Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on May 15, 2009, 12:27:36 PM
-
I'll post this on the religion board too. Tough issue.
Judge rules family can't refuse chemo for boy
Posted 5/15/2009 2:14 PM ET
By Amy Forliti, Associated Press Writer
MINNEAPOLIS — A Minnesota judge ruled Friday that a 13-year-old cancer patient must be evaluated by a doctor to determine if the boy would benefit from restarting chemotherapy over his parents' objections.
In a 58-page ruling, Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg found that Daniel Hauser has been "medically neglected" by his parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, and was in need of child protection services.
While he allowed Daniel to stay with his parents, the judge gave the Hausers until Tuesday to get an updated chest X-ray for their son and select an oncologist.
If the evaluation shows the cancer had advanced to a point where chemotherapy and radiation would no longer help, the judge said, he would not order the boy to undergo treatment.
The judge wrote that Daniel has only a "rudimentary understanding at best of the risks and benefits of chemotherapy. ... he does not believe he is ill currently. The fact is that he is very ill currently."
Daniel's court-appointed attorney, Philip Elbert, called the decision unfortunate.
"I feel it's a blow to families," he said. "It marginalizes the decisions that parents face every day in regard to their children's medical care. It really affirms the role that big government is better at making our decisions for us."
Elbert said he hadn't spoken to his client yet. The phone line at the Hauser home in Sleepy Eye in southwestern Minnesota had a busy signal Friday. The parents' attorney had no immediate comment but planned to issue a statement.
Daniel was diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma and stopped chemotherapy in February after a single treatment. He and his parents opted instead for "alternative medicines" based on their religious beliefs.
Child protection workers accused Daniel's parents of medical neglect; but in court, his mother insisted the boy wouldn't submit to chemotherapy for religious reasons and she said she wouldn't comply if the court orders it.
Doctors have said Daniel's cancer had up to a 90 percent chance of being cured with chemotherapy and radiation. Without those treatments, doctors said his chances of survival are 5 percent.
Daniel's parents have been supporting what they say is their son's decision to treat the disease with nutritional supplements and other alternative treatments favored by the Nemenhah Band.
The Missouri-based religious group believes in natural healing methods advocated by some American Indians.
After the first chemotherapy treatment, the family said they wanted a second opinion, said Dr. Bruce Bostrom, a pediatric oncologist who recommended Daniel undergo chemotherapy and radiation.
They later informed him that Daniel would not undergo any more chemotherapy. Bostrom said Daniel's tumor shrunk after the first chemotherapy session, but X-rays show it has grown since he stopped the chemotherapy.
"My son is not in any medical danger at this point," Colleen Hauser testified at a court hearing last week. She also testified that Daniel is a medicine man and elder in the Nemenhah Band.
The family's attorney, Calvin Johnson, said Daniel made the decision himself to refuse chemotherapy, but Brown County said he did not have an understanding of what it meant to be a medicine man or an elder.
Court filings also indicated Daniel has a learning disability and can't read.
The Hausers have eight children. Colleen Hauser told the New Ulm Journal newspaper that the family's Catholicism and adherence to the Nemenhah Band are not in conflict, and that she has used natural remedies to treat illness.
Nemenhah was founded in the 1990s by Philip Cloudpiler Landis, who said Thursday he once served four months in prison in Idaho for fraud related to advocating natural remedies.
Landis said he founded the faith after facing his diagnosis of a cancer similar to Daniel Hauser. He said he treated it with diet choices, visits to a sweat lodge and other natural remedies.
http://content.usatoday.net/dist/custom/gci/InsidePage.aspx?cId=honoluluadvertiser&sParam=30758035.story
-
I cannot believe how stupid some people are.
Most 'alternative treatments', especially if based on religious beliefs, are voodoo bullshit. If the kid dies they should charge these retards with criminally negligent manslaughter.
-
I don't know. I know people who tried "natural" cancer treatments and it wasn't just religious based. Didn't work, but not something I'd consider crazy.
Different dynamic when a kid is involved though.
-
If it works, great... but I'll bet 99% are bullshit... And with cancer there is little room for trial and error.
The kid is going to suffer, and maybe die because the parents want to play indian here.
-
If it works, great... but I'll bet 99% are bullshit... And with cancer there is little room for trial and error.
The kid is going to suffer, and maybe die because the parents want to play indian here.
That assumes the chemo and radiation would is successful. After seeing people suffer through those treatments, I don't fault anyone who doesn't want to go through it.
-
According to the article:
Success with Chemo = 90%
Success with 'faith crystals' or "The spirit of the Buffalo', ... or whatever they are using= 5%
-
Those are pretty good odds. If it were my kid, I would have done the treatment, but I don't condemn these parents.
Have you ever seen someone go through chemo and radiation and then die anyway? It's not pretty.
-
I would have to say that it is unlikely that there is going to be a good outcome if the parents insist on following their decision on this course of treatment.
Historically, it has been a legal tenant that parents are free to make bad decisions regarding their children. In my case, my parents made bad decisions with respect to money investments, allowing other children to abuse me without restraint, not allowing me to attend another school campus that the district said would be better for me (they insisted on me attending in the 'hood), not filling out financial aid forms so I could go to college away from home (so I would be home every night), and in general conspiring to keep me under their thumbs. Some parents being controlling has been good for the child because they were good at it. Mine were so very bad at it, the result being that my lifelong horizons are very much diminished compared to what they would be with just four different decisions at key points. I am sure if I had a serious illness as a child that they would have screwed that up too.
