OT - District judge rules teen must be treated for cancer.

Search

New member
Joined
Jul 20, 2002
Messages
75,154
Tokens
A Minnesota judge has ruled a 13-year-old boy with Hodgkin's lymphoma, a highly treatable form of cancer, must seek medical treatment over his parents' objections.

A 13-year-old Minnesota boy with cancer must resume prescribed treatment to save his life, despite religious and other objections by his family -- unless it already too late, a Brown County District Court judge ruled this morning.

Daniel Hauser must have a chest x-ray by next Tuesday, when Judge John Rodenberg will learn if the boy's Hodgkin's lymphoma has spread, the ruling said.

Rodenberg said the boy should remain in the custody of his parents, Anthony and Colleen Hauser of Sleepy Eye, "provided that the parents get the chest x-ray" and if chemotherapy is ordered, choose an oncologist to provide the medical care.

"Daniel Hauser is a child in need of protection," the judge concluded, noting that five medical doctors agreed on the recommended treatment.
"This matter ... involves a 13-year-old child who has only a rudimentary understanding at best of the risks and benefits of chemotherapy ... He does not believe he is very ill currently. The fact is that he is very ill currently," the judge wrote.

The Hausers and the family lawyer could not immediately be reached for comment this morning.

"It is possible that [it] may already be 'too late.''' the judge wrote. "The court will not order chemotherapy if Daniel's previously favorable prognosis no longer pertains," said the order, posted this morning on the Minnesota state courts website, www.mncourts.gov.

At a May 7 visit with his doctor, Daniel showed symptoms that indicate his tumor may have grown, the judge noted.

The judge said that "medical neglect as defined by Minnesota law most definitely occurred" during two recent doctors visits when a chest x-ray was recommended, and refused by the parents, to see if the lymphoma had spread.

Daniel Hauser was diagnosed in January with Hodgkin's lymphoma, but the Hausers stopped their son's chemotherapy and radiation after one treatment in February, and began substituting alternative care.


His doctors then notified child protection officials, prompting Brown County Attorney James Olson to file a petition asking the court to order the boy into treatment.

Daniel lives with his parents and seven brothers and sisters on a farm near Sleepy Eye, Minn.

At last week's court hearing in New Ulm, cancer specialists from Children's Hospitals & Clinics of Minnesota and the Mayo Clinic testified that Daniel had a 90 percent chance of surviving with chemotherapy and radiation, but likely will die within five years without it.

The Hausers argued that the state was trampling on their rights to medical and religious freedom, citing their membership in a Native American religious group, the Nemenhah, which advocates natural healing.
Daniel submitted a formal affidavit stating that he was a Nemenhah medicine man and church elder, and that "I have made the decision to disobey any order to have me surrender to any medical treatment involving self-destruction and death, including chemotherapy."

Colleen Hauser testified that she was trying to "starve" her son's tumor with natural healing methods, such as herbs and ionized water, that she had learned about on the Internet.

Treatment stopped

Daniel, who turned 13 in March, learned that he had Hodgkin's lymphoma in late January. Although his doctors at Children's Hospitals & Clinics of Minnesota recommended six rounds of chemotherapy, he received only one, in February, when he was hospitalized with complications from a tumor in his chest.

The Hausers' lawyer, Calvin Johnson, argued that chemotherapy itself could kill Daniel, and that forcing the boy into treatment would be unconscionable.

"This trial is the act of two loving parents who will go to any length to save their child from assault and torture," he wrote in his closing argument. Just as doctors must ask for consent before treating patients, he said, patients have the right to refuse.


"The point is simple: The Hausers have elected forms of alternative health care that they believe to be more effective and more beneficial than those recommended by the cancer industry," he wrote. "Here, we are dealing with a mature 13-year-old boy whose wishes align with those of his parents."

But Olson, the county attorney, and Daniel's court-appointed guardian, Shiree Oliver, both argued that the boy has been endangered by his parents' actions.

"Colleen and Anthony Hauser have a right to raise their children. But they do not have any recognized constitutional right to let their son die from a curable disease," wrote Thomas Sinas, an attorney for the boy's guardian.
Sinas argued that Daniel's own testimony, in a closed session with the judge, showed that he's not mature enough to make his own medical decisions.

"Daniel, tragically, cannot read," Sinas wrote in his closing argument. "He was not able to read the affidavit he supposedly affirmed." He noted that Daniel's doctors testified that he did not appear to understand the severity of his illness. "Daniel's only source of information about his disease is his parents."

Olson argued that Daniel has been "medically neglected," and that his medical condition may have deteriorated because of the delay in seeking treatment. "Time is of the essence," he wrote.

Minneapolis St Paul Star Tribune.com


Comments posted in Star Tribune concernng this matter.

How I feel about this...

I am against laws or actions that tell a person what they should (or shouldn't) do with their body. Even so, this is very difficult because a young child cannot make a determination as to what is best for them. They trust their parents to make the best decisions for their health, and the parents should trust medical doctors (and get 2nd, 3rd, or 4th opinions if needed). When the survival rate is 90% with treatment and 5% without, I can't honestly say "The parents know best for this child" when they deny treatment against all medical advice. I still believe the parents have every right to say who can touch or heal their child, but I also believe that if the child suffers, the parents are to blame and shouldn't be given mercy by the courts when their charged with neglect. While the opportunity exists to force this family into treatment now and save the child, I do not accept that that's government's role in our lives, and it can't be pre-emptive. So, the parents have the right to raise their child in the way they see fit, but if the child does not live through this cancer the parents should be charged with 1st degree murder because that's the crime they've committed. They knew he would, by 95% chance, die if they didn't seek treatment...sounds premeditated to me.

posted by CrombieMN on May 15, 09 at 12:12 pm | <FORM>The state has every right to step in when a child's safety is in danger- which is why every county has a Child Protection Services division. Parents who love their children make poor choices for the welfare of those same children every single day. Your rights as a parent end when a child is in danger. Unlike judges and law enforcement personnel, parents are not required to be educated or even to have common sense to be parents. Anyone can have eight children, it doesn't mean they have a right to do whatever they want with those eight children without intervention or consequences. This child can not even read or write- so these parents have failed this boy on many different levels, and I guarantee they will be taking a closer look at the welfare of his 7 siblings after all of this information has surfaced. This has nothing to do with abortion, pharmaceutical companies, or "big brother." This is about a boy who has the right to live, no matter who his parents are.</FORM>

posted by my2cents4u on May 15, 09 at 12:13 pm | <FORM> </FORM>

Under What Theory of Law

was this ruling based? Was the Judge's thinking based on Buck v Bell? The implication that the state must (let alone can) supersede parential rights (and the articulated desires of the teenager himself) is to me (and should be to many) frightening.Could a judge assert " [name] is a child in need of protection," if five doctors of history/political science proclaim that the parents are teaching the child outmode thinking like individual rights, sancity of contract, and the right to own and defend private property?As to the 5 doctors in this case --- if they did not have a pecuniary interest in this case would their opinion been the same? Did the Star Tribune "follow the money" in the reporting of this case?
posted by karenl87 on May 15, 09 at 12:13 pm | <FORM> </FORM><FORM class=vote> </FORM>
 

That settles it...It's WED/DAY
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
6,463
Tokens
This case is very simple and relatively clear cut however I can think of many circumstances which would make this a lot more challenging.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,106,901
Messages
13,439,377
Members
99,342
Latest member
williamsone19
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com