Federal Authority vs. Parental Rights

[fuzee]

Regarding the "wanted" mother, on-the-lam with her 13-yr-old son --
I'd challenge ANYONE to justify the position taken by the Federal government, on this issue.

Go ahead. Try.

Because, I'll gladly show you two other prominent, pertinent examples where that same government has dealt with identical issues, in a blatantly inconsistent manner.

Like I said -- anyone...go ahead...try it.

-- fuzee

Oh, and.....just a side note to the show's producer --
if that "wanted" mother had tried to call into the show, and explain her recent actions.....
would you have let her on-air?
Or, would you have simply hit "the red-alert button," so that she might be traced?

[fuzee]

Daniel Hauser returns to Minnesota

Star Tribune

http://www.startribune.com (http://www.startribune.com/45990387.html?elr=KArks:DCiUHc3E7_V_nDaycUiacyKU7D YaGEP7vDEh7P:DiUs)

Sure....no one wants any harm to come to the boy.

The doctors, the lawyers, the judge;
the state, and even the FBI -- they're all acting
in what they believe to be the boy's best interests.

But, when the targeted recipient of even the well-intended,
holds a diametrically opposed viewpoint to theirs --
should mere good intentions be enough to trump an
individual's God-given rights?

Daniel Hauser certainly doesn't want to die.

Daniel's parents, and siblings certainly don't want to
lose him.

And those facts alone, should speak volumes -- especially, in
a court of law!

Yet, time and time again, we see the perverted snapshots
of our own judiciary-gone-wild --
robed rulers, distracted by shiny suits, hired by the
aqua-scrubbed, orphaned twins of not just the Barnard's,
but the Mengele's, as well.

No, Daniel doesn't want to die.
But, he doesn't want to be tortured, either.
He wants his rights to life, and liberty --
and under his own terms.

Of course, Daniel is only 13.
But, that's exactly why his parents' wishes must be
considered.
If they haven't the right to speak for their own child...
who does?

The courts?
The state?
The Federal agencies?

Wouldn't that be the same group who gave us such
memorable box-office hits, as --

Lost Raiders of the YFZ Ark (2008)

The Schindler-Schiavo List (2005)

The Return of Elian (1999)

Waco Burning (1993)

and, for the sports' fans....
that memorable cage-match of the 20th century --
Roe vs. Wade!

In each of the above situations, legal authorities took it upon
themselves to "act on the behalf of " those who were either
of minor age, or due to some physical condition --
were unable to speak for themselves.

Sadly, the largest percentage of those recipients are no
longer around to thank their benefactors.

Sometimes, government must be told to back off,
and leave us to our individualized pursuit of happiness.

[terri910]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.



*sigh*

But I do prefer good intentions over bad ones, at least!

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

I haven't followed this story, so I'll have to read up on exactly what the parents wanted to do (or not do), but I will say this... Hodgkin's lymphoma is freakin' curable dammit.

[Rurudyne]

The federal government has no enumerated power to interfere in the health care decisions of ordinary citizens.

[captusa]

Regarding the "wanted" mother, on-the-lam with her 13-yr-old son --
I'd challenge ANYONE to justify the position taken by the Federal government, on this issue.

Go ahead. Try.

Because, I'll gladly show you two other prominent, pertinent examples where that same government has dealt with identical issues, in a blatantly inconsistent manner.

Like I said -- anyone...go ahead...try it.

-- fuzee

Oh, and.....just a side note to the show's producer --
if that "wanted" mother had tried to call into the show, and explain her recent actions.....
would you have let her on-air?
Or, would you have simply hit "the red-alert button," so that she might be traced?




I am not a big supporter of religions but I am a supporter of religious rights and I am glad I do not have to decide if it is Constitutional to force a child to undergo a life saving procedure that is against their religion. (i.e. blood transfusions, chemo, vaccination, etc.)

[angelicmadrigal]

The federal government has no enumerated power to interfere in the health care decisions of ordinary citizens.

Fine, but if the kid dies from lymphoma the parents should be incarcerated for murder. Since they had the choice to 1)get their kid treatment or 2) let their kid die.

[fuzee]

Fine, but if the kid dies from lymphoma the parents should be incarcerated for murder. Since they had the choice to 1)get their kid treatment or 2) let their kid die.
That seems reasonable, angelic.
Of course, whenever parents choose to stick to medical recommendations,
and the child still dies....we'd then have to jail the parents, and the doctors.

Remember that the enemy is cancer.
And that bad judgment is still a mistake, not a crime.

Remember, too, that every weapon of mass destruction
was invented by the blame finger.

[Rurudyne]

Fine, but if the kid dies from lymphoma the parents should be incarcerated for murder. Since they had the choice to 1)get their kid treatment or 2) let their kid die.
Just not under any federal law.

Or under any ex post facto law either.

[fuzee]

I am not a big supporter of religions but I am a supporter of religious rights and I am glad I do not have to decide if it is Constitutional to force a child to undergo a life saving procedure that is against their religion. (i.e. blood transfusions, chemo, vaccination, etc.)
Same here, capt.

The keyword here, is "force."
It's been around a very long time.
In fact, mankind has been battling it from our very beginnings.

And that's why our Constitution is so timeless, I think.
Simplified, the document might be summed-up as --
"No man shall hold force over another."

[angelicmadrigal]

That seems reasonable, angelic.
Of course, whenever parents choose to stick to medical recommendations,
and the child still dies....we'd then have to jail the parents, and the doctors.

Ah, but see then you can make the argument that the Dr.s and parents did everything medically necessary to save the child's life, which is what frees them from any responsibility.


Remember that the enemy is cancer.
And that bad judgment is still a mistake, not a crime.
Actaully bad judgement that causes someone's death IS a crime.

And no, I'm more concerned about rampant stupidity than I am about cancer. Cancer can kill you, but stupid is highly contagious.

[angelicmadrigal]

Just not under any federal law.

Or under any ex post facto law either.

If you kill someone by whitholding medical treatment that by law you have to provide them with, while KNOWING the conseqeunces of doing it, I'd think that makes a good case for you to be liable if they die. Being in denial, or buying into some medically unsound mumbo jumbo when the rest of the world knows how to really take care of the problem is no excuse.