Minor children are considered property in the eyes of the legal system, governed by the same laws that govern lost briefcases and umbrellas.
-
Those are pretty good odds. If it were my kid, I would have done the treatment, but I don't condemn these parents.
Have you ever seen someone go through chemo and radiation and then die anyway? It's not pretty.
Yes, I have.
-
Yes, I have.
Then you should have a better understanding of why someone would forego chemo and radiation. I'm not even sure what I would do if I had cancer. I recently lost a friend who tried the natural approach. I wish he would have done radiation right away, but he wound up losing about 80 pounds of fat and said he felt terrific. I understand why he took that path.
-
Then you should have a better understanding of why someone would forego chemo and radiation. I'm not even sure what I would do if I had cancer. I recently lost a friend who tried the natural approach. I wish he would have done radiation right away, but he wound up losing about 80 pounds of fat and said he felt terrific. I understand why he took that path.
Beach, the issue here is that the parents are being irresponsible. They are applying their back-asswards beliefs to this kid and it is putting him in imminent danger. The kid could die because they are doing this. Sometimes doing what is right causes suffering. I didn't want to take my kid in to get her shots because I know it hurts, but I realize the disease she could get would be way worse than the pain of the shots.
I took care of business, I did not chant around the drum circle and create magic to protect the kid... That's retarded.
-
Beach, the issue here is that the parents are being irresponsible. They are applying their back-asswards beliefs to this kid and it is putting him in imminent danger. The kid could die because they are doing this. Sometimes doing what is right causes suffering. I didn't want to take my kid in to get her shots because I know it hurts, but I realize the disease she could get would be way worse than the pain of the shots.
I took care of business, I did not chant around the drum circle and create magic to protect the kid... That's retarded.
Yes I understand the issue. As I said, if it were my kid I would have done the treatment.
The kid could die with the treatment too. Unlikely given the odds, but still possible.
I'm really not sure what I think about the parents in this case.
-
Yes I understand the issue. As I said, if it were my kid I would have done the treatment.
The kid could die with the treatment too. Unlikely given the odds, but still possible.
I'm really not sure what I think about the parents in this case.
What does the child want?
-
What does the child want?
I don't think it matters. The kid can't even read. I doubt he understands the gravity of this decision.
-
I'm very against government intrusion like this but I can't make up my mind here on what's right. At 13 years old I basically thought the same way as my parents and did what they said, didn't really start thinking for myself till I was older.
-
I'm very against government intrusion like this but I can't make up my mind here on what's right. At 13 years old I basically thought the same way as my parents and did what they said, didn't really start thinking for myself till I was older.
Yeah, but you weren't like this: "Court filings also indicated Daniel has a learning disability and can't read." This kid doesn't even think he's sick.
-
I'm very against government intrusion like this but I can't make up my mind here on what's right. At 13 years old I basically thought the same way as my parents and did what they said, didn't really start thinking for myself till I was older.
Government needs to mind its own business. Let the religious loonies do what they want.
-
Government needs to mind its own business. Let the religious loonies do what they want.
I recognize that.
That's sarcasm, right?
-
I recognize that.
That's sarcasm, right?
No. I am high now but I mean it. Government has no business interfering in peoples' lives.
-
I don't think it matters. The kid can't even read. I doubt he understands the gravity of this decision.
He's 13 years old and he can't read?
WTF?
Is he being home-schooled by you?
-
He's 13 years old and he can't read?
WTF?
Is he being home-schooled by you?
Aw did I hurt the little man's feelings? lol. . . .
-
Aw did I hurt the little man's feelings? lol. . . .
why would my feelings be hurt?
-
Good thing the gouvernment took charge here. Moron parents like that has no business bringing their stupidity onto their children when lives are at stake.
-
I don't think it matters. The kid can't even read. I doubt he understands the gravity of this decision.
Whether or not he can read is irrelevant, ...he feels. I don't know that this is the parents decision so much as it is the parents adopting the child's decision. Afterall, they did originally agree to chemo didn't they?
I don't know if any of you have ever had someone close to you go through chemo, but if you did, I'm sure you'd understand why this may not necessarily be the parents decision, as well as why someone undergoing chemo would want to stop. I had a friend go through it, and I swear I thought the doctor's were killing him. Chemo is not pleasant, it knocks you on your ass so hard, it makes you wonder whether the cure is not worse than the disease. I can understand why someone with cancer would prefer to face the cancer rather than the chemo.
Has the kid reached puberty yet?
-
Whether or not he can read is irrelevant, ...he feels. I don't know that this is the parents decision so much as it is the parents adopting the child's decision. Afterall, they did originally agree to chemo didn't they?
I don't know if any of you have ever had someone close to you go through chemo, but if you did, I'm sure you'd understand why this may not necessarily be the parents decision, as well as why someone undergoing chemo would want to stop. I had a friend go through it, and I swear I thought the doctor's were killing him. Chemo is not pleasant, it knocks you on your ass so hard, it makes you wonder whether the cure is not worse than the disease. I can understand why someone with cancer would prefer to face the cancer rather than the chemo.
Has the kid reached puberty yet?
His intellectual capacity is relevant. The fact he can't read at age 13 shows how severe his learning disability is. A 13-year-old is not old enough to make a life or death decision like this. That's particularly true of a 13-year old with a severe learning disability, who doesn't even understand that he's sick.
