Better Than Drudge

recent posts

about

13-Year-Old Cancer Victim & Parental Rights

Cancer Affirmative By Selwyn Duke

Every so often there is a case in which parents refuse to submit
their child to medical treatment, citing religious beliefs. The most
recent example is the saga of Daniel Hauser, a 13-year-old Minnesota
boy stricken with Hodgkin’s lymphoma. After undergoing a round of
chemotherapy that, understandably, made the boy quite sick, the family
ceased the treatments, saying they would pursue alternative therapy in
accordance with an American Indian religion known as “Nemenhah.”

A court order was then issued mandating that Daniel undergo the
treatments, prompting him and his mother, Colleen Hauser, to flee the
state on May 18. Their intention was to seek their alternative medicine
in Mexico. But now mother and son are back in Minnesota, having
surrendered to authorities voluntarily after a week on the run. They
also have agreed to undergo the medical treatments prescribed by their
doctors, despite vowing previously to resist them at all costs.

Read the rest here.

Posted in , ,

10 responses to “13-Year-Old Cancer Victim & Parental Rights”

  1. Philip France Avatar
    Philip France

    I am surprised that there is not more public outrage at this over-reach by the courts and the medical community. This is a dangerous slippery slope.
    This story reminds me of the outrageous raid on the FLDS compound last year where scores of children were wrested from their mothers under the pretense of child-abuse. This was triggered by a fraudulent phone call from a serial trouble-maker (who also happened to be an Obama delegate).
    Remember the cries of teen sex with adults? The allegations of polygamy? The repetition of the word “polygamist” with the word “compound”?
    When all was said and done, not one case of child abuse was confirmed and not one indictment for polygamy was handed down. The media was just as outrageous as the CPS!
    Beware of government over-reach. Our DHS is now run by a radical lesbian who has already demonstrated a psychopathy. Selwyn is correct in asserting that we should always err toward parental rights.

    Like

    Reply
  2. Walt Avatar
    Walt

    Wow Selwyn this is strange. Today during church I thought about the double standard the left has (as you mentioned at the end of your article), abortion vs. parental authority after birth. It is strange how a person can choose to kill a child in the womb but when it comes to choosing medical treatment the STATE trumps all. Although I strongly disagree with the parent in question (as well as most faith healing “religions”), I wonder are, our children really ours, or the STATE’s. Sometimes I wonder if we are in some sort of a “humanistic fascism”; we, as long as it serves the interest of the STATE, “own” our children (and ourselves for that matter). Once the interest of the two conflicts, BAM! The STATE has its will. Like fascism, private ownership and free agency are heralded and encouraged, alas to be subject to STATE authority. Ownership and free agency are only an illusion, or as Robert Chandler, in the book “Shadow World” would put it in reference to a Socrates’ philosophy, “a shadow on the wall.”

    Like

    Reply
  3. Philip France Avatar
    Philip France

    Dear Walt;
    I agree with you on so many issues posted at this site but I am disappointedly surprised by your assertion that you “strongly diagree with the parent in question”. You go on to contradict that very assertion.
    Because that child is a minor, it should be the parents’ exclusive rights to determine his or her treatment. Right or wrong. The day that we allow governmental control of our children is the very day that we relinquish their nourishment and well-being of our most innocent to the most sinister of ordered society: i.e. the Political class.
    Please answer me honestly: Would you trust your beloved son/daughter; grandson/granddaughter; niece/nephew; grandson-grandniece/granddaughter-grandnephew to Nancy Pelosi? Harry Reid? Janet Napolitano?
    The parents, especially the mother of the boy in Minnesota should be left alone to decide the most appropriate course of action for their child. There should be NO interference whatsover from the public, from the media, from the medical establishment, nor from the courts.
    I conclude with these thoughts: EVERY governmental incursion into our daily lives is a loss of our liberty. Every new tax, every new law, every new decision is a loss to our precious liberty. Can’t you see it?
    We may make severe and atrocious mistkes, such as what might befall the boy in Minnesota, but let us stand before the Almighty and Eternal during HIS judgement rather than the folly of rendering such judgement to the facile and temporal will of man.

    Like

    Reply
  4. Walt Avatar
    Walt

    Philip,
    You have COMPLETLEY misunderstood my position. When I say “I strongly disagree with these parents” what I perhaps should have said is, I disagree with their judgement in this matter, not their right to do what they did. I would think by the body of the remainder of my post you might see that I am certainly for parental rights over the rights of the STATE.

    Like

    Reply
  5. Philip France Avatar
    Philip France

    Mea culpa, Walt.

    Like

    Reply
  6. polysci Avatar
    polysci

    Selwyn, I believe you have it all wrong…as usual, but especially comparing the womb arguement with the state’s rights. In case you haven’t noticed, if a child is in the womb, this would encompass that the child is “inside” of a woman, and up to a certain point of the embryo’s development, abortion is either legal or illgal. due to state interest. Once the child is outside of the womb, then they are no different than any other citizen of a country, and the state still has a compelling interest in that child’s well-being. I believe that the parent should be arrested for putting her child in danger, which is no different than her allowing him to drink underage, or any other endangering act that an adult should know better than to allow a kid to do. Also, this is what the child protection laws are all about. Just because someone has children doesn’t mean that they automatically know what’s best, which is obvious in this case.

    Like

    Reply
  7. Philip France Avatar
    Philip France

    Dear polysci(ence fiction),
    What is so “obvious” that this child’s parents don’t “know what’s best”? Are you a medical doctor? I doubt it. Do you know the parents and have you examined this case or know of options other than chemotherapy that they might be willing to pursue?
    Most importantly, are you so naive that you believe that a judge should determine, by fiat, the medical treatment for a child or any other person? How about you? If you stood before a court and were determined to be the lunatic that your most recent post portrays you to be, how would you feel if a judge declared that your treatment should be a frontal lobotomy? Wouldn’t you want “mommy” to whisk you away too?

    Like

    Reply
  8. polysci Avatar
    polysci

    I find it interesting that I fascinate you as much as I do philip, but I must admit that it’s a bit strange to have an online stalker, especially one who’s so bold in his approach.
    Are YOU a medical doctor? I highly doubt it. Do YOU know the parents and have you given them a psychological evalution in order to determine if they had the mental capability to pursue other options? I highly doubt that as well. What I don’t doubt is the fact that you probably don’t understand the true nature of this case, which isn’t just simply a judge “telling” someone what to do. It’s amazing how you neocon macadamia’s only respect the laws in which you want to respect, but are simultaneosly lovers of law and order as well as the Constitution. Perhaps if your “mommy” would have utilized the legal right to get an abortion while she had the chance, then, I wouldn’t have to be bothered with this very ignorant exchange.

    Like

    Reply
  9. Northern Kentucky Attorneys Avatar
    Northern Kentucky Attorneys

    Oh my, this is just sad, is the alternative treatment proven to really treat cancer? Is this really acceptable to the state, what if the life of the child is more at risk in such alternative medicine than that of chemotherapy?

    Like

    Reply
  10. Northern Kentucky Attorneys Avatar
    Northern Kentucky Attorneys

    If the alternative treatment is proven to treat cancer, why not try? And these are parents, surely they want the best for their child, but I still do hope that government should oversee these alternative treatment before it is being conducted to anyone.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to Northern Kentucky Attorneys Cancel reply