May 19, 2009 8:35 pm at 8:35 pm #589806proud tattyMember
There has been a lot of talk of late that the US government is getting involved in areas where they do not belong. Is this a fight of government versus religion? What is your opinion?
Here is the story from the Minnesota Star Tribune:
NEW ULM — A judge issued an arrest warrant this afternoon for the mother of a 13-year-old boy who is resisting chemotherapy for cancer after she and her son failed to show up at a court hearing.
Anthony Hauser, the father of Daniel Hauser, testified that he doesn’t know the whereabouts of his son and his wife, Colleen.
Anthony Hauser said he last spoke to his wife late Monday as he milked cows at the family’s farm in Sleepy Eye. She said she was leaving, but didn’t say where she was going or how long she would be gone, Hauser testified.
He said his wife told him she was going to leave and “That’s all you need to know.”
A physician testified at this afternoon’s court hearing that Daniel’s cancer has grown back to its original size since he stopped chemotherapy treatments.
Judge John Rodenberg last week had ordered the boy to undergo a chest X-ray to see how his Hodgkins lymphoma was progressing.
In addition to issuing an arrest warrant for Colleen Hauser, Rodenberg ordered that Daniel be turned over to Brown County authorities and be placed in foster care.
Once that happens, he ruled, Daniel’s condition must be immediately evaluated by a pediatric oncologist.
A court-appointed attorney for the boy had recommended that custody of the boy be transferred to Brown County.
Daniel was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma in January and received his only chemotherapy and radiation treatment that month. He did not return for a second treatment in February and the family began substituting alternative care, including herbs and vitamins. His doctors notified child protection officials, prompting Brown County Attorney James Olson to file a child neglect petition.
Rodenberg had ordered the family to return to court today with results of a chest x-ray and the name of an oncologist who will resume chemotherapy or other treatment unless the cancer’s spread no longer makes treatment effective.
Dr. James Joyce, the Hauser’s family physician, testified today that he had taken an x-ray of Daniel Monday, which showed that his tumor had grown back to its original size.
Joyce said he gave Colleen Hauser the names of three oncologists, but she declined to take them.
Daniel’s doctors testified during an earlier hearing on May 8 that with chemotherapy and perhaps radiation, his chance of survival was 80 to 95 percent; without it he likely would die within 5 years.
Colleen Hauser, testified at the hearing that use of chemotherapy, which they regard as a potentially fatal poison, violates the family’s religious beliefs. She said they prefer natural remedies such as herbs and vitamins that they began after Daniel’s only chemotherapy treatment in January, shortly after he was diagnosed.
Rodenberg noted that all five doctors who had examined the boy agreed on the recommended course of treatment.
The county, he said, had proved “a compelling state interest in the life and welfare of Daniel sufficient to override the fundamental constitutional rights of both the parents and Daniel to the free exercise of religion and the due process right of the parents to direct the upbringing of their child.”
In the 58-page ruling, Rodenberg said Daniel should remain in the custody of his parents provided that they comply with his orders.
Minnesota laws require parents to provide children with “medically necessary care,” he wrote. He said the Hausers may continue with their natural remedies, but added that providing “complementary and alternative health care is not sufficient.”May 20, 2009 6:07 am at 6:07 am #645702
this is not religion. it is some hippy nutcase thinking eating grass and taking pills will cure all. at least the court cares about danielMay 20, 2009 6:12 am at 6:12 am #645703
Why dont they ask the kid what he wants?May 20, 2009 6:17 am at 6:17 am #645704
wow aussie why not just say straight out you did not read the first postMay 20, 2009 6:21 am at 6:21 am #645705
Goldie: I read about half then I got bored. What did I miss?May 20, 2009 6:24 am at 6:24 am #645706
I just reread it. What did i say wrong before?May 20, 2009 6:26 am at 6:26 am #645707
1st of all the boy is 13 and no dobt has been brainwashed by his hippy mommy
2nd they dont know where he is!!! how can they ask him
3rd of all what are they going to ask him? do you want to live or die??May 20, 2009 6:31 am at 6:31 am #645708
So lets brainwash him to how the courts want it done.