As I said a couple times earlier in the thread, I know people who have gone through chemo and radiation, and still died. It's a very unpleasant treatment. I don't blame anyone who decides to forego that treatment and rely on natural methods.
No idea if he has reached puberty.
-
His intellectual capacity is relevant. The fact he can't read at age 13 shows how severe his learning disability is. A 13-year-old is not old enough to make a life or death decision like this. That's particularly true of a 13-year old with a severe learning disability, who doesn't even understand that he's sick.
As I said a couple times earlier in the thread, I know people who have gone through chemo and radiation, and still died. It's a very unpleasant treatment. I don't blame anyone who decides to forego that treatment and rely on natural methods.
No idea if he has reached puberty.
what if they don't want to rely on natural methods but just decide that they don't want to put the kid through chemo and want to depend on God?
still OK?
should the state step in and over-ride the parents?
I say no
how about you?
-
His intellectual capacity is relevant. The fact he can't read at age 13 shows how severe his learning disability is. A 13-year-old is not old enough to make a life or death decision like this. That's particularly true of a 13-year old with a severe learning disability, who doesn't even understand that he's sick.
As I said a couple times earlier in the thread, I know people who have gone through chemo and radiation, and still died. It's a very unpleasant treatment. I don't blame anyone who decides to forego that treatment and rely on natural methods.
No idea if he has reached puberty.
I betcha he knew he was sick after that bout of chemo. :D
I'd talk to my friend, and he'd be happy, energetic, full of life, etc.,
...then he'd go in for chemo, ...and I swear within 24hrs it was like he was on his death bed. F-ing horrendous!
-
what if they don't want to rely on natural methods but just decide that they don't want to put the kid through chemo and want to depend on God?
still OK?
should the state step in and over-ride the parents?
I say no
how about you?
When the state steps in on this it can step in on anything. I might not agree with the religious nuttiness but the state should get out of it.
-
When the state steps in on this it can step in on anything. I might not agree with the religious nuttiness but the state should get out of it.
god gave the unfortunate kid cancer and also gave him religious nutbags for parents.
tough luck for the kid but at least he'll soon get to party for eternity with god in heaven...assuming he's not gay and also "saved". If not, then he really got dealt a bad hand.
-
god gave the unfortunate kid cancer and also gave him religious nutbags for parents.
tough luck for the kid but at least he'll soon get to party for eternity with god in heaven...assuming he's not gay and also "saved". If not, then he really got dealt a bad hand.
Seriously, I am strongly opposed to this sort of state intervention.
-
Seriously, I am strongly opposed to this sort of state intervention.
Just like the state intervenes when parents abuse their children or threaten their lives, the state has to intervene when the parents endangers the lives of their kids due to shit like this.
-
All jokes aside I actually agree with the judge on this one but it brings up some other problems.
The judge is saying the kid needs to be evauluated by a doctor. Who's supposed to pay for that? Who's supposed to pay for the Chemo?
Where are the rabid right to Lifer's on this board. Shouldn't they be here wailing and moaning about the sanctity of life? How is this any different from the Terry Shiavo debacle. If the Repubs were in control would they convene an emergency session of Congress to address the issue?
-
Just like the state intervenes when parents abuse their children or threaten their lives, the state has to intervene when the parents endangers the lives of their kids due to shit like this.
Not necessarily equatable IMO. This is an issue of medicine not one of direct and deadly violence.
-
Not necessarily equatable IMO. This is an issue of medicine not one of direct and deadly violence.
At this point in time, refusing the threatment for some crackpot nature medicine puts this kids life in great danger, which = equatable.
-
what if they don't want to rely on natural methods but just decide that they don't want to put the kid through chemo and want to depend on God?
still OK?
should the state step in and over-ride the parents?
I say no
how about you?
I'm not sure I like the idea of the state being able to force people to have treatment that they decide upon. When does it end? I wouldn't want to be forced to have chemo and radiation if I didn't want it. I don't think the way Cancer is treated is so great in this country anyways. There are numerous people that have healed themselves with specialized diets, alkalinity protocols, supplements..German stem cell treatments. People should be free to decide on their own treatment. The kid may be well informed and wants to get treated without being poisoned and burned.
-
I'm not sure I like the idea of the state being able to force people to have treatment that they decide upon. When does it end? I wouldn't want to be forced to have chemo and radiation if I didn't want it. I don't think the way Cancer is treated is so great in this country anyways. There are numerous people that have healed themselves with specialized diets, alkalinity protocols, supplements..German stem cell treatments. People should be free to decide on their own treatment. The kid may be well informed and wants to get treated without being poisoned and burned.
The kid is 13, and not capable of making his own decisions. He = a minor according to the law.
His parents are crackpots.
The judge made the right choice.
-
what if they don't want to rely on natural methods but just decide that they don't want to put the kid through chemo and want to depend on God?
still OK?
should the state step in and over-ride the parents?
I say no
how about you?
I say yes.
I am a big believer in human rights.
It would be absurd, IMO, to not include children in those rights.
And many kids, unfortunately, needs to be saved from their parents.
In some cases there could be a parent who is molesting his son, in another instance it could be a kid who's being tortured, or some other time it could be something like this.
A case where a kid becomes the victim of another persons beliefs.
That's when the society has to step in and put an end.
The molester gets sentenced to prison for destroying the life of his child.
Here these parents are on a path to end the life of their child.