[angelicmadrigal]

And you have a right to raise your kid however you want w/in the confines of the law. You can't deprive a child of food, water, shelter, to
the point they are in danger of dying or serious illness, and you are also not permitted to withold medical treatment for serious illness. Both are mighty fine ways for CPS to pay you a visit, and a potential for criminal charges if it's bad enough to be considered severe abuse.

[Thor]

Remember that the enemy is cancer.
And that bad judgment is still a mistake, not a crime.


Bad judgement most certainly can be a crime. Isn't it bad judgement to drink 12 beers and then try to drive home? Isn't it bad judgement to pencil whip a bridge inspection? Isn't it bad judgement if you're hunting and you shoot at something moving behind a bush?

Now, as for the parent who runs off to avoid standard medical treatment for his or her cancer stricken child....

Imagine this scenario: A child is hit by a car and is lying in the street. The paramedics show up and want to immediately transport the child to the hospital. But the parents, holding to their religious and cultural beliefs, refuse to allow the child to be taken until they can conduct a "healing ceremony". This ceremony involves dancing, chanting, burning incense and sacrificing a goat. By the time all this is done, the child is in grave shape and he later dies at the hospital. Should the adults be prosecuted for negligent homicide (or something similar)? Or should we say that the parents are entitled to their beliefs, even if it means it causes the death of their child?

[Rurudyne]

Isn't it bad judgement if you're hunting and you shoot at something moving behind a bush?
Not if it's a trial lawyer. :mrgreen:

[Thor]

Not if it's a trial lawyer. :mrgreen:

Well, of course! Everyone is aware of that exception.:))

[mysticbeauty_nbeast]

Bad judgement most certainly can be a crime. Isn't it bad judgement to drink 12 beers and then try to drive home? Isn't it bad judgement to pencil whip a bridge inspection? Isn't it bad judgement if you're hunting and you shoot at something moving behind a bush?

Now, as for the parent who runs off to avoid standard medical treatment for his or her cancer stricken child....

Imagine this scenario: A child is hit by a car and is lying in the street. The paramedics show up and want to immediately transport the child to the hospital. But the parents, holding to their religious and cultural beliefs, refuse to allow the child to be taken until they can conduct a "healing ceremony". This ceremony involves dancing, chanting, burning incense and sacrificing a goat. By the time all this is done, the child is in grave shape and he later dies at the hospital. Should the adults be prosecuted for negligent homicide (or something similar)? Or should we say that the parents are entitled to their beliefs, even if it means it causes the death of their child?

Damn fine hypothetical you give here Thor...Damn fine. AT what point do we as a society protect and uphold a specific right/freedom (read religious freedom) at the sacrifice of another right? (read right to pursuit of happiness, the right to live, the right to base constitutional freedoms). It most certainly can be boiled down to what rights trump other basic rights. However, when your minor...your rights are filtered through to you vis a vie your guardians/parents...or in some instances...the state itself. Not a clear cut case of an adult challenging or fighting for a freedom. Kids are totally screwed when it comes down to this type of argument.

In my opinion, when dealing with a minor (ie child under age 18) where the parents can be jailed for not ensuring their child attends public school; where parents are held by law to responsibilities in feeding, clothing, housing said child; where parents can be jailed for any type of physical, emotional or mental abuse; where guardians and or parents are financial responsible for any property damage and or needs of the child ...they should most certainly fall into the same parental qualifications when a rub between religious rights infringes upon the health and welfare of the child. That's just common sense. Does that mean however that the religious aspects of our freedoms get flushed? Not entirely in my opinion ...; religious freedoms should be considered in all situations that would or could exclude the health and welfare of a child. One must take presidence over the other in those situations where the life or death of a minor is on the line. So have your religion on a silver platter if you wish...but play that game on your own dime...or in this case..on your own life.

I was watching this story last week...and saw the young man in question. I had to think about myself at 13. What I knew then verses what I know now...are worlds apart. Although I do give this young man credit for having such firm convictions in faith...however; I must wonder just how much of this is this young man's faith..and how much of this situation is following his parents beliefs/lead? One has to wonder if the father or mother were sick...would they refuse treatment? Would they only stick to holistic forms of treatment?

As this story pertains to our government or medical professionals telling parents what they are and are not going to do with their child...well, I have firm opinion based on that too. Medical can do as much harm as they do good. Parents must be informed and be able to reel in medical professionals that simply wish to follow a protocol...not what is necessarily best for the patients. This scenerio could have been dealt with much more positively had a medical doctor actually listened to the concerns of the family/patient and opted to add holistic treatment to the medical regimen. In this way, the entire situation could have been avoided. Some doctors simply don't want to genuflect to stating they don't know everything..and not all treatment works for every single patient.

Government, medical professionals and the parents made this whole scenerio one huge nightmare for this young man. Who will be to blame when treatment doesn't work? Who will be to blame when the kid contracts cancer again and refused treatment due to being over 18? Who will the finger get pointed at when that day comes? Will it be another Terri Shivo? Gads....I pray not. :pray:

~Mysty

[Thor]

Damn fine hypothetical you give here Thor...Damn fine. AT what point do we as a society protect and uphold a specific right/freedom (read religious freedom) at the sacrifice of another right? (read right to pursuit of happiness, the right to live, the right to base constitutional freedoms). It most certainly can be boiled down to what rights trump other basic rights. However, when your minor...your rights are filtered through to you vis a vie your guardians/parents...or in some instances...the state itself. Not a clear cut case of an adult challenging or fighting for a freedom. Kids are totally screwed when it comes down to this type of argument.


My basic belief is that you have the right to accept or turn down any type of medical treatment for any reason once you reach adulthood (and are not suffering from a mental disease). You're 40 years old and you want to eat rattlesnake tails in lieu of chemotherapy? You choose to have a shaman shake a rattle instead of getting bypass surgery? Hey, you have a right to do as you wish. But when we're talking about a child... Well, that child probably doesn't have the capacity to know what is in his or her own best interests and is incapable of making an informed choice. This is where the government may have cause to step in on the child's behalf. This is why, in my hypothetical, I think it would be perfectly reasonable for the police to step in and, while the parents are searching for a goat, forcibly (if necessary) remove the child and send him to the hospital.

[ChaosControl]

I'm against federal authority, period.
So yeah, when it comes to federal authority vs parental rights, I will side with parental rights.

