Daniel Hauser

[partofme]

I really hope they find this boy and his mom. It just enraged me that she could let her son die like that. For those that don't know this 13 year old boy has a very curable form of cancer with chemo but his parents want him to have alternative medicine such as herbs and sitting in a sweat lodge instead because of religious reasons. With chemo his odds of survival are 90-95% but without it he would most likely die. Now she has taken him on the run despite a court order for him to receive chemo and police are looking for them. At what point do you guys think parent's should lose the right to decide their child's treatment? I think anything less than mainstream medical treatment is neglect personally but some people are arguing that it should always be the call of the parents.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/20/minnesota.forced.chemo/index.html

[Dominick]

That's a real tough call. I do not readily dismiss all healing that's outside of the pharmaceutical industry. I got cured from years of debilitating daily headaches by alternative methods. And these alternative methods are waaaaay older than the pill machines. On the other hand, most of what is announced as such is not genuine and quite simply fraudulent.

[partofme]

That's a real tough call. I do not readily dismiss all healing that's outside of the pharmaceutical industry. I got cured from years of debilitating daily headaches by alternative methods. And these alternative methods are waaaaay older than the pill machines. On the other hand, most of what is announced as such is not genuine and quite simply fraudulent.

If there is any credible evidence that these methods work then that is fine but in this case there simply isn't.

[The Drunk Guy]

If there is any credible evidence that these methods work then that is fine but in this case there simply isn't.
Faith healing is fucked up and should be punishable by death.

However, I'm heard of a documentary about some doctor's "alternative" method of curing cancer. "A Beautiful Dream" or something. Has anyone seen it? Is it bullocks?

[Margot]

That's a real tough call. I do not readily dismiss all healing that's outside of the pharmaceutical industry. I got cured from years of debilitating daily headaches by alternative methods. And these alternative methods are waaaaay older than the pill machines. On the other hand, most of what is announced as such is not genuine and quite simply fraudulent.

This mother isn't thinking like you, though. She's going for alternative medicine because of her religion, not because she thinks it's more likely to help her son. She isn't thinking about what's best for her kid, she's not weighing the facts, she's throwing in some unproven and intangible entity. What's worse is that she is putting her faith over logic and has come to the conclusion that her faith is of more importance than the life of Daniel. We know Chemotherapy works on this kid's brand of cancer. We know that alternative medicines do diddly. This is about as heinous as you can get, in my opinion. If this kid dies this isn't just negligence, it's murder. He's a minor! You can't take your kid into a liquor store but you can let him die? I have a problem with this.

I mean, I'd feel wayyy differently if this woman had him in chemo and was trying to find an alternative method that would help on top of that. Kudos to you and doing absolutely everything in your power to protect someone whom the government has decided can't yet take care of himself. Kudos for protecting a child, your kid. But she's not. She's being totally, utterly, one hundred percent selfish.

[Evangeline]

They came back today.

http://www.twincities.com/ci_12444580?source=most_viewed

[partofme]

They came back today.

http://www.twincities.com/ci_12444580?source=most_viewed

That's good. I would say that most likely a week didn't change his odds very much.

[Birdzeye]

They came back today.

http://www.twincities.com/ci_12444580?source=most_viewed

Good news. As unpleasant as chemo can be, the kid has a fighting chance with it.

[Korimyr the Rat]

This mother isn't thinking like you, though. She's going for alternative medicine because of her religion, not because she thinks it's more likely to help her son.

She thinks alternative medicine will help her son, and that if he survives he will be far healthier than if he survived after receiving chemotherapy. And if he does survive, she'll have been right-- only, the odds are pretty long against them.

If he were a couple years older, he'd be a man with every right to choose death over medicines he is morally opposed to-- or kill himself outright, for that matter. Since he's not a man, that responsibility falls to his parents. He is not begging for chemotherapy. He is not begging to be "saved" from the backwards superstitions of his parents. If anything, he is begging for his parents' wishes-- and his own-- to be respected, and for himself to be allowed to use the medicines that he trusts and believes in, and allowed to either survive and get better on his own or die whole.