-
The kid is 13, and not capable of making his own decisions. He = a minor according to the law.
His parents are crackpots.
The judge made the right choice.
So you're saying that everyone who doesn't want a primitive 40 year old chemo and radiation protocol is a Crackpot? I would think , you being a European and an intelligent guy, knows that there are countries like Germany that have had some success with new treatment options. Not saying that it's right in this particular instance...just think that it sets a precedent where the state/government can impose treatment options on people.
-
I say yes.
I am a big believer in human rights.
It would be absurd, IMO, to not include children in those rights.
And many kids, unfortunately, needs to be saved from their parents.
In some cases there could be a parent who is molesting his son, in another instance it could be a kid who's being tortured, or some other time it could be something like this.
A case where a kid becomes the victim of another persons beliefs.
That's when the society has to step in and put an end.
The molester gets sentenced to prison for destroying the life of his child.
Here these parents are on a path to end the life of their child.
I wrote a few posts up that, "all jokes aside I agreed with the judge".
-
I'm not sure I like the idea of the state being able to force people to have treatment that they decide upon. When does it end? I wouldn't want to be forced to have chemo and radiation if I didn't want it. I don't think the way Cancer is treated is so great in this country anyways. There are numerous people that have healed themselves with specialized diets, alkalinity protocols, supplements..German stem cell treatments. People should be free to decide on their own treatment. The kid may be well informed and wants to get treated without being poisoned and burned.
I've posted on both sides of this issue as I don't think it's clear cut. I think the parents should be forced to have a doctor evaluate the kid but then doctors are human and make mistakes too. If the kid were an adult he could make his own choice (assuming he's not a ward of the state) but in this situation it's the parent role to make that decision but then what if their decision is reckless. What if they decided their kid was possessed by the devil and that's why he had cancer and tried some weird approach to exorcise the demon cancer.
-
So you're saying that everyone who doesn't want a primitive 40 year old chemo and radiation protocol is a Crackpot? I would think , you being a European and an intelligent guy, knows that there are countries like Germany that have had some success with new treatment options. Not saying that it's right in this particular instance...just think that it sets a precedent where the state/government can impose treatment options on people.
Debussey did not say that anybody not using chemo = a crackpot.
Debussey = saying that in this case, not doing chemo = multiplying the chance for a fatal outcome by leaps and bounds. The effect is that the parents beliefs jeopardizes the kids life, and this should not be allowed. When it comes to minors the state should have the right to interfere, just like it does in child abuse and other such parental acts influenced by idiotic beliefs.
A grown up person that can properly evaluate the pros and cons of not doing chemo is another thing. If a 30 year old wants to use chakras or meditate themselves out of cancer, by all means :-X
-
At this point in time, refusing the threatment for some crackpot nature medicine puts this kids life in great danger, which = equatable.
You consider "nature medicine" to be crackpot? :-\
You do realize that every phramaceutical drug we have is Big Pharma's inadequate attempt to synthesize nature?
the reason drugs are so prevalent is not because they are effective, ...but because they are patentable, ...and therefore profitable to the pharmaceutical industry. Efficacy has nothing to do with it. their desire is not to cure the illness. There is no profit in that. They instead prefer to treat the illness for as long as possible. To extract as many duccats from the dying before they finally die. that is why big pharma exists. Don't get it twisted.
What we lack is not a shortage of effective natural medicines, ...what we lack is a sufficient knowledge of these healing compounds found only in nature. With the decimation of most indigenous peoples with a strong relationship to nature, and the land, ...we lose more & more of that knowledge as time passes.
-
You consider "nature medicine" to be crackpot? :-\
You do realize that every phramaceutical drug we have is Big Pharma's inadequate attempt to synthesize nature?
the reason drugs are so prevalent is not because they are effective, ...but because they are patentable, ...and therefore profitable to the pharmaceutical industry. Efficacy has nothing to do with it. their desire is not to cure the illness. There is no profit in that. They instead prefer to treat the illness for as long as possible. To extract as many duccats from the dying before they finally die. that is why big pharma exists. Don't get it twisted.
What we lack is not a shortage of effective natural medicines, ...what we lack is a sufficient knowledge of these healing compounds found only in nature. With the decimation of most indigenous peoples with a strong relationship to nature, and the land, ...we lose more & more of that knowledge as time passes.
In most cases: Yes. In this case: Absolutely.
If you are gonna make such accusations as you do here, please back up your claims by scientific studies ect. Refering to "indigneous peoples strong relationship to nature" in the context ain't cutting it. You are almost as bad as Sevastase ::)
-
Jag will take the side of the brain-dead, every single time.
Now we hate modern medicine too? ::)
-
I'm not sure I like the idea of the state being able to force people to have treatment that they decide upon. When does it end? I wouldn't want to be forced to have chemo and radiation if I didn't want it. I don't think the way Cancer is treated is so great in this country anyways. There are numerous people that have healed themselves with specialized diets, alkalinity protocols, supplements..German stem cell treatments. People should be free to decide on their own treatment. The kid may be well informed and wants to get treated without being poisoned and burned.
Yep. It's dangerous ground. We all have the right to refuse medical treatment. Parents have the right to make healthcare decisions for their children. But it's still tough to draw the line when a kid is involved.