[Dem]

I'm against federal authority, period.
So yeah, when it comes to federal authority vs parental rights, I will side with parental rights.
Even if the parental rights is to not medically treat their child?

If the child is not treated for cancer and then dies, the parents should be thrown in jail for negligence.

[Thor]

I'm against federal authority, period.
So yeah, when it comes to federal authority vs parental rights, I will side with parental rights.

A child develops an infection that could be easily treated with antibiotics. The parents believe in the "Moon God" and are convinced that he will cure their child if they pray to him, play music and run naked through a cornfield. The parents do these things every night for a week but the child's infection only worsens.

Should we sit idly by and allow the parents to "treat" the infection in this manner? Or should we take the child away from the parents and bring him to a doctor?

[countmein]

Have people been healed from this infection from the Moon God in the past? Believe me or not, really it makes no difference to me, people do get healed by simply changing their diet. I know if I was diagnosed with cancer tomorrow, I would change my diet first, then go from there. Thankfully, our ped. would give us a chance to heal our children naturally before contacting DCFS.

[fuzee]

Ah, but see then you can make the argument that the Dr.s and parents did everything medically necessary to save the child's life, which is what frees them from any responsibility.

"...everything medically necessary"...is pure perception, angelic.
(were it even possible, death would be obsolete)

And even assuming that chemo is the most effective cancer treatment available (which it is not) then, the onus should be upon the medical providers -- those who both understand, and have the technology -- to save the boy.

So again, why shouldn't doctors be subject to imprisonment, when they lose a patient?
After all, you seemed to be advocating the incarceration of parents, when they've lost a child.
I'm trying, but....I just can't equate the two.

Actually bad judgement that causes someone's death IS a crime.Even when it's a doctor who made the "bad judgment?"

No....only when it's the parents, right? :wall:
(let's be consistent ;) )

And no, I'm more concerned about rampant stupidity than I am about cancer. Cancer can kill you, but stupid is highly contagious.Okay. I think I'm beginning to understand your logic, now. :idea::idea::idea:

The doctors are smart, educated medical professionals.
So, they should know what's best for everyone.
But, the boy's parents are likely just an uneducated
pair of breeders, who couldn't possibly understand what
is best for their child....right?

Sheesh!
How did I miss that one ? :doh:

Uh-oh! With all these stupid breeders running around --
we're going to need more prisons, and fast!

Now, I'll put the levity aside.
Because, this is a very serious issue -- not just for the
Hausers, either.
There are legal precedents being made....ones which
are likely to touch each and every one of us here,
in a personal way.

Once government is permitted to mandate any medical
treatment, to anyone....
it also owns the power to withhold treatment!

That's exactly why socialized medicine does not work!

Government must never have the power to choose
who is worthy of medical care, and who is not!

So, angelic.....if you were right about "stupid"
being "contagious"...
forget my earlier request for prisons.

What we'll really be needing is more cemeteries.

[angelicmadrigal]

Even when it's a doctor who made the "bad judgment?"



That's called a potential case of malpractice. When a Dr's "bad judgement", negligence, ineptitude causes harm or death to a patient. You really don't know anything do you.

[angelicmadrigal]

So, angelic.....if you were right about "stupid"
being "contagious"...
forget my earlier request for prisons.

What we'll really be needing is more cemeteries.

Hey, I'm all for weeding out the people who are stupid. I've said that in the past.

[angelicmadrigal]

The doctors are smart, educated medical professionals.
So, they should know what's best for everyone.
But, the boy's parents are likely just an uneducated
pair of breeders, who couldn't possibly understand what
is best for their child....right?


When it comes to what their child needs medically I think the Dr. is more qualified to make a determination than the parents. The mother has obviouly proven she doesn't have a clue, and honestly running away with the kid only proves that somewhere in her mind she KNOWS she's harming him and doesn't want to admit it. People with REAL moral conviction don't run away. This lady is just a crack pot.

I think the father is more likely to listen to reason than this woman.

[angelicmadrigal]

Once government is permitted to mandate any medical
treatment, to anyone....
it also owns the power to withhold treatment!


We aren't talking about EVERYONE, we're talking about minors. It's already a legal precedent that if a parent is not providing necessities for a child (which include medical care) they can lose their children. That's already a legal precedent, they aren't doing anything new.

[angelicmadrigal]

Have people been healed from this infection from the Moon God in the past? Believe me or not, really it makes no difference to me, people do get healed by simply changing their diet. I know if I was diagnosed with cancer tomorrow, I would change my diet first, then go from there. Thankfully, our ped. would give us a chance to heal our children naturally before contacting DCFS.

Okay, but in this kids case they've tried alternative medicine and the tumor is LARGER now. So that would show it isn't working. These people are playing with fire.

[Thor]

Have people been healed from this infection from the Moon God in the past?

No. And as I stated, this "treatment" has been tried for a week and the infection has only gotten worse.

people do get healed by simply changing their diet.

Red herring. What does this have to do with the scenario I presented?

I know if I was diagnosed with cancer tomorrow, I would change my diet first, then go from there.

Please cite ANY legitimate medical source where it has been documented that changing your diet can cure cancer.

Thankfully, our ped. would give us a chance to heal our children naturally before contacting DCFS.

If your child was diagnosed with cancer, you would treat it with dietary changes? :eek:

Glad I'm not your kid.

[fuzee]

Bad judgement most certainly can be a crime.
Isn't it bad judgement to drink 12 beers and then try to drive home?

It's illegal to do so. And therefore, a crime.

The bad judgment was drinking the twelve beers -- which is
not, in and of itself -- illegal.
Yet, getting behind the wheel, afterward -- is.

Isn't it bad judgement to pencil whip a bridge inspection?

Sorry. I have no idea what that means. :confused:


Isn't it bad judgement if you're hunting and you shoot at something moving behind a bush?

Again, a crime.

Regarding firearms, and the safe handling, thereof -- there are laws already on the books, in every single state.

To even take aim at an unknown target....you've already violated
the law.
And in most states, this would even include an unloaded firearm.

So, if you're ever hunting......be sure you've properly identified your prey.
Because, "I simply used bad judgment, Your Honor," won't mean a whole lot, in court.... after you shot your hunting buddy.
Well....unless you're Dick Cheney, that is. :whistle:

Now, as for the parent who runs off to avoid standard medical treatment for his or her cancer stricken child....

