it's OK to let parents starve their children to death.
You're saying it's OK to let parents keep their children uneducated so they become burdens to society after they become adults.
You're saying it's OK to let children live in filth and end up sick and become burdens to society.
You're saying it's OK to let parents molest their children.
You're saying it's OK to let parents turn their children into prostitutes.


In other words, you simply don't care about anyone but you and yours.


While there are some things we can ignore about parents and the way they parent, there are some things we simply can't ignore.

Just as we can't ignore the fact that this child will die if not taken to get proper treatment.
If you were the parent and your spouse was refusing to let your son be treated properly, you wouldn't want someone to step in and help save the life of your child?

 

[smartestnumber5]

I agree that it is definitely a slipperly slope. But, if we want the government to stay out of our reproductive and parenting business, we HAVE to be ok with them staying out of everyone's reproductive and parenting business - even if we believe those parents are complete idiots. You just can't have it both ways.

I don't think this follows; I think there are actually very different and unrelated moral concerns that lead us on the one hand to think the govt should stay out of our reproductive business and on the other hand thinking the govt should in some very extreme cases get involved in parent's decisions about how to raise their children.

The issue in reproduction is whether the state can tell a competent adult what to do or not do with *her* body (e.g. the state can't tie you down and cut your fallopian tubes despite your protesting--that's assault). Of course, even here things aren't absolute. Most state govt's do forbid abortion in the 3rd trimester except in cases of health issues.

The issue in parenting is whether the state can tell a competent adult what to do with *another* person's body (possibly against that person's will) when the person happens to be the adult's child.

The law already lets adults make tons of choices for themselves based on a principle of bodily autonomy (e.g. to have unprotected sex on camera with 1000 people) which they are not allowed to make for their underage child based on some principle of parent's rights. Surely no one finds allowing Mom to have sex with 1000 people and non allowing Mom to sign 8 year old Sally up to have sex with 1000 people problematic. Mom has a right/interest to do what she wants with *her* body; she doesn't have that right/interest with regard to Sally's body, because Sally's body is someone else's body. So I don't see where there is a conflict. Mom has no legitimate complaint that the state won't let her turn Sally's body into a sex 7-11. Sally does have a legitimate complain if the state doesn't step in when Mom tries to do that her body--that would be a violation of Sally's human rights regardless of what relationship Mom has to Sally.

I pretty much agree with this. If the government was so interested in protecting the children, why don't they (that is, we) make sure you're a fit parent BEFORE you become one instead of stepping in after the fact when they decide you're not doing a good enough job?

I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Do you think there should be a law forbidding people from getting pregnant unless they have already gotten the state's permission? What will we do with the millions of people who have unplanned pregnancies every year? Will we force all of those people to have abortions? How will people prove that they are fit to be parents?

Will we give them a test which will ask them about every possible hypothetical situation that could arise and what they would do? Like "If your kid writes in sharpie on the wall, will you a) beat them with a hammer, b) send them to their room, c) throw them out on the street, d) tell them you wish they were never born?" What reason would people have to answer honestly? And how would people even know what they would do in a situation. I doubt most parents who abuse their children are planning it before they even get pregnant. This woman may have not even had these religious beliefs before she had the child. How can we make sure that parents don't convert to a religion that requires refusal of life-saving medical care after the child is born?

There would still be significant bodily autonomy issues that came up here if there were going to be forced abortions, sterilization, abstinence, etc. But also the logistics of it would just be insane.

I think we have the system we have because it's the best that we could actually achieve. People are free to do what they like reproductively, even if what they are doing is harming themselves. And once a child is in existence, there is a pretty strong bias in favor of the parent getting to decide most things for the child. But NOT if the parent is significantly harming the child. Then the state steps in and protects the child's basic human rights, which trumps the parent's interest in getting to raise the child as they want. (And in cases like this where there are religious reasons for a parent to deny medical treatment, I believe what happens is the state steps in in a minimal way. They order the treatment for the child, but I don't think they usually take the child in protective custody if in all other ways the parents are not harming the child.)

We don't have anyway of accurately determining what kind of parents people are going to be ahead of time. There just isn't any useful role for the state to play at that juncture.