-
Here's a story of a couple who were strict vegans and managed to starve their poor child to death just six weeks after he was born:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/09/national/main2778653.shtml
Another well known case from the 80's involved a couple who were Christian Scientist and let their kid die of what was called an "easily correctable". They were convicted and eventually their conviction was overturned Mass. Supreme Court.
from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitchell_case
Commonwealth v. Twitchell
In 1988, Massachusetts prosecutors charged David and Ginger Twitchell with manslaughter in the 1986 death of their two-year-old son Robyn.
Robyn Twitchell died of a peritonitis caused by a bowel obstruction that medical professionals declared would have been easily correctable.
The Twitchells' defense contended that the couple were within their First Amendment rights to treat their son's illness with prayer and that Massachusetts had recognized this right in an exemption to the statute outlawing child neglect.
The Vegan couple was sentenced to life in prison and Christian Scientists parents first got ten years probation and then their conviction was overturned.
If only that Vegan couple could have made up some religious reason for their homicidal neglect they would probably be walking the streets today (though I do think their sentence of life in prison was not fair either)
So it looks like we have so much religious freedom in this country that you can gain exemption from the laws that apply to secular society provided you can claim your actions were based on your religious beliefs
-
Here's a story of a couple who were strict vegans and managed to starve their poor child to death just six weeks after he was born:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/09/national/main2778653.shtml
Another well known case from the 80's involved a couple who were Christian Scientist and let their kid die of what was called an "easily correctable". They were convicted and eventually their conviction was overturned Mass. Supreme Court.
from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitchell_case
Commonwealth v. Twitchell
In 1988, Massachusetts prosecutors charged David and Ginger Twitchell with manslaughter in the 1986 death of their two-year-old son Robyn.
Robyn Twitchell died of a peritonitis caused by a bowel obstruction that medical professionals declared would have been easily correctable.
The Twitchells' defense contended that the couple were within their First Amendment rights to treat their son's illness with prayer and that Massachusetts had recognized this right in an exemption to the statute outlawing child neglect.
The Vegan couple was sentenced to life in prison and Christian Scientists parents first got ten years probation and then their conviction was overturned.
If only that Vegan couple could have made up some religious reason for their homicidal neglect they would probably be walking the streets today (though I do think their sentence of life in prison was not fair either)
So it looks like we have so much religious freedom in this country that you can gain exemption from the laws that apply to secular society provided you can claim your actions were based on your religious beliefs
The sentencing of the vegan couple was flat out BS.
This is a 6 week old baby. Prior to the development of Pablum by Canadian Paediatrian's Tisdale & Drake, at Toronto's renowned Hosptal for Sick Children (gotta work the Canadian plug in there) newborns routinely died of starvation and malnutrition. And no, not just in some 3rd world country, but even right here in the West. Veganism was a stupid defence, as well as a scapegoat. I don't know too many 6 week olds that are chomping down on a T-bone steak. At 6 weeks, that kid should have been on the teet. If not, there was always mashed bananas, mushy peas and strained carrots.
-
The sentencing of the vegan couple was flat out BS.
This is a 6 week old baby. Prior to the development of Pablum by Canadian Paediatrian's Tisdale & Drake, at Toronto's renowned Hosptal for Sick Children (gotta work the Canadian plug in there) newborns routinely died of starvation and malnutrition. And no, not just in some 3rd world country, but even right here in the West. Veganism was a stupid defence, as well as a scapegoat. I don't know too many 6 week olds that are chomping down on a T-bone steak. At 6 weeks, that kid should have been on the teet. If not, there was always mashed bananas, mushy peas and strained carrots.
Why dontcha answer Debussey's post and back up your claims about natural medicine with solid studies instead of folklore and gibberish? ::)
-
The sentencing of the vegan couple was flat out BS.
This is a 6 week old baby. Prior to the development of Pablum by Canadian Paediatrian's Tisdale & Drake, at Toronto's renowned Hosptal for Sick Children (gotta work the Canadian plug in there) newborns routinely died of starvation and malnutrition. And no, not just in some 3rd world country, but even right here in the West. Veganism was a stupid defence, as well as a scapegoat. I don't know too many 6 week olds that are chomping down on a T-bone steak. At 6 weeks, that kid should have been on the teet. If not, there was always mashed bananas, mushy peas and strained carrots.
I agree the fact they were vegan was a dumb defense and likely had nothing to do with the kid's death, but a six-week old cannot eat food. They're always on a liquid diet (either breast milk or formula). I don't think the diet had anything to do with it. It sounds like they didn't feed the kid at all. Unless he was a premie, or suffered from an illness, no way he could have only weighed 3 1/2 pounds if they were feeding him.
-
I agree the fact they were vegan was a dumb defense and likely had nothing to do with the kid's death, but a six-week old cannot eat food. They're always on a liquid diet (either breast milk or formula). I don't think the diet had anything to do with it. It sounds like they didn't feed the kid at all. Unless he was a premie, or suffered from an illness, no way he could have only weighed 3 1/2 pounds if they were feeding him.
I can't see anyone gaining any weight on a diet of apple juice & soy milk. :-\
-
Why dontcha answer Debussey's post and back up your claims about natural medicine with solid studies instead of folklore and gibberish? ::)
Cause I have better use for my time than wasteing it with the likes of you. I've already given you too much already.
-
Cause I have better use for my time than wasteing it with the likes of you. I've already given you too much already.
Wrong. You are just a dumb goat that loves to write unproven crap and illogical bs, then run away when being called out on it.
-
Cause I have better use for my time than wasteing it with the likes of you. I've already given you too much already.