Imagine this scenario: A child is hit by a car and is lying in the street. The paramedics show up and want to immediately transport the child to the hospital. But the parents, holding to their religious and cultural beliefs, refuse to allow the child to be taken until they can conduct a "healing ceremony". This ceremony involves dancing, chanting, burning incense and sacrificing a goat. By the time all this is done, the child is in grave shape and he later dies at the hospital. Should the adults be prosecuted for negligent homicide (or something similar)? Or should we say that the parents are entitled to their beliefs, even if it means it causes the death of their child?

Now, that one's a toughie, Thor.
I wonder...what would Solomon do, you think?
Split the boy, perhaps -- letting half go with the ambulance, and half stay for roast goat, maybe? :confused:

No. That wouldn't work, would it?

BUT....Solomon certainly might split the difference...or...
split the problem up in two -- between what is the law, and what is
merely human compassion.

And, Thor -- that's exactly what must be done!
Because, whenever you're using the threat of legal punishment --
the law is the tool that's required.

So, when religious freedoms are involved, as they are in your scenario --
the law already speaks on that very thing, does it not?
And, in short -- the parents cannot be prosecuted for exercising
their freedom of religion...period!
Oh, I know -- it's been done, already.
Yet, in every case, the Constitutional Rights of the parents
were violated.
And, that could only have happened because we've allowed
our government to grossly overstep its bounds.

Lady Justice wears that blindfold for a good reason, Thor.
She is not supposed to see the who, the where, or the when --
only the what, and the why...and how our Constitution applies...
if at all.

So, the answer to your scenario would be to cite the driver that originally hit the child, and present the facts before the grand jury.

Of course, the subsequent death of the child may, or may not have any bearing, should a true bill be handed down....for that would depend upon so many other variables, which will be heard, later.


And that's why we have courts.

[Thor]

It's illegal to do so. And therefore, a crime.

The bad judgment was drinking the twelve beers -- which is
not, in and of itself -- illegal.
Yet, getting behind the wheel, afterward -- is.


This is bad judgement that we have criminalized. At one time it was NOT a crime to drink and drive. Now it is. Why is this any different than passing a law criminalizing negligent parental behavior? (And I think my scenario would qualify as negligence on the part of the parents).

Sorry. I have no idea what that means.

"Pencil whipping" a bridge inspection would involve a bridge inspector simply checking off a bridge as passing inspection when, in fact, he never performed the inspection. Pretty bad judgement. Also a crime.

Again, a crime.

Regarding firearms, and the safe handling, thereof -- there are laws already on the books, in every single state.

To even take aim at an unknown target....you've already violated
the law.
And in most states, this would even include an unloaded firearm.


Yes, it is bad judgement that has been criminalized. This is exactly my point.

So, when religious freedoms are involved, as they are in your scenario --
the law already speaks on that very thing, does it not?
And, in short -- the parents cannot be prosecuted for exercising
their freedom of religion...period!


Wrong! Parents are free to exercise their religion to the point that it does not harm their child. Let's change the scenario a bit. Imagine that a ten year old girl is riding her bicycle when she falls and severly cuts her leg on a broken bottle lying in the street. She slices her femoral artery and blood is gushing from her leg. A neighbor sees this and immediately comes rushing over intent on stopping the bleeding. But the parents stop the neighbor and claim that, according to their religious beliefs, they can only pray for God to help their child. They start praying as the blood continues to gush and the girl goes into shock. The neighbor cries out that their little girl is going to die. The parents merely state that she will die if God "wills it". The neighbor tries to help the girl anyway, but the parents physically interfere. The child dies.

Is this something we should ignore? Should we say that the parents are entitled to their religious beliefs even if their beliefs cause the death of their child? Or should we hold the parents accountable for their actions?

Oh, I know -- it's been done, already.
Yet, in every case, the Constitutional Rights of the parents
were violated.

What about the "Constitutional Rights" of the child?

And, that could only have happened because we've allowed
our government to grossly overstep its bounds.


In some instances I agree with you here, but not in this case. What difference does it make if a parent shakes a baby to death as part of a religious ritual or if the shaking was done in anger?

[fuzee]

That's called a potential case of malpractice. When a Dr's "bad judgement", negligence, ineptitude causes harm or death to a patient. You really don't know anything do you.


"A potential case of...malpractice," angelic?

Aren't you being...well...a little harsh? :rolleyes:

Lets' see....does doc have his malpractice insurance
up-to-date? :pray:

Yes?

Well, phew! That was a close one! :eek:

But then, your original point was moot, anyway

Because, unless our entire court system has been turned
upside-down, since....yesterday --

"malpractice" is a civil claim, not a criminal charge.

Unless, of course, you meant to say, "criminal malpractice,"
instead...in which case, the doc would almost have to had
broken into the boy's house during the night, found him asleep in his bed.....
then, proceeded to carve his little heart out with a scalpel.

Otherwise, doc hasn't much to worry about.
Nothing that money won't fix, anyway.

Those stupid parents are so lucky, though!
All they have to worry about is losing their kid! :silenced:

[mysticbeauty_nbeast]

Not to derail the thread too far off.....[Rant on].....but did any of you see the doctor on Shepard Smith yesterday afternoon? I wanted to crawl through the t.v. and strangle the guy! He is a pediatric oncologist....yeah...so? That doesn't make him God does it? Anyway...the part that made me wanna strangle him was the statment that nothing but standard western medical treatment (radiation and chemo) cures cancer. He actually used the word 'cure'. I mean what a maroon! :wall:

He continued on that no 'scientific data' proved out any method of alternate health care every improved or 'cured' a cancer patient. :wall: How dumb does this guy think we are? NOTHING 'cures' cancer...DUH! It buys time..it puts the disease into status...nothing more...nothing less. No such thing as a western medicine 'cure for cancer at this point. Yet there he sat..smug in his horrific beard and mustache and thick glasses spewing his anti holistic views. Made my stomach hurt.

The awful truth is...dependent on what type of cancer and what stage it is in is what merits or does not merit remission...not specifically the treatment itself. There are non western, non traditional methods of treating cancer that does put the patient into remission..(Farrah Facet)..there are forms of cancer that no matter what type of treatment you receive..(Patrick Swazye)..you aint never coming out of it alive. Western medicine doesn't want the American public to even think of such alternatives...no matter how affective. It all boils down to ego and money...period. And in the very end...cancer wins out ever damn time. So who is the western medical association of doctors trying to fool?