 

[Carly_Roach]

If and when this child dies, his stupid mother should be charged with murder.

If and when this child dies on chemotherapy (or shortly afterward), the stupid doctor who forced it on him should be charged with murder.

But, like you, that's just my opinion.

 

[Shelton123]

If and when this child dies on chemotherapy (or shortly afterward), the stupid doctor who forced it on him should be charged with murder.

But, like you, that's just my opinion.

You're KIDDING, right? His mother is ACTIVELY KILLING HIM! She is MAKING A CHOICE for him to die! If someone dies on chemo, the doctor is trying to make him life!!!

I can't wait to see the news story "Mother of kid with cancer is SHOCKED people in Mexico don't speak English!"

 

[Seahunt]

Updated article from MSNBC: the mother is apparenty taking her son to Mexico. Yeah, good idea.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30824587/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/

Ugh, right into the swine flu hotspot with his compromised immune system

Mexico swine flu deaths hit 74; total cases 3,734

 

[imabrat]

If and when this child dies on chemotherapy (or shortly afterward), the stupid doctor who forced it on him should be charged with murder.

But, like you, that's just my opinion.

You do know that it is very, very, very uncommon to die because of chemotherapy itself, yes?

 

[DisneyMomx7]

If and when this child dies on chemotherapy (or shortly afterward), the stupid doctor who forced it on him should be charged with murder.

But, like you, that's just my opinion.

THis post makes me sick. I HAVE had a child undergo chemo and recover, and saw many, many children on the oncology floor receive horrible chemo, but go on to live long lives.

There is always a risk in treatment, but the oncologist will weight the risk of cure against the risk of treatment. I have heard oncologists tell parents that it was too late and not to do the chemo.

Do you understand that with conventional treatment this cancer is highly curable, without almost definitely fatal?

 

[Rebelmom67]

You're KIDDING, right? His mother is ACTIVELY KILLING HIM! She is MAKING A CHOICE for him to die! If someone dies on chemo, the doctor is trying to make him life!!!

I can't wait to see the news story "Mother of kid with cancer is SHOCKED people in Mexico don't speak English!"

You do know that it is very, very, very uncommon to die because of chemotherapy itself, yes?

We have some very sharp Dis teens here. Don't let Carly get to you, she is just trying to get a rise.

 

[imabrat]

We have some very sharp Dis teens here. Don't let Carly get to you, she is just trying to get a rise.

Thank you. I'm not too sharp, but having been on enough chemo to last me a life-time, I'm all on the comment like white on rice because I know it's wrong. I've had enough of one chemotherapy drug that I actually went toxic - chemo was leaking out of my bloodstream and pooling into my feet. My kidneys, thank God, didn't fail but the levels of use (? I can't think of the terminology) were much lower than they should've been. Guess what? I didn't die. Heck, I wasn't even close to dying.

Cancer and it's treatment is a sore topic for me, people think they can pull a fast one over on (like saying this child WILL die of chemotherapy itself) and it's not going to happen. Nope, I have too much experience to let them spew that junk.

 

[Shelton123]

We have some very sharp Dis teens here. Don't let Carly get to you, she is just trying to get a rise.

Thanks, though I'm not that sharp, but my VVDGF (Meaning girlfriend, not grandfather) has cancer, so I know a bit about it!

 

[Carly_Roach]

Don't let Carly get to you, she is just trying to get a rise.

Actually, no I wasn't. It's not a good idea to think you know what's going on in other people's heads and speak as if you're representing them.

It's obvious that people who've embraced the whole cancer/medical doctrine thing are going to have strong ideas about what's right (doctors and chemo) then those who've lost loved ones who did everything the doctor said to do and those loved ones still died. In some cases they died infinitely more horrible deaths because of chemo than if they'd just let the cancer run it's course or turned to alternative medicine.

If my comment infuriated you, I'm sorry. But at least you have a good idea of the emotion the other side is going through when you condemn them without knowing what they know.

Or because they're not doing things the way you think they should do them.

Not everyone in the entire world thinks Western medicine is the greatest thing since sliced bread. A little tolerance would be nice for those of us who think the "modern medicine" fanatics are just as backward as those fanatics believe we are.