I respect what they were doing, and I think it was damnably wrong of the courts to interfere. They have no right to force him to suffer through painful, crippling, and expensive medical treatments in order to save his life-- especially if he believes that those treatments will make his life not worth living.

[partofme]

She thinks alternative medicine will help her son, and that if he survives he will be far healthier than if he survived after receiving chemotherapy. And if he does survive, she'll have been right-- only, the odds are pretty long against them.

If he were a couple years older, he'd be a man with every right to choose death over medicines he is morally opposed to-- or kill himself outright, for that matter. Since he's not a man, that responsibility falls to his parents. He is not begging for chemotherapy. He is not begging to be "saved" from the backwards superstitions of his parents. If anything, he is begging for his parents' wishes-- and his own-- to be respected, and for himself to be allowed to use the medicines that he trusts and believes in, and allowed to either survive and get better on his own or die whole.

I respect what they were doing, and I think it was damnably wrong of the courts to interfere. They have no right to force him to suffer through painful, crippling, and expensive medical treatments in order to save his life-- especially if he believes that those treatments will make his life not worth living.

So if a child has is anorexic and his parents defend the child's right to be as a private dietary decision is it alright to let the parents not feed the child?

[Korimyr the Rat]

So if a child has is anorexic and his parents defend the child's right to be as a private dietary decision is it alright to let the parents not feed the child?

Kid doesn't want to save his own life, parents don't want to save his life... can you really explain to me why the State has a compelling interest in doing so against their wishes?

Not that this is the same argument. Don't think anyone believes that not feeding their child is going to cure their anorexia, or that feeding them will do more harm than good. Actually a pretty compelling argument with chemo.

[partofme]

Kid doesn't want to save his own life, parents don't want to save his life... can you really explain to me why the State has a compelling interest in doing so against their wishes?

Not that this is the same argument. Don't think anyone believes that not feeding their child is going to cure their anorexia, or that feeding them will do more harm than good. Actually a pretty compelling argument with chemo.

Either you think the decision is the parents to make or it's the child's to make. If you think it's the parents then your saying they can choose not to feed their child. If it's the child's then your saying the child has a right to suicide. Personally I think it's the parent's call but I am willing to charge parents with neglect for not feeding their child and the same applies to chemo in my view.

[Margot]

She thinks alternative medicine will help her son, and that if he survives he will be far healthier than if he survived after receiving chemotherapy. And if he does survive, she'll have been right-- only, the odds are pretty long against them.

If he were a couple years older, he'd be a man with every right to choose death over medicines he is morally opposed to-- or kill himself outright, for that matter. Since he's not a man, that responsibility falls to his parents. He is not begging for chemotherapy. He is not begging to be "saved" from the backwards superstitions of his parents. If anything, he is begging for his parents' wishes-- and his own-- to be respected, and for himself to be allowed to use the medicines that he trusts and believes in, and allowed to either survive and get better on his own or die whole.

I respect what they were doing, and I think it was damnably wrong of the courts to interfere. They have no right to force him to suffer through painful, crippling, and expensive medical treatments in order to save his life-- especially if he believes that those treatments will make his life not worth living.

That's right. This kid isn't a man. He's a boy, he's a thirteen year old child. Children are people, too, but they're the halfwits of the people world. I always used to get so angry at my parents when they'd say "not until you're older," or "you'll understand when you're older," or "it comes with age." I mean, I was clever as sin! How could I not know? How could they withhold that information from me?

I figured it out with time. Some things really do come with age, that's why we're given this grace period to learn. Hell, I'm legally an adult and I still have little panic attacks every time I have to make a substantial decision (you should see me registering for classes, oooo-we!). Daniel Hauser may be more clever than you or I or both of us combined. He's still not ready for this one.