[/Rant off]....Sorry bout that...it's just...this guy totally crawled under my skin. Traditional Medicine DOESN'T KNOW everything...they don't have a magic wand to cure everyone...and they damn well know it. :twisted::wall:

~Mysty

[fuzee]

When it comes to what their child needs medically I think the Dr. is more qualified to make a determination than the parents.

Oh, there was a toughie, eh?
Yep, it's just a guess, but I doubt the mother has been through med school.

However, I guarantee that the doc has never been a mother, either.

And frankly speaking, moms might live to be a hundred and ten, without benefit of a doctor.

Yet, docs wouldn't be here, at all....without a mother.

I'd say that puts mothers a little higher on the priority list...
wouldn't you?


The mother has obviouly proven she doesn't have a clue, and honestly running away with the kid only proves that somewhere in her mind she KNOWS she's harming him and doesn't want to admit it.

Uh-oh!
It's time to pull out my crusty copy of Psychology Today, again! :mrgreen:

Actually, the mom knew exactly what she was doing!
Her son is facing a crisis that most men thrice his age would
find unbearable!
13-yr-old kids should be worrying about exams, and making the basketball team --
not their own mortality!

Her son was scared....more scared than I hope you'll
ever have to be, angelic.
The boy wanted to run. Because, even though he's facing more than I can even imagine.....he's only a kid.
And since he'd already gone through a bout of chemo, with all the little fringe benefits that go with it --
he had to be feeling pretty much alone, when the doc told him his tumor hadn't shrunk, at all (geez, why would the kid even think it would? I'm sure he wasn't led to believe that the chemo might....help him!? :wall:)

So, the kid decided to run...and he had every right to that urge!
But, his mother understood what he was feeling.
She knew that what he really wanted, was...not to feel so alone.
He needed a friend -- one who was hurting just as badly as he was....to run with him.
Otherwise, he'd still have gone. But, there's a good chance he never would have returned.

His mother knows him.
And far better than any doctor ever could.

People with REAL moral conviction don't run away. This lady is just a crack pot.

Moral conviction?
Her moral convictions, dear angelic, are exactly where they should be -- standing with her child.

But then, you'd almost have to be a mother, to fully appreciate that.

I think the father is more likely to listen to reason than this woman.

Again -- he's never been a mother. (seems to be a lot of that going around, lately :confused: )

As for a man's tendency to be more reasonable.....
I don't even know where to begin on that one! :silenced:

[Dem]

Fuzee, you do know the child will die without chemo, right?

The parents were 100% in the wrong to deny him treatment in the first place.

This situation is almost as bad as the parents who prayed for their child to get better. The child died. She had a treatable form of diabetes, but the parents decided not to treat her and pray instead.

Parents who deny lifesaving treatments to their children should be thrown in jail.

[mysticbeauty_nbeast]

Fuzee, you do know the child will die without chemo, right?

I actually heard a few doctors speaking to this specific case that without chemo the boy would be dead within two weeks. Guess what...if your that close to death...chemo only kills ya faster...not saves you. Just a fyi from me to you. :mrgreen: The boy had already under gone a chemo/radiation regimen..which didn't 'cure him. So why would any 'inteligent' adult think another round of chemo/radiation would cure their son? Hmmmm...try to wrap your mind around that little tid bit.

The parents were 100% in the wrong to deny him treatment in the first place.

Treatment wasn't denied in the first place. It was the second go around they said no too.

This situation is almost as bad as the parents who prayed for their child to get better. The child died. She had a treatable form of diabetes, but the parents decided not to treat her and pray instead.

Parents who deny lifesaving treatments to their children should be thrown in jail.

Not quiet what happened in this specific case is it? parents didn't just pray...they subjected their child to what western science said would 'cure' their child. One huge problem with that scenerio...science can't 'cure' cancer as yet. Science wanted another go at the kid...and the parents stepped up and looked for alternate therapies. That ****ed off the son's doctors who went whining to the law.....hmmmm....doesn't sound so pretty and clear cut now does it?

Facts...they are a bitch....:whistle:

~Mysty

[notluzn]

I really can't believe people on here. Don't have Abortions but don't get medical attention for your child. Hello, I'm a pick and Choose christian.

[fuzee]

Amen, Mysty!

What got me was an interview he did while the Hausers were still missing.

He was asked if the Hausers were located, brought back, and still refused the chemotherapy -- then what?
What would he do? What if the boy resists? Physically fights to stop it?

The oncologist replied that "the law was on his side."
He said that he would "physically force the boy, if it became necessary."
(where are the bloody battle emoticons when you need them?)

Yep.....Onco-god may have made it through chem class, but he'd never
pass a psychiatric evaluation!

[angelicmadrigal]

"A potential case of...malpractice," angelic?

Aren't you being...well...a little harsh? :rolleyes:

Lets' see....does doc have his malpractice insurance
up-to-date? :pray:

Yes?

Well, phew! That was a close one! :eek:

But then, your original point was moot, anyway

Because, unless our entire court system has been turned
upside-down, since....yesterday --

"malpractice" is a civil claim, not a criminal charge.

It doesn't matter whether it is a civil or criminal charge. The point is there is already a law existing to deal with doctors when such a thing arises. Just like there is a law that exists to REQUIRE parents to provide medical care to their children.

And yeah I'll reiterate it I think the mother in particular has no bussiness having a child now, or ever again if she can't use her damn brain.

[Dem]

I actually heard a few doctors speaking to this specific case that without chemo the boy would be dead within two weeks. Guess what...if your that close to death...chemo only kills ya faster...not saves you. Just a fyi from me to you. :mrgreen: The boy had already under gone a chemo/radiation regimen..which didn't 'cure him. So why would any 'inteligent' adult think another round of chemo/radiation would cure their son? Hmmmm...try to wrap your mind around that little tid bit.
Source that doctors said he had two weeks to live.

The survival rate with chemo is 90%. Those are really good chances.


Treatment wasn't denied in the first place. It was the second go around they said no too.
It is still denying life saving treatment.