If you're going to holler for that Mother's head when she attempts a different course, then I guess I'm going to holler for the doctor's head when he forces this child and their parents to do something they don't want to do.

And that's all I'm going to say about that.

 

[Rebelmom67]

If my comment infuriated you, I'm sorry.

You have a high opinion of yourself......nothing on the internet bothers me, nothing.

 

[wvjules]

I don't think I've ever seen anyone fanatical about Western Medicine. Now alternative medicine is a completely different story; they all seem to be fanatical. Those that use WM seem to know that alternative medicine can enahnce/help treatment. However, practicers of AM think that their way is the only way and WM is evil.

 

[imabrat]

Actually, no I wasn't. It's not a good idea to think you know what's going on in other people's heads and speak as if you're representing them.

It's obvious that people who've embraced the whole cancer/medical doctrine thing are going to have strong ideas about what's right (doctors and chemo) then those who've lost loved ones who did everything the doctor said to do and those loved ones still died. In some cases they died infinitely more horrible deaths because of chemo than if they'd just let the cancer run it's course or turned to alternative medicine.

If my comment infuriated you, I'm sorry. But at least you have a good idea of the emotion the other side is going through when you condemn them without knowing what they know.

Or because they're not doing things the way you think they should do them.

Not everyone in the entire world thinks Western medicine is the greatest thing since sliced bread. A little tolerance would be nice for those of us who think the "modern medicine" fanatics are just as backward as those fanatics believe we are.

If you're going to holler for that Mother's head when she attempts a different course, then I guess I'm going to holler for the doctor's head when he forces this child and their parents to do something they don't want to do.

And that's all I'm going to say about that.

Eh, not necessarily - I'm both of those people. I've received chemo and lived, and I've watched a close friend wither away because there were no options left. She tried at least 5+ clinical trials. I'm all for alternative medicine if it works, but the alternative medicine in question has been proven not to work - his tumor has grown back. I think that's a fair way to say "Okay, what we want isn't working. We want our child to live so why don't we give chemo a chance and see if it works too".

Also, this "refuse chemo" thing seems to be coming from the mother only.

Daniel's father, Anthony Hauser, said in an interview Wednesday at the family's farm near Sleepy Eye, a town of 3,500 people about 80 miles from Minneapolis, that his wife and son left without telling him their plans, and that he hadn't heard from them.

He said he hopes his wife is either getting their son treatment for his illness or will bring him home. "If he's being cared for, and it's going to help him, I think it's going to be a good thing," Anthony Hauser said.

 

[jessaboo]

I'm going to be the person who might make someone angry.


He's 13 years old.
Let's be honest.
There are a few means of education.
If the child was in homeschooling, he would have been able to read anyway, or else the tests that homeschooled kids take would have had to been forged by his mother.

SECOND.

I was 15 when I got cancer, and there was NO WAY that I wouldn't have known.

The religious issue cannot be touched here.

I'm sorry, but whatever my belief is, if my OWN MOTHER turned down treatment for me, I would have gone BALLISTIC. That's just me.

How would he have gone into chemo, finished a treatment, and checked out of the hospital without thinking he is sick. CHEMO HURTS.

I'm frustrated with the way people are trying to get out of medicating their children when they want to. I believe there should be a law stating that if a minor can make a choice, they should be able to override their parents decision to take medical treatment.


THIS FRUSTRATES ME.
Not only as a young adult still (20), but AS A CANCER PATIENT MYSELF.


Sorry guys, it ticks me off.

 

[Disney Doll]

I certainly can't be the only one who finds this post condescending and offensive?

"You don't hear about it b/c the doctors can't talk about it, b/c it's not allowed for people to treat cancer patients (for the cancer) in any OTHER way than the drugs or radiation. "

Yep, all of those evil doctors just watching everyone die while they know that herbs will do the trick. All those parents that watched their children suffer and wither away just weren't informed or fighting hard enough. Please!

bumbershoot has a huge issue with doctors since the loss of her mother, so most of her responses to medical posts are colored by that.

We are the sum of our experience.

In regard to the boy in question...his cancer is very treatable, and probably curable, if he gets the treatment. Using alternative treatment clearly hasn't helpedm him since his cancer has gotten worse. I find it sad....