-
:D
-
:D
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/rotflmao.gif)
Great Clip! Reminds me of my very first venture into network mktg.
I was soooo green, ...it made the grass envious. What did I sell? ...you guessed it... water filters! ;D
Except, I didn't get off as lucky as him. Instead of $1,000, our qualifier was $5,000 worth.
Needless to say, I learned very quickly, that selling someone a water filter meant I was now unemployed until my next sale, ...cause those suckers lasted for 3 years, ...and in 30 days, ...they sure didn't need another one.
I crashed and burned so fast, as do most newbies ...but I was determined to understand where I went wrong.
Thankfully, I wanted my freedom, and independence so badly, I was willing to learn the Wealth Creation Formula, and some very basic principals applicable to this incredible industry.
Rule #1. Your product must be consumable!
To develop a steady passive residual income, you have to have a product producing repeat business.
A non consumable water filter isn't what's going to do it cause you would need new customers constantly.
A consumable product however, will empower you to simply gather a handful of customers, ...and even if you developed no additional new customers, you could continue to earn passive residual income each time those customers consumed their supply of the product, and re-ordered. As the Network mktg company expanded the product lines, you'd see that monthly income increase as more & more of your satisfied customers choose to include those additional products into their households as well.
You might want to pay close attention to the following series of videos in the playlist. The popcorn is on me. :)
&index=0&playnext=1
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/popcorn.jpg)
-
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/rotflmao.gif)
Great Clip! Reminds me of my very first venture into network mktg.
I was soooo green, ...it made the grass envious. What did I sell? ...you guessed it... water filters! ;D
Except, I didn't get off as lucky as him. Instead of $1,000, our qualifier was $5,000 worth.
Needless to say, I learned very quickly, that selling someone a water filter meant I was now unemployed until my next sale, ...cause those suckers lasted for 3 years, ...and in 30 days, ...they sure didn't need another one.
I crashed and burned so fast, as do most newbies ...but I was determined to understand where I went wrong.
Thankfully, I wanted my freedom, and independence so badly, I was willing to learn the Wealth Creation Formula, and some very basic principals applicable to this incredible industry.
Rule #1. Your product must be consumable!
To develop a steady passive residual income, you have to have a product producing repeat business.
A non consumable water filter isn't what's going to do it cause you would need new customers constantly.
A consumable product however, will empower you to simply gather a handful of customers, ...and even if you developed no additional new customers, you could continue to earn passive residual income each time those customers consumed their supply of the product, and re-ordered. As the Network mktg company expanded the product lines, you'd see that monthly income increase as more & more of your satisfied customers choose to include those additional products into their households as well.
You might want to pay close attention to the following series of videos in the playlist. The popcorn is on me. :)
&index=0&playnext=1
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/popcorn.jpg)
Debussey will check out the video of you provide scientific backing for your statements about "natural medicine" instead of just claiming something pretty outrageous and saying it to be true :D
-
I can't see anyone gaining any weight on a diet of apple juice & soy milk. :-\
This isn't anyone. It's a newborn. Every newborn should be breast fed, if possible. That's a purely liquid diet. Mothers who either can't or don't want to breast feed give their babies formula, which can be soy based or cow milk based. It's still a purely liquid diet. That's not what killed the baby. I don't think they fed the baby much at all.
-
Minnesota Boy With Cancer Vows to Resist Chemotherapy by Punching, Kicking
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
A judge has ruled Daniel Hauser, 13, must get medical treatment for a highly treatable form of cancer.
A 13-year-old boy's vow to resist chemotherapy by punching or kicking anyone who tries to force it on him will present doctors with a tough task if they can't change his mind.
A judge was due Tuesday to hear the results of his order that Daniel Hauser undergo a chest X-ray and his family pick an oncologist to be treated for Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Related: Judge Forces 13-Year-Old to Undergo Cancer Treatments
Daniel and his parents stopped chemotherapy after one treatment and opted for "alternative medicines," prompting Brown County authorities to intervene. The cancer is regarded as highly curable with chemotherapy and radiation, but is likely fatal without it.
Daniel was scheduled for an X-ray Monday. His attorneys couldn't confirm he kept the appointment, and calls to the Hauser home rang unanswered.
"It can be very difficult to treat a 13-year-old boy who doesn't want to be treated," said Arthur Caplan, chair of the medical ethics department at the University of Pennsylvania. "I don't want to say it's impossible, but it makes it very tough on the doctors."
Last week, Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg ruled that Daniel's parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, were medically neglecting him.
Rodenberg said if a new X-ray showed a good prognosis, chemotherapy and possible radiation appeared to be in his best interest. Chemotherapy would not be ordered if the cancer was too advanced.
If chemotherapy was ordered and the family refused, Daniel would be placed in temporary custody. It wasn't immediately known where the boy might be treated or how medicine would be administered if he fights it.
Caplan said the medical community recognized a person's right to refuse treatments — but those rights didn't extend to incompetent people or children. Still, he said: "It is hard to treat someone who won't cooperate." Restraints could be used.
Officials at some Minnesota hospitals that treat cancer in children described several methods they would try to break through the boy's resistance.
Dr. Steven Miles, a professor of medicine and bioethics at the University of Minnesota Center for Bioethics, said a hospital may assign a companion to a child, or administer a sedative to relieve anxiety. Sometimes foster homes catering to medically ill children can help by providing a loving environment and education about what the child needs.