Not quiet what happened in this specific case is it? parents didn't just pray...they subjected their child to what western science said would 'cure' their child. One huge problem with that scenerio...science can't 'cure' cancer as yet. Science wanted another go at the kid...and the parents stepped up and looked for alternate therapies. That ****ed off the son's doctors who went whining to the law.....hmmmm....doesn't sound so pretty and clear cut now does it?

Facts...they are a bitch....:whistle:

~Mysty
They whined because otherwise their child will die.

[angelicmadrigal]

Science wanted another go at the kid...and the parents stepped up and looked for alternate therapies. That ****ed off the son's doctors who went whining to the law.....hmmmm....doesn't sound so pretty and clear cut now does it?

Facts...they are a bitch....:whistle:

~Mysty
But then any reaonable oncologist will tell you chemo does not always work the first time around.

Obviously their "home remedy" isn't doing much better. At least science has evidence to back up their claim that their method is the most likely to succeed. What does that woman's religious sect have as evidence?

Also I find her "religious" affiliation flimsy at best. She's the whitest looking Native American I've ever seen.

[fuzee]

I really can't believe people on here. Don't have Abortions but don't get medical attention for your child. Hello, I'm a pick and Choose christian.

Let's see.....abortion is fine, because a mother has the right to make life-and-death decisions for her own offspring....right?

So, the Hauser mother is wrong, because the mother has the right to....make decis...no...that won't exactly work, will it? :confused:

So, which is it, notluzn?
Mother has the right, or the state has the right?
It can't be both!

But, if it's the state, I'd say they're going to be pretty busy,
stopping all those abortions.
(not to mention, defying the law -- on all counts!)

See, notluzn?
Christian can be consistent!

[angelicmadrigal]

However, I guarantee that the doc has never been a mother, either.

So being a mother imparts some osrt of special wisdom on you? ::buzzer:: WRONG!
And frankly speaking, moms might live to be a hundred and ten, without benefit of a doctor.


I'd say that puts mothers a little higher on the priority list...
wouldn't you?
No, because mothers do wrong by their children quite regularly. Frankly, just because you need a mother to be born does NOT mean mothers deserve and special reverence. They have to EARN their stripes and respect, just like everyone else.






Actually, the mom knew exactly what she was doing!
Her son is facing a crisis that most men thrice his age would
find unbearable!
13-yr-old kids should be worrying about exams, and making the basketball team --
not their own mortality!

You know what, life sucks. PLenty of kids his age and younger have faced their own mortaility. Some win the fight some don't. But to have a mother tell you lies that chemo will kill you or is morally wrong, to take away the REAL hope of your surivival, and then brainwash you into thinking that medical professionals who are trying to help you are the enemy?? That's not supporting your kid, that's needlessly SCARING your child when they need you most. That is complete ********.



Her son was scared....more scared than I hope you'll
ever have to be, angelic.
:;snickers::You have no idea. Science literally saved my life, not my parents who denied _I_ had a problem for years before it got to he point it damn near killed me. So don't talk to me about the fear related to being convinced you're goign to die, been there, done that and I'm still here. But if you'd have been around the forum more than a few weeks you'd have already know that.


So, the kid decided to run...and he had every right to that urge!
But, his mother understood what he was feeling.
That's when a responsible adult SHOULD have stepped in and reminded the kid that you can't run away from your problems. That's what a coward does.


His mother knows him.
And far better than any doctor ever could.
His mother has proven she has NO SENSE, and she KNOWS she was wrong to put those ideas in his head, and she knows because of her actiosn she gets to watch him die. She doesn't want to be held responsible by society for her stupid actions. THAT is why she ran. DOn't make her into a victim, she doesn't deserve it.



Moral conviction?
Her moral convictions, dear angelic, are exactly where they should be -- standing with her child.
She's not standing with her child, she's the one that put all the retarded ideas in his head in the first place. The kid's scared BECAUSE OF HER. She's doing this specifically to try and prove her own flimsy spiritual beliefs.

But then, you'd almost have to be a mother, to fully appreciate that.




As for a man's tendency to be more reasonable.....
I don't even know where to begin on that one! :silenced:

Well I'm a woman so I can say that isn;t what I was saying. I was saying THIS particular father is FAR FAR more reaonable than this partiocular mother. You really need to stop with the feminist grabage you're trying to bring into this thread. It's disgusting.

[angelicmadrigal]

I really can't believe people on here. Don't have Abortions but don't get medical attention for your child. Hello, I'm a pick and Choose christian.

Who's Christian? I know I'm not.

[angelicmadrigal]

So, the Hauser mother is wrong, because the mother has the right to....make decis...no...that won't exactly work, will it? :confused:
!

Prove to me that her child's health falls under the realm of her body. it doesn't, hence why using the argument to defend abortion doesn't work here. Whether you like it or not there's a difference int he law when it comes to a child in utero and a child that's been born. Sorry, if you don't like it move to change the law.

[Thor]

NOTHING 'cures' cancer...DUH! It buys time..it puts the disease into status...nothing more...nothing less. No such thing as a western medicine 'cure for cancer at this point.

Nothing cures cancer? What cave have you been living in? Traditional treatments including radiation, chemo and surgery do cure cancer if caught early enough. I know people who had cancer, were treated and then lived cancer-free for decades.


There are non western, non traditional methods of treating cancer that does put the patient into remission..(Farrah Facet)..

What "methods" would these be? And if these methods truly work, why wouldn't our doctors be using them? And, since Farrah Fawcett is on her deathbed, I fail to understand why you cite her as a success for these treatments.

Western medicine doesn't want the American public to even think of such alternatives...no matter how affective.

Why not? Why would doctors withhold life saving treatments from their patients? And if what you say is true, I would expect American doctors to employ these "alternatives" when their own families become ill. But they don't. Could it possibly be because these "alternatives" DON'T WORK?

Traditional Medicine DOESN'T KNOW everything..

And who said they do?

[angelicmadrigal]

Nothing cures cancer? What cave have you been living in? Traditional treatments including radiation, chemo and surgery do cure cancer if caught early enough. I know people who had cancer, were treated and then lived cancer-free for decades.



I think the point she was trying to make is that even if you live cancer free for many years there's that possibility of relapse.

So if you want to get technical it isn't "cured" you're just in long term remission.

There are lots of diseases like that. Autoimmune disorders at least in my experience with them tend to be like that.

[fuzee]

It doesn't matter whether it is a civil or criminal charge.