Do you want to try natrual remedy or medicine?
Im not posting anymore on this thread after this. You sound like your in the mood of having a big argument and Im not in the mood of one. (I Guess you just caught me on the wrong day 😉May 20, 2009 6:33 am at 6:33 am #645709
is there any proof that grass can work?? the court isnt saying which treatment. they are insisting on a treatment. the mothers hippy juice is not a cure and she is too dumb to know thatMay 20, 2009 6:36 am at 6:36 am #645710
Goldie: Ok i lied I am posting. First of all relax, chill a bit. Second are you suddenly a doctor. You just read an article by someone who wants you to believe what they wrote dont start calling her a hippy with grass or whatever.May 20, 2009 6:37 am at 6:37 am #645711
calling her a hippie with grass
that was soooo funny. did you know what you said when you rote it?? lol!May 20, 2009 8:13 am at 8:13 am #645712
Goldie: Im still not sure what I said that was so funny.May 20, 2009 1:51 pm at 1:51 pm #645713
hey you guys have to realize that if the state wins this case they are basically getting involved in a family’s religious issues. even if you don’t agree in this case (i happen to think it’s ridiculous but no one asked me) in general it proves the power of the state. maybe next time they intervene it will be a frum issue? you never know- and our goal should be to try and keep them out as much as possible. if a kid has to die for that to be maintained then so be it.
i think the same goes for abortions. you don’t want it illegal because if a frum woman ever gets a psak that she needs one, the last thing you want is for a government to oppose.
not sure if that was english- it’s kinda early for meMay 20, 2009 2:03 pm at 2:03 pm #645714
moish, why you up so early?
~a~May 20, 2009 2:18 pm at 2:18 pm #645715
I agree with moish. And what about when it’s regarding keeping someone on lifesupport? Remember what happened with that kid from Boro Park?
~a~May 20, 2009 3:20 pm at 3:20 pm #645716
A Wisconsin girl died last year of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) as her parents prayed over her instead of bringing her to a hospital to be treated for Type I diabetes. The 11-year-old had not seen a doctor since she was 3. The only medically recognized treatment for Type I diabetes includes insulin, but her parents religious beliefs precluded treating illness with anything but prayer. Her mother is now on trial for her role in the death (her father’s trial is set for July). A doctor recently testified that the child could have been saved up to several hours before her death if her parents had sought medical care.
Do you think the parents should be put on trial? Why or why not?May 20, 2009 3:37 pm at 3:37 pm #645717
i’m warning you: my answer isn’t going to be consistent.
yes, I PERSONALLY think her parents should be put on trial. If it were up to me that’s how i’d rule.
BUT, thinking as a cold outsider whose concern right now is solely for the jewish community, i would have to say not. it’s cruel, but i still firmly believe that the government should have to stay out of medical issues when they overlap with religion.
think about it: who is going to determine WHICH religions are ethical and which aren’t? which one does the government bow to and which ones do they ignore?May 20, 2009 5:26 pm at 5:26 pm #645719
moish, it seems you are concerned about how prosecution in the Hauser or Neumann (the WI girl above) cases would keep frum Jews from practicing their religion. How exactly do you envision this happening? Note that in both cases the government intervened because the parents withheld standard-of-care medical treatment for ostensible religious reasons. This is because the government is responsible to protect the health/ safety of minors when their parents refuse or are unable to do so.
Which religious Jewish practices involve withholding standard-of-care medical treatment? I can’t think of any, and am not seeing the slippery slope that you seem to fear here. The example of a patient being removed from life support against the family’s wishes is completely unrelated Iof anything it’s sort of the opposite), and prosecution in the cases above would in no way create a precedent.