Which means that this is the parent's decision wholly. It is their right and responsibility to weigh the options and come to the decision about what to do in this truly shitty scenario. It comes with having a kid. Now, Danny has received chemo in the past, and it did reduce the size of his tumor. We absolutely KNOW that it helped. We also know that chemo sucks. Death also sucks. I was lucky enough to witness both in rapid succession over the past two years. But you know what? Mom isn't doing chemo any more and she's fine. My aunt, well, she's still dead.

What proof do we have that these alternative medicines will save this child who both society and the state have deemed too immature to take charge of himself (a conclusion that I fully agree with)?

[dilettante]

Wow...sitting here thinking about it, I have trouble formulating a comfortable stance on an issue like this.

On the one hand, letting the will of the parent and child have complete and irrevocable license opens the door to abuse, as not every abused child asks for help.

On the other hand, there's the question of how much power should a judge/the state have in deciding how you should raise your kid. If you aren't doing what is, in the judge's view, in the kid's "best interest" should that be enough to remove your rights as a parent?

Chemo seems like something falls right into blurry area, since its a truly horrific cure and from time to time adults opt for death instead of suffering through it.

I think it simplifies it too much to talk about whether there's credible evidence or proof for the parents "alternative" treatment. That just reframes the question to "Who gets to decide whether a given piece of evidence is 'credible'?" or "Who gets to decide whether or not a set of evidence amounts to 'proof'"?
Then there are judgement calls that have nothing to do with objective data. If suffering through chemo gave you a 2% chance to live 1 more year instead of dying peacefully now, would you do it? How about a 10% chance for 10 years? A 50% chance for a normal lifespan? Who gets to decide when its "good enough"?
We talk about an "inalienable right" to life and liberty. In this case, those two rights come into direct conflict.

[Margot]

Wow...sitting here thinking about it, I have trouble formulating a comfortable stance on an issue like this.

On the one hand, letting the will of the parent and child have complete and irrevocable license opens the door to abuse, as not every abused child asks for help.

On the other hand, there's the question of how much power should a judge/the state have in deciding how you should raise your kid. If you aren't doing what is, in the judge's view, in the kid's "best interest" should that be enough to remove your rights as a parent?

Chemo seems like something falls right into blurry area, since its a truly horrific cure and from time to time adults opt for death instead of suffering through it.

I think it simplifies it too much to talk about whether there's credible evidence or proof for the parents "alternative" treatment. That just reframes the question to "Who gets to decide whether a given piece of evidence is 'credible'?" or "Who gets to decide whether or not a set of evidence amounts to 'proof'"?
Then there are judgement calls that have nothing to do with objective data. If suffering through chemo gave you a 2% chance to live 1 more year instead of dying peacefully now, would you do it? How about a 10% chance for 10 years? A 50% chance for a normal lifespan? Who gets to decide when its "good enough"?
We talk about an "inalienable right" to life and liberty. In this case, those two rights come into direct conflict.

A lot of those adults who opt out of chemo are the type who have the 2% chance of surviving another year. They're not children with really, really good odds. I mean, it seems to me like the choice being faced comes down to how much time these people are willing to sacrifice. A year of misery or DEATH.

[partofme]

A lot of those adults who opt out of chemo are the type who have the 2% chance of surviving another year. They're not children with really, really good odds. I mean, it seems to me like the choice being faced comes down to how much time these people are willing to sacrifice. A year of misery or DEATH.


Not only that but they are usually older which means fewer years left. Some people even do it just to add some extra time.

[Margot]

Plus, if this kid really, really, really wants to die then by all means, when he's eighteen he can go out and blow his own brains out. If he feels so guilty and upset about chemo years after I'm not one to argue with him. Right now, though, it's not his choice.

[Margot]

Not only that but they are usually older which means fewer years left. Some people even do it just to add some extra time.

Good point.

[Greendruid]

One of the horrible things that keeps nagging me about this case is the alternative medicine. I don't know enough about the alternatives they're referring to and that's the problem - no one does.

We have to understand this case in the context of the explanatory model of the universe that has ascended to and taken its place as chief authority in most matters pertaining to the human body in the West - science. I'm certainly not going to dispute the proven validity of using chemotherapy to reduce tumours. There is an excellent track record for it and years of research to back its application to curing cancer.

The problem comes from having to weigh that against an alternative that has no such grounds based in science. Part of the problem of that is that the proof is not even available to weigh it. This stems largely from the fact that most alternatives to scientifically proven methods are either a) not scientifically testable because they have some abstract component, like prayer or b) not scientifically measurable, thus rendering them untestable or c) so individualistic that they cannot be standardised in the way that doses of medicine can, again, thus rendering them scientifically untestable or d) and here's my favourite folks, directly interfere with the profitability of a pharmaceutical company's monopoly on a synthesised drug that is actually less effective than some cheaper, naturally grown and/or abundant alternative.

We can't reliably test the alternative that involves spiritual components, relaxation techniques, breathing techniques, yoga, mental focussing, or even alternative substances such as teas, tinctures, oils, or plants because none of these has the same effect on any two people. Combine these into a patient-specific regimen and you have a very difficult time piecing out which component is doing what. We believe that science can provide us with the tools to describe all responses in human physiology because it has massively improved and extended the lives of so many people. Unfortunately, this is just not possible. The human body and mind, and if you believe in it, spirit, are just too complicated for us to grasp at this stage of our capabilities. Left to its devices of measurement and documentation, science cannot replicate the benefits of the body's own healing properties brought on by things like laughter, happiness or good memories. Heck, even sleep is still poorly understood as a renewing event in our lives.

The real truth is, in a world where one measure of authority trumps all others in most peoples' minds, we run the great risk of allowing its proponents to deliberately create unchallengeable truths to ensure their own maintenance of power. If you find this too much like a bad conspiracy theory you have only to look to the same stranglehold that religion has had on the world as the authority in most everything for the previous 2,000 to 6,000 years (depending on where you live). I don't think that alternatives to scientifically proven methods can be validly dismissed or supported. We simply just don't know the benefits or poisons that other methods might hold. To actively enforce one way of doing things onto a parent is not such a black and white issue in my mind. Ultimately, the medical system is almost as uncompromising as nature. Especially when dealing with the old and ailing, there is a real cost/benefit analysis that comes into play here. The state is interested in prolonging the life of the child for a few reasons:
a) increase the population
b) receive payment for the procedure
c) make the child live long enough to become a potentially productive citizen from whom labour, spending and taxes can be extracted

There is probably a healthy dose of religiously motivated life preservation going on here as well. For the same reasons that the state will sometimes interfere with things like abortion, children's lives are well protected in the laws of most states. Child welfare is one of those things that is closely guarded by the state because all states realise that the children are the future of that state. Mind you, some of them are just as happy to have the children turned into factory automotons because, a lot of them are needed in this "mature industrial age". It's even better if they're patriotic, thankful-to-be-alive automotons too.

I have to side with those of you who have pointed out that this young man is as yet uncapable of grasping what it is he is dealing with. He cannot, at his young age, understand the gravity of death. I lost no fewer than three close relatives by that same age and it still took me a great number of years into adulthood to arrive at what I believe is a plateau in my own understanding of the gravity of death. His parents are charged with the task of his welfare under the law. If they cannot provide such, the state must intervene - this is the law. The problem is, can the state or any of us rightfully put our total trust in science in all circumstances over any alternatives to provide said welfare to any child? We have to question the placement of our trust in the authority of science always. After all, anything less would actually be bad science.

[Margot]

One of the horrible things that keeps nagging me about this case is the alternative medicine. I don't know enough about the alternatives they're referring to and that's the problem - no one does.

We have to understand this case in the context of the explanatory model of the universe that has ascended to and taken its place as chief authority in most matters pertaining to the human body in the West - science. I'm certainly not going to dispute the proven validity of using chemotherapy to reduce tumours. There is an excellent track record for it and years of research to back its application to curing cancer.

The problem comes from having to weigh that against an alternative that has no such grounds based in science. Part of the problem of that is that the proof is not even available to weigh it. This stems largely from the fact that most alternatives to scientifically proven methods are either a) not scientifically testable because they have some abstract component, like prayer or b) not scientifically measurable, thus rendering them untestable or c) so individualistic that they cannot be standardised in the way that doses of medicine can, again, thus rendering them scientifically untestable or d) and here's my favourite folks, directly interfere with the profitability of a pharmaceutical company's monopoly on a synthesised drug that is actually less effective than some cheaper, naturally grown and/or abundant alternative.

We can't reliably test the alternative that involves spiritual components, relaxation techniques, breathing techniques, yoga, mental focussing, or even alternative substances such as teas, tinctures, oils, or plants because none of these has the same effect on any two people. Combine these into a patient-specific regimen and you have a very difficult time piecing out which component is doing what. We believe that science can provide us with the tools to describe all responses in human physiology because it has massively improved and extended the lives of so many people. Unfortunately, this is just not possible. The human body and mind, and if you believe in it, spirit, are just too complicated for us to grasp at this stage of our capabilities. Left to its devices of measurement and documentation, science cannot replicate the benefits of the body's own healing properties brought on by things like laughter, happiness or good memories. Heck, even sleep is still poorly understood as a renewing event in our lives.

The real truth is, in a world where one measure of authority trumps all others in most peoples' minds, we run the great risk of allowing its proponents to deliberately create unchallengeable truths to ensure their own maintenance of power. If you find this too much like a bad conspiracy theory you have only to look to the same stranglehold that religion has had on the world as the authority in most everything for the previous 2,000 to 6,000 years (depending on where you live). I don't think that alternatives to scientifically proven methods can be validly dismissed or supported. We simply just don't know the benefits or poisons that other methods might hold. To actively enforce one way of doing things onto a parent is not such a black and white issue in my mind. Ultimately, the medical system is almost as uncompromising as nature. Especially when dealing with the old and ailing, there is a real cost/benefit analysis that comes into play here. The state is interested in prolonging the life of the child for a few reasons:
a) increase the population
b) receive payment for the procedure
c) make the child live long enough to become a potentially productive citizen from whom labour, spending and taxes can be extracted

There is probably a healthy dose of religiously motivated life preservation going on here as well. For the same reasons that the state will sometimes interfere with things like abortion, children's lives are well protected in the laws of most states. Child welfare is one of those things that is closely guarded by the state because all states realise that the children are the future of that state. Mind you, some of them are just as happy to have the children turned into factory automotons because, a lot of them are needed in this "mature industrial age". It's even better if they're patriotic, thankful-to-be-alive automotons too.

I have to side with those of you who have pointed out that this young man is as yet uncapable of grasping what it is he is dealing with. He cannot, at his young age, understand the gravity of death. I lost no fewer than three close relatives by that same age and it still took me a great number of years into adulthood to arrive at what I believe is a plateau in my own understanding of the gravity of death. His parents are charged with the task of his welfare under the law. If they cannot provide such, the state must intervene - this is the law. The problem is, can the state or any of us rightfully put our total trust in science in all circumstances over any alternatives to provide said welfare to any child? We have to question the placement of our trust in the authority of science always. After all, anything less would actually be bad science.

If one was so concerned about the well-being of the child and the potential positive influence of the alternative medicine then what is the problem with just doing both? Drag little Danny down to the chemo lab and then drag him out to the wherever it is they do this alternative stuff.

What I'm trying to say is that now is not the time to experiment with this sort of thing. NO CHANCES. Not with the life of a child. I can understand why an elderly person would go out and his or her chakras aligned if he or she has nothing to lose. I do not understand how anyone would ever even think of going for alternative medicine alone. But there ya go.

Science is the pinnacle of our modern medicine for a reason. We worked for it. In the beginning (and then the not-so-beginning) people used herbs to cure what ailed them-- it was trial and error. Now we can go back and look at the molecular compounds in feverfew and see exactly why it works. Some of the old cures work, and we can back them up with science. But throwing caution to the wind and going for some alternative not backed by science is asinine to me.

And just because we don't yet fully understand sleep, we understand the basics. And we can observe the production of endorphins in the human brain, so laughter and happy memories aren't as mystic as they seem. Hell, take the placebo effect, everyone's favorite alternative cure- we know why that works, too. Maybe I really am a Vulcan, but I'm throwing my lot in with science every. single. time.

Also, side note: the state is not one single entity. The state is us.

[Korimyr the Rat]

Either you think the decision is the parents to make or it's the child's to make. If you think it's the parents then your saying they can choose not to feed their child. If it's the child's then your saying the child has a right to suicide. Personally I think it's the parent's call but I am willing to charge parents with neglect for not feeding their child and the same applies to chemo in my view.

Either you think it's the parents' decision to make or you think it's the State's decision to make. If you think it's the parents' decision to make, then the State has no business attempting to compel them one way or the other. If you think it's the State's decision to make, then the parents should not be held accountable-- legally, financially, or morally-- for the outcome. Personally, I think it's the parent's call.

[partofme]

Either you think it's the parents' decision to make or you think it's the State's decision to make. If you think it's the parents' decision to make, then the State has no business attempting to compel them one way or the other. If you think it's the State's decision to make, then the parents should not be held accountable-- legally, financially, or morally-- for the outcome. Personally, I think it's the parent's call.

I don't see it as black and white. I'm willing to let it be the parent's decision until it's life or death which can't be fixed.

[Korimyr the Rat]

I don't see it as black and white. I'm willing to let it be the parent's decision until it's life or death which can't be fixed.

And I don't think it's necessary to "fix" every single case of life or death. We're not all meant to die of old age.

[dilettante]

Plus, if this kid really, really, really wants to die then by all means, when he's eighteen he can go out and blow his own brains out. If he feels so guilty and upset about chemo years after I'm not one to argue with him. Right now, though, it's not his choice.

But it IS the government's choice?

[dilettante]

One of the horrible things that keeps nagging me about this case is the alternative medicine. I don't know enough about the alternatives they're referring to and that's the problem - no one does.

We have to understand this case in the context of the explanatory model of the universe that has ascended to and taken its place as chief authority in most matters pertaining to the human body in the West - science. I'm certainly not going to dispute the proven validity of using chemotherapy to reduce tumours. There is an excellent track record for it and years of research to back its application to curing cancer.

The problem comes from having to weigh that against an alternative that has no such grounds based in science. Part of the problem of that is that the proof is not even available to weigh it. This stems largely from the fact that most alternatives to scientifically proven methods are either a) not scientifically testable because they have some abstract component, like prayer or b) not scientifically measurable, thus rendering them untestable or c) so individualistic that they cannot be standardised in the way that doses of medicine can, again, thus rendering them scientifically untestable or d) and here's my favourite folks, directly interfere with the profitability of a pharmaceutical company's monopoly on a synthesised drug that is actually less effective than some cheaper, naturally grown and/or abundant alternative.

We can't reliably test the alternative that involves spiritual components, relaxation techniques, breathing techniques, yoga, mental focussing, or even alternative substances such as teas, tinctures, oils, or plants because none of these has the same effect on any two people. Combine these into a patient-specific regimen and you have a very difficult time piecing out which component is doing what. We believe that science can provide us with the tools to describe all responses in human physiology because it has massively improved and extended the lives of so many people. Unfortunately, this is just not possible. The human body and mind, and if you believe in it, spirit, are just too complicated for us to grasp at this stage of our capabilities. Left to its devices of measurement and documentation, science cannot replicate the benefits of the body's own healing properties brought on by things like laughter, happiness or good memories. Heck, even sleep is still poorly understood as a renewing event in our lives.

The real truth is, in a world where one measure of authority trumps all others in most peoples' minds, we run the great risk of allowing its proponents to deliberately create unchallengeable truths to ensure their own maintenance of power. If you find this too much like a bad conspiracy theory you have only to look to the same stranglehold that religion has had on the world as the authority in most everything for the previous 2,000 to 6,000 years (depending on where you live). I don't think that alternatives to scientifically proven methods can be validly dismissed or supported. We simply just don't know the benefits or poisons that other methods might hold. To actively enforce one way of doing things onto a parent is not such a black and white issue in my mind. Ultimately, the medical system is almost as uncompromising as nature. Especially when dealing with the old and ailing, there is a real cost/benefit analysis that comes into play here. The state is interested in prolonging the life of the child for a few reasons:
a) increase the population
b) receive payment for the procedure
c) make the child live long enough to become a potentially productive citizen from whom labour, spending and taxes can be extracted

There is probably a healthy dose of religiously motivated life preservation going on here as well. For the same reasons that the state will sometimes interfere with things like abortion, children's lives are well protected in the laws of most states. Child welfare is one of those things that is closely guarded by the state because all states realise that the children are the future of that state. Mind you, some of them are just as happy to have the children turned into factory automotons because, a lot of them are needed in this "mature industrial age". It's even better if they're patriotic, thankful-to-be-alive automotons too.

I have to side with those of you who have pointed out that this young man is as yet uncapable of grasping what it is he is dealing with. He cannot, at his young age, understand the gravity of death. I lost no fewer than three close relatives by that same age and it still took me a great number of years into adulthood to arrive at what I believe is a plateau in my own understanding of the gravity of death. His parents are charged with the task of his welfare under the law. If they cannot provide such, the state must intervene - this is the law. The problem is, can the state or any of us rightfully put our total trust in science in all circumstances over any alternatives to provide said welfare to any child? We have to question the placement of our trust in the authority of science always. After all, anything less would actually be bad science.

Great post, Greendruid! :agree:

[partofme]

And I don't think it's necessary to "fix" every single case of life or death. We're not all meant to die of old age.

Yeah but really your saying that if I want to off my oldest child I could just not give him any medication or not take him to the doctor next time he has any respiratory problems and say it was a parental medical decision. Makes perfect sense. :ummm:

[Korimyr the Rat]

Yeah but really your saying that if I want to off my oldest child I could just not give him any medication or not take him to the doctor next time he has any respiratory problems and say it was a parental medical decision. Makes perfect sense. :ummm:

Only works if he was going to die on his own-- and I have no problem whatsoever with the State overriding parental rights in situations like this, where the child is willing to accept treatment to save his own life. As long as the State is willing to pick up the tab for those treatments.

It is evolution at work. The weak die, and people who don't value their children lose representation in the gene pool.

Then again, if you want to get rid of your oldest child, I believe you should be able to offer him/her up to the State-- and if the State doesn't want him or her either, and doesn't want to find him or her an adoptive family, euthanasia is probably the best solution.

[Margot]

But it IS the government's choice?

It's the choice of the government in this case, yes. Right now it's acting in loco parentis. I think this is being viewed by the government the same way I view it: we have a sick kid almost 100% guaranteed death without treatment. Mom and dad want treatment, but we don't know anything about it. Remember, kids, this boy will be D-E-A-D if the wrong move is made.

We as a body of self governing people put into effect the laws which are affecting Daniel now. We chose that. We chose it because kids are beaten to death every day, because they starve, because grownups, the people in this world meant to protect them, simply don't protect them. We all get the heebie jeebie's when we see kids with cigarette burns and horror stories to tell. We get weak kneed when we see on the news that a kid has been thrown off a bridge. What makes this different? What makes putting a life in danger for religious reasons, or for superstitious reasons or even for uneducated or ignorant reasons any less horrific. It's still a life.

I really don't think it should be the government's job-- but that's my judgement on parents, not the government.

[Michael]

Some really great posts here. :)

Though, I've always hated medical ethics questions since they are so vexing.

I think Greendruid raised some excellent points in his long post on page 2. We just are not competent to judge the situation fully. And I'm a strong proponent of the 'right to die' so I don't like seeing the state set up as the arbitrator of who has the right to die or not.

Now that's a slightly different issue than the one here that involves a parent-child situation since it is the parent making the choice and the child is the one with the 'death-risk'.

To be honest, I don't even know why I'm making this post because I just can't make up my mind whether or not the state ought to have the authority to enforce a particular prescribed course of treatment for a child that the child's parents steadfastly are opposed to.

I guess I'm too suspicious of the state's track record on the issue in other matters (treatment of minorities or native peoples for example) to believe that the state will always operate in a benign and honestly helpful way. On this basis, I guess that means that I'm inclined to support the right of a parent to refuse a particular medical treatment for a child. Though, I'm certainly not a very strong supporter of this. I'm just trying to look at the issue dispassionately.

[The Drunk Guy]

Some really great posts here. :)

Though, I've always hated medical ethics questions since they are so vexing.

I think Greendruid raised some excellent points in his long post on page 2. We just are not competent to judge the situation fully. And I'm a strong proponent of the 'right to die' so I don't like seeing the state set up as the arbitrator of who has the right to die or not.

Now that's a slightly different issue than the one here that involves a parent-child situation since it is the parent making the choice and the child is the one with the 'death-risk'.

To be honest, I don't even know why I'm making this post because I just can't make up my mind whether or not the state ought to have the authority to enforce a particular prescribed course of treatment for a child that the child's parents steadfastly are opposed to.

I guess I'm too suspicious of the state's track record on the issue in other matters (treatment of minorities or native peoples for example) to believe that the state will always operate in a benign and honestly helpful way. On this basis, I guess that means that I'm inclined to support the right of a parent to refuse a particular medical treatment for a child. Though, I'm certainly not a very strong supporter of this. I'm just trying to look at the issue dispassionately.
When it comes to children, I think that the state, in the true form of "the representative of the people," should have the ability to say, "You're child is deathly ill. Take it to a fucking DOCTOR." I hate to be the one to say it, but when it comes to medical needs of a child, the state should enforce skepticism of the parent's personal belief system.

[Korimyr the Rat]

I hate to be the one to say it, but when it comes to medical needs of a child, the state should enforce skepticism of the parent's personal belief system.

In that case, we should admit that our State represents a specific belief system of its own, and that we expect that the State should enforce compliance with the tenets of that belief system. This goes beyond merely enforcing order, or even guaranteeing the general welfare, this is openly declaring that certain belief systems are legally and morally invalid and should not receive the same legal and moral protections of other, more respectable beliefs.

You may feel good about the first time the State exercises that power on your behalf, but you will regret the second-- even if it's not directed at you.

[Michael]

You may feel good about the first time the State exercises that power on your behalf, but you will regret the second-- even if it's not directed at you.
Yes, this is my general view about giving the state the authority to rule over children regardless of the parent's wishes.

What's next, children should be removed from homes where parents may smoke or drink? How about removing children from homes where the parents don't make enough money? Or how about parents that have political views that are unacceptable? That's harmful for the children in the state's opinion...

I think once you open that door, the state will find reasons for removing all children from all homes and warehousing them in state facilities since that would be so much more 'efficient' for the state to monitor its duty.

Bottom line is that one should never give the government any authority that you don't like the idea of them abusing. Governments always abuse and overreach every legal power they are given.

[Margot]

Yes, this is my general view about giving the state the authority to rule over children regardless of the parent's wishes.

What's next, children should be removed from homes where parents may smoke or drink? How about removing children from homes where the parents don't make enough money? Or how about parents that have political views that are unacceptable? That's harmful for the children in the state's opinion...

I think once you open that door, the state will find reasons for removing all children from all homes and warehousing them in state facilities since that would be so much more 'efficient' for