And Death Row is chock-full of inmates who'd love you to prove that!

The point is there is already a law existing to deal with doctors when such a thing arises. Yeah, we've already covered that one, remember?
Doc cures you, and bills you.
Doc kills you -- no charge! (criminal, that is -- your family still gets the bill! )
Looks as though Doc has nothing to lose, either way!

Just like there is a law that exists to REQUIRE parents to provide medical care to their children.Hmm. Wonder how I missed that one?
Where did you find it?

And yeah I'll reiterate it I think the mother in particular has no bussiness having a child now, or ever again if she can't use her damn brain.Well, it's been said that we get the government we deserve.
In this case, however, I think we've somehow gotten your government, by mistake!

Please....take it back, before some bureaucratic bozo tries to kidnap the rest of the Hauser kids! :eek:

[Thor]

I think the point she was trying to make is that even if you live cancer free for many years there's that possibility of relapse.

So if you want to get technical it isn't "cured" you're just in long term remission.


If that's your standard, then you could say that the flu is never "cured" because you can get the flu again.

Cancer most certainly can be cured. Skin cancer is a perfect example. A person has a cancerous skin lesion and the doctor removes it. Cancer is gone. You're cured. True, the person can develop another form of cancer down the road, but the skin cancer has been cured.

[fuzee]

Whether you like it or not there's a difference in the law when it comes to a child in utero and a child that's been born.

You mean since 2002, when Pres. Bush signed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act....right?
Never heard Jill Stanek tell how hospitals were dealing with babies that had survived the abortion procedure? :confused:
Of course, as the partial-birth abortion ban of 2003 had so many legal loopholes in it....
doctors have found ways to legally work around the ban.

Too bad, though. The partial-birth procedure would have left you at least half right.
The baby's head would have been in the right place -- it's just that his/her beating heart would not.
For some reason, that reminds me of someone......oh, never mind. :confused:


Prove to me that her child's health falls under the realm of her body. it doesn't, Again.......there are many mothers out here who might disagree, even though you're obviously correct, at the physical level.

But then, angelic, one might ask -- at 13, whose realm does it fall under?
Have you so far progressed beyond the "stupidity" of mother Hauser, to have recognized that her son no longer belongs to her, because he's no longer "in utero;"
has never belonged to himself, because he's still of minor age;
and therefore, until reaching his majority, remains as he has since birth --
a ward of the state??? :snooty:

Now, I KNOW there are many mothers who'd beg to differ!

hence why using the argument to defend abortion doesn't workI assure you -- I have never defended abortion.
Furthermore, even if I thought it was a defensible act...I'd be hard-pressed to prove it!

Sorry, if you don't like it move to change the law.As I see it, the law requires no change.
Unless and until a woman gives birth to puppies --
I'd say that the Constitution already protects human life.

The law still differentiates between kill, and murder....just as it did in Biblical times.
It's not the law which has changed, nor is it the lawful.

What has changed, is....the arrogance of those who suggest some new, modernized interpretation of the law -- simply to suit their own personal agenda.

[notluzn]

Who cares?Who's Christian? I know I'm not.

[notluzn]

Wut in Gods name are you talking about? The State Should Protect Children from Stupid Parents. State should Ban Abortions as well. You don't have a right to leave your Kid in a Hot car either. Find a ClueLet's see.....abortion is fine, because a mother has the right to make life-and-death decisions for her own offspring....right?

So, the Hauser mother is wrong, because the mother has the right to....make decis...no...that won't exactly work, will it? :confused:

So, which is it, notluzn?
Mother has the right, or the state has the right?
It can't be both!

But, if it's the state, I'd say they're going to be pretty busy,
stopping all those abortions.
(not to mention, defying the law -- on all counts!)

See, notluzn?
Christian can be consistent!

[fuzee]

Sadly, I now must take leave, for a time.
I'll try to get caught-up here, tomorrow.

But, I'll leave you with another mention of King Solomon --
arguably, one of the greatest legal minds of all time!

When presented with two mothers, both claiming the very same infant as their own --
Solomon gave orders to cut the babe in equal halves, that both
claimants might be satisfied. :eek:

But, before you lose your dinner at the thought of such a
barbaric act.....
try to understand the pure brilliance behind the King's order!

And even if you're still clueless, know that not only did the
baby remain intact, but the argument between the two women
was instantly resolved!

How?
Why?

I'll leave you to discover that, for yourself.

And, yes indeed, the Solomon decision has much to do with
the topic of this thread -- young Daniel Hauser!

Solomon is long gone, now.

But, what a crying shame it would be, were mankind to
forget the purest wisdom that he's left behind.

[angelicmadrigal]

Who cares?

You were the one saying it was Christians beingin inconsistent int he thread, and there aren't very many participants in this thread. So I was correcting what I consider a WRONG statement by you.

[angelicmadrigal]

But then, angelic, one might ask -- at 13, whose realm does it fall under?
Have you so far progressed beyond the "stupidity" of mother Hauser, to have recognized that her son no longer belongs to her, because he's no longer "in utero;"
has never belonged to himself, because he's still of minor age;
and therefore, until reaching his majority, remains as he has since birth --
a ward of the state???

Children can be made wards of the state when parents do not/can not provide them with the necessities of life, which in some cases INCLUDES medical care.

[angelicmadrigal]

As I see it, the law requires no change.
Unless and until a woman gives birth to puppies --
I'd say that the Constitution already protects human life.
.

Well, instead of whining on a forum how about you go out and DO something about it? If it was REALLY that importatnt to you you'd dedicate your life to changing it, but eveidently it's only semi-important.

[mysticbeauty_nbeast]

Source that doctors said he had two weeks to live.

Fox News channel reporting. I'll try to Google to see if the specific wording of several reporters comes up. I remember the statement being used in the first week of this news story by almost every show produced on Fox.

The survival rate with chemo is 90%. Those are really good chances.

Not all cancers are created equal my friend. That 90% is for specific 'types' of cancer with specific 'types' of treatment. But what would I know? I only worked Oncology at a teaching hospital for literally years. :rolleyes:



It is still denying life saving treatment.

Said 'life saving treatment' was not denied..it was offered and guess what...the boy and his specific type of Hodgkin Lymphoma was not 'cured'. His doctor wanted to go another full and longer round of chemo and radiation. Try going through chemo and radiation some time..tell me how thrilled you are at the prospect of having a second full round. (BTW full round of just chemo is 8 to 12 treatments over 6 to 9 months)



They whined because otherwise their child will die.

The doctors whined because the parents took their authority over their child away from the medical institution. ;) When all you know is one way...and no other method is sanctioned by your institution...then this doctor would have no other venues but to whine. there is more to chemo then treating a patient. It's business first and foremost. Money maker if you will. If every one began to step away from traditional western medicine treatments...then the big bucks would be going to somewhere else. If you don't understand this..then their is a naivete within your knowledge base about medicine and how it works within a business model. :whistle:

~Mysty

[mysticbeauty_nbeast]

But then any reaonable oncologist will tell you chemo does not always work the first time around.

In my experiance, no Oncologist is this forthcoming with such information. That's not to say there are not those who lay it all out there for their patients...it's just not been my experiance within the field. Once a first 'full' round of chemo is taken...then it should be left to the patient and his or her support group what their next step should be. That next step should be filled with educated understanding of what, where and how they should proceed. That does not always include another round of chemo. This case is only identified due to the patients age. It is the only issue on the table. Many patient who are adults choose not to do the second round of chemo...either taking alternative methods to extend their limited time here on earth...or do nothing and let nature take it's course. I support a patients right to make that choice for himself or herself.

Obviously their "home remedy" isn't doing much better. At least science has evidence to back up their claim that their method is the most likely to succeed. What does that woman's religious sect have as evidence?

As of this point, I had not heard what alternative therapy this family was using. There are many non traditional western medicines that are considered alternative therapies. Which really just means that the treatments patients received do not follow the AMA protocol for any given disease. That doesn't mean these alternative therapies consist only of crushed apricot seeds and coffee ground enema's. :rolleyes: Example: Cancer Center of America...which has a huge survival rate for many forms of cancer...incorporates what western medicine would deem 'alternative' treatments. Part of that alternative therapy has chemo, radiation and even sometimes amputation or surgery as part....part of their therapies. Western traditional medicine deems these practices outside the tradition...and therefore 'voodoo medicine'. Sad..but true.

Also I find her "religious" affiliation flimsy at best. She's the whitest looking Native American I've ever seen.

I don't see how their religion is being focused on at all. The child went through a full round of chemo...religion or no religion. So I have to wonder if this is something being focused on after the fact for better or juicer news reporting...or if it is the only explanation the family can give for wanting a different set of therapies that are non traditional? Perhaps...just perhaps...this family knew it was the only way legally to get around refusing traditional treatment was to use the 'religion' angle? Just thinking out loud on this part....

~Mysty

[mysticbeauty_nbeast]

Nothing cures cancer? What cave have you been living in? Traditional treatments including radiation, chemo and surgery do cure cancer if caught early enough. I know people who had cancer, were treated and then lived cancer-free for decades.

Cure verses Remission. Remission is not a cure..and vice versa. I don't live in a cave. I have served the very people that this thread is speaking too. I am a nurse. I've worked oncology floors for years. I may have just a bit different perspective on the word Cure then the average American. Some...SOME cancer's if caught early can be TREATED and place that cancer into a state of remission for literally years. The return rate of a/any type of cancer for previous cancer patient survivors is very high...over 78%. Look it up. Educate yourself. Cancer is the modern day monster that this generation battles with. Also...one more little tid bit. When a cancer patient dies...cancer is rarely if ever placed on the death certificate. Instead...the death certificate reads 'complication of phenomena, or renal failure, or congested heart failure....on and on. Why? Keeps the cancer rates numbers down. Hmmmm...gee...wonder why they would do that? I won't give it away...but I'll throw you a tiny bone....$$$$$$$ :whistle:



What "methods" would these be? And if these methods truly work, why wouldn't our doctors be using them? And, since Farrah Fawcett is on her deathbed, I fail to understand why you cite her as a success for these treatments.

Farrah has one of the hardest to treat cancers. One of the most painful too.:confused: However, without use of traditional chemo and radiation...she most likely gave herself 2 to 3 years more of pain free 'living'. Actual LIVING...not active dying! Farrah has fought with a cancer that should have taken her life already. So the success your not seeing is the extra time the alternative treatments gave her. With the chemo and surgery that traditional western medicine wished to put her through...she would already be dead. It's just that clean and clear. Look up Cancer Centers of America. Look up the Cancer treatment in Germany. They are most certainly medical science centers of medicine. However, they are not American western medicine and therefore must be demonized. Why? Here's a Hint...$$$$$$$$

Death is not the worst thing that can happen to a human being. In fact, I can think of lots worst things to endure then the release of simply dying. Think about that for a bit before reacting. :whistle:



Why not? Why would doctors withhold life saving treatments from their patients? And if what you say is true, I would expect American doctors to employ these "alternatives" when their own families become ill. But they don't. Could it possibly be because these "alternatives" DON'T WORK?

I'll let you research and answer your own questions. I've opened a door that should lead you on your way.;) No doctor wants to or admits they are with holding treatments from their patients. However, they are bound to what medical system they work for...and what that medical system will and will not do...why? $$$$$$



And who said they do?

???? Who said they do what? :drool: Can you be more specific?

~Mysty

[Thor]

Some...SOME cancer's if caught early can be TREATED and place that cancer into a state of remission for literally years.

Wrong! If a cancer is caught early enough, while it is still localized, it can be cured with surgery. A person has a small cancerous tumor. The tumor is excised. The cancer is gone. Period.


Farrah has fought with a cancer that should have taken her life already. So the success your not seeing is the extra time the alternative treatments gave her.

There is no way you can possibly know this for a fact.

With the chemo and surgery that traditional western medicine wished to put her through...she would already be dead.

There is no way you can possibly know this for a fact, either.

However, they are not American western medicine and therefore must be demonized

You sound an awful lot like a conspiracy theorist here. You expect us to believe that the medical community withholds effective cancer treatments so they can make more money? This makes no sense. If what you suggest is true, medical professionals would be sending their ill family members and friends to get these "alternate treatments" (which, so far, you have failed to tell us what they are). Not to mention that it would be impossible to keep a secret like this. Friends of doctors would tell their family and friends... who would tell their family and friends... and so on.... We do not see droves of people running to Germany for cancer treatment.