Personally, I don’t know much about cancer treatments, but for a child to die of DKA (which probably took about a month) because her parents prayed over her instead of bringing her to a doctor is unconscionable.May 20, 2009 5:33 pm at 5:33 pm #645720
you’re right. i was really going to say that it should be illegal to withhold treatment. but is it possible to have them intervene in some areas and not others? i don’t know. maybe it’s better if they shouldn’t get involved altogether.May 20, 2009 5:43 pm at 5:43 pm #645721AnonymousInactive
How about bris? Years ago Sweden banned bris b’shmini since the boy was not of age to comply and therefore they feel the need to look out for the welfare of the child. Is this not a case of the government getting involved against halacha?May 20, 2009 5:55 pm at 5:55 pm #645722
i hear. but that’s the opposite side. we’re saying that it should be illegal to withhold treatment.May 20, 2009 6:05 pm at 6:05 pm #645723
anon, that’s true for Jewish practices. Others might say that you’re prolonging suffering by continuing to administer whatever treatment is under discussion, and it’s more ethical to allow the patient to die peacefully. Who’s to say that the law will be made in accordance with Jewish law? Chances are it won’t, and therefore, it’s probably better for us, as a community, that the government should not intervene.
However, I still think those parents are 100% wrong and are guilty of causing their child’s death.
~a~May 20, 2009 6:18 pm at 6:18 pm #645724
anonymisss, since when do we agree so peacefully?May 20, 2009 7:16 pm at 7:16 pm #645725
since now. How does it feel?
~a~May 20, 2009 7:24 pm at 7:24 pm #645726
i dunno. i’m trying to figure out where i went wrong.May 20, 2009 7:25 pm at 7:25 pm #645727
anonymiss, the gov’t only attempts to intervene in parents’ medical decisions regarding their children when there is a threat to the child’s health & safety. They don’t get involved in ethical issues, or end of life issues of the seriously ill, in that capacity. Which medical decisions motivated by Jewish religious observance do you think the gov’t would perceive as a threat to a child’s health or safety?
It’s true that hospitals have been known to try to take patients off life support by claiming that it’s “cruel” or “unethical” to prolong heartbeat/ respiration in the absence of brain function. But this has happened to adults also, and really has more to do with economics & medical insurance than anything else.May 20, 2009 7:28 pm at 7:28 pm #645728
moish, let’s do something different today. Instead of thinkin about where you went wrong, how about trying to figure out where you went right?
~a~May 20, 2009 7:39 pm at 7:39 pm #645729
haha nice tryMay 20, 2009 8:33 pm at 8:33 pm #645730areivimzehlazehParticipant
“Which medical decisions motivated by Jewish religious observance do you think the gov’t would perceive as a threat to a child’s health or safety?”
a bris wouldn’t fall under this catagory?May 20, 2009 8:36 pm at 8:36 pm #645731
go for it!
~a~May 20, 2009 8:39 pm at 8:39 pm #645732
for sure it does.May 20, 2009 8:44 pm at 8:44 pm #645733jewishfeminist02Member
No. Circumcision is now widely recognized as a healthy practice and is even advocated by doctors of non-Jewish baby boys.May 20, 2009 8:46 pm at 8:46 pm #645734
moish, thanx for ignoring me.
~a~May 20, 2009 8:46 pm at 8:46 pm #645735
but it is a surgery. you can’t argue thatMay 20, 2009 8:48 pm at 8:48 pm #645736
This thread is not making a whole lot of sense to me (mostly because I sped read through it)May 20, 2009 8:50 pm at 8:50 pm #645737
areivim, no, because there’s no medical evidence that circumcision threatens a healthy infant’s safety. The American Academy of Pediatrics notes that there are “potential medical benefits” associated with neonatal circumcision, but that parents should decide for themselves (absent a specific medical reason for it) whether circumcision is right for their child.
I’m not familiar with the situation in Sweden that Bogen mentioned, but American laws are not generally modeled on those of Scandinavian countries. And it is not likely that this sort of law would pass here, where most baby boys are routinely circumcised.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.