"The kid says he's not sick and the mom says she'll treat it if it's an emergency," Miles said of the Hauser case. "With cancer, if it's an emergency, it's too late."
Brian Lucas, a spokesman at Children's, said ethics experts met Monday to make sure everyone was up to speed on Daniel's case and plan for any possibility.
Caplan said he believes the judge made the right decision.
"This case falls, for me, squarely in the 'You've gotta get him treated' camp," Caplan said. "If it's not life and death, you might not push so hard. If it's not a proven treatment ... you wouldn't push so far."
But doctors may not have to follow the court order "if they feel it can't be carried out — if it's literally impossible to get a needle into this kid," Caplan said.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520607,00.html
-
Minnesota Boy With Cancer Vows to Resist Chemotherapy by Punching, Kicking
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
A judge has ruled Daniel Hauser, 13, must get medical treatment for a highly treatable form of cancer.
A 13-year-old boy's vow to resist chemotherapy by punching or kicking anyone who tries to force it on him will present doctors with a tough task if they can't change his mind.
A judge was due Tuesday to hear the results of his order that Daniel Hauser undergo a chest X-ray and his family pick an oncologist to be treated for Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Related: Judge Forces 13-Year-Old to Undergo Cancer Treatments
Daniel and his parents stopped chemotherapy after one treatment and opted for "alternative medicines," prompting Brown County authorities to intervene. The cancer is regarded as highly curable with chemotherapy and radiation, but is likely fatal without it.
Daniel was scheduled for an X-ray Monday. His attorneys couldn't confirm he kept the appointment, and calls to the Hauser home rang unanswered.
"It can be very difficult to treat a 13-year-old boy who doesn't want to be treated," said Arthur Caplan, chair of the medical ethics department at the University of Pennsylvania. "I don't want to say it's impossible, but it makes it very tough on the doctors."
Last week, Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg ruled that Daniel's parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, were medically neglecting him.
Rodenberg said if a new X-ray showed a good prognosis, chemotherapy and possible radiation appeared to be in his best interest. Chemotherapy would not be ordered if the cancer was too advanced.
If chemotherapy was ordered and the family refused, Daniel would be placed in temporary custody. It wasn't immediately known where the boy might be treated or how medicine would be administered if he fights it.
Caplan said the medical community recognized a person's right to refuse treatments — but those rights didn't extend to incompetent people or children. Still, he said: "It is hard to treat someone who won't cooperate." Restraints could be used.
Officials at some Minnesota hospitals that treat cancer in children described several methods they would try to break through the boy's resistance.
Dr. Steven Miles, a professor of medicine and bioethics at the University of Minnesota Center for Bioethics, said a hospital may assign a companion to a child, or administer a sedative to relieve anxiety. Sometimes foster homes catering to medically ill children can help by providing a loving environment and education about what the child needs.
"The kid says he's not sick and the mom says she'll treat it if it's an emergency," Miles said of the Hauser case. "With cancer, if it's an emergency, it's too late."
Brian Lucas, a spokesman at Children's, said ethics experts met Monday to make sure everyone was up to speed on Daniel's case and plan for any possibility.
Caplan said he believes the judge made the right decision.
"This case falls, for me, squarely in the 'You've gotta get him treated' camp," Caplan said. "If it's not life and death, you might not push so hard. If it's not a proven treatment ... you wouldn't push so far."
But doctors may not have to follow the court order "if they feel it can't be carried out — if it's literally impossible to get a needle into this kid," Caplan said.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520607,00.html
I have to agree with what's going on here. It's just too bad that a court order has to made to get it done.
-
I have to agree with what's going on here. It's just too bad that a court order has to made to get it done.
I really don't know what to think. I'd be really reluctant to start having the government, courts, etc. make decisions for parents.
It also looks like they're going to have trouble forcing him to undergo treatment. What then? Arrest him?
-
He's on the lam.
Father in chemo case says mom, sick boy left country
SLEEPY EYE, Minnesota (CNN) -- The father of a 13-year-old boy whose family is refusing treatment for his cancer said Wednesday he believes his son and his wife have left the country.
"I will say this: I have left a call to where I think they could possibly be," Anthony Hauser said from his home in Sleepy Eye, Minnesota, about 85 miles southwest of Minneapolis.
Asked whether he believes that they have gone to Canada, he said, "I'm not saying it's Canada. You know, that isn't where I left my call."
He made his comments a day after a Minnesota judge issued an arrest warrant for his wife, Colleen, who failed to appear with the boy at a court hearing. A judge scheduled the hearing to review an X-ray ordered by the court to assess whether Daniel Hauser's Hodgkin's lymphoma was worsening.
A doctor testified at the hearing that the X-ray showed "significant worsening."
In a news release, the Brown County Sheriff's Office said the father had been "cooperative" in helping them find his son but added, "the investigators cannot speculate on the sincerity of the information that Anthony Hauser has provided."
The sheriff's office has been in touch with the FBI, and the boy has been entered in the Missing and Exploited Children network, it said.
Anthony Hauser testified at the hearing that he last saw his wife at the family's farm on Monday night, when she told him she was going to leave "for a time."
He later said he would like his wife and son to return.
"I'd like to tell them, you know, 'Come back and be safe and be a family again,' " he said. "That's what I'd like to tell them." Watch father urge the pair to come back »
District Judge John R. Rodenberg of Brown County, Minnesota, said the boy's "best interests" require him to receive medical care. His family opposes the proposed course of treatment, which includes chemotherapy.
"It is imperative that Daniel receive the attention of an oncologist as soon as possible," the judge wrote.
During Tuesday's hearing, Dr. James Joyce testified that he had seen the boy and his mother on Monday at his office. He said that the boy had "an enlarged lymph node" near his right clavicle and that the X-ray showed "significant worsening" of a mass in his chest.
In addition, the boy complained of "extreme pain" at the site where a port had been inserted to deliver an initial round of chemotherapy. The pain was "most likely caused by the tumor or mass pressing on the port," testified Joyce, who called the X-ray "fairly dramatic" evidence that the cancer was worsening. Watch CNN's Dr. Gupta discuss Daniel's chances »
Rodenberg ordered custody of the boy transferred to Brown County Family Services and issued a contempt order for the mother.
Philip Elbert, Daniel's court-appointed attorney, said that he considers his client to have a "diminished capacity" for reasons of his age and the illness and that he thinks Daniel should be treated by a cancer specialist.
Elbert added that he does not think Daniel -- who, according to court papers, cannot read -- has enough information to make an informed decision regarding his treatment.
Daniel's symptoms of persistent cough, fatigue and swollen lymph nodes were diagnosed in January as Hodgkin's lymphoma. In February, the cancer responded well to an initial round of chemotherapy, but the treatment's side effects concerned the boy's parents, who then opted not to pursue further chemo and instead sought out other medical opinions.
Court documents show that doctors estimated the boy's chance of five-year remission with more chemotherapy and possibly radiation at 80 percent to 95 percent.
But the family opted for a holistic medical treatment based upon Native American healing practices called Nemenhah and rejected further treatment.
In a written statement issued last week, an attorney for the parents said they "believe that the injection of chemotherapy into Danny Hauser amounts to an assault upon his body, and torture when it occurs over a long period of time."
Medical ethicists say parents generally have a legal right to make decisions for their children, but there is a limit.
"You have a right, but not an open-ended right," Arthur Caplan, director of the center for bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, said last week. "You can't compromise the life of your child."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/20/minnesota.forced.chemo/index.html
-
I have to go by my life experiences in questions of parental authority over children...Many don't like my views but in my experience I feel parents have entirely too much authority over their children.
-
I have to go by my life experiences in questions of parental authority over children...Many don't like my views but in my experience I feel parents have entirely too much authority over their children.
Sync what age groups are you talking about?
Also, how do you think parents' authority over their kids should be limited?
-
He's back.
Hearing Tuesday for 13-year-old cancer patient
NEW ULM, Minnesota (CNN) -- A review hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday afternoon in the case of a 13-year-old cancer patient who fled from Minnesota with his mother in an attempt to avoid chemotherapy.
Daniel Hauser and his mother, Colleen Hauser, were last seen in their hometown of Sleepy Eye on May 18, one day after a doctor said the boy's Hodgkin's lymphoma was worsening.
Hodgkin's lymphoma is a type of cancer that affects the lymphatic system, which is part of the immune system. As the disease progresses, it compromises a body's ability to fight infection.
Colleen Hauser was planning to take Daniel to Mexico for natural treatment, but decided to return home, a family spokesman said Tuesday.
"They were down in California ... on the way to Mexico," Dan Zwakman told CNN's "American Morning."
"They were seeking an alternate treatment ... the natural herbal and such different therapies versus the chemo and radiation they do in America." Watch spokesman describe family's emotions »
On Monday, the lawyer for the Hausers said the mother will accept whatever course of treatment a court may order. Colleen Hauser is prepared to allow her son Daniel to undergo chemotherapy, defense lawyer Jennifer Keller said.
"My understanding is that Colleen intends to abide by whatever orders the court makes and that she wants to put her best case forward for her son to have a chance at alternative treatment," Keller told CNN.
Judge John R. Rodenberg of the Brown County District Court issued an arrest warrant for Colleen Hauser when she and her son failed to show up for a court hearing May 19. He said the boy's "best interests" require he receive conventional medical care
The warrant was rescinded after the pair's return.
Zwakman said Daniel was evaluated by a doctor after his arrival. He did not know about the doctor's findings, he said, but the teen seemed to be in good spirits.
"Danny was out with the weed whacker attacking the weeds in the garden," Zwakman said.
The hearing in New Ulm, Minnesota, is planned for 2 or 2:30 p.m.
The Hausers returned to their hometown at 3 a.m. Monday aboard a chartered flight paid for by Asgaard Media of Corona, California. The company describes itself on its Web site as "founded and advised by a group of forward-thinking, positive-minded individuals wanting to make a difference."
Attempts to reach the company Tuesday were unsuccessful.
Zwakman said the planned trip to Mexico became too overwhelming for the Hausers.
"Being on the road and being nowhere, probably the first time being out in their own area, they hit a wall and didn't know what else to do," Zwakman said.
In February, the boy's cancer responded to an initial round of chemotherapy. But the treatment's side effects concerned the boy's parents, who decided not to pursue further chemotherapy and solicited other medical opinions. The family opted instead for a holistic medical treatment based on Native American healing practices called Nemenhah.
Daniel's symptoms of persistent cough, fatigue and swollen lymph nodes were diagnosed in January as Hodgkin's lymphoma. Court documents show doctors estimated the boy's chance of five-year remission with more chemotherapy, and possibly radiation, at 80 to 95 percent.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/26/minnesota.forced.chemo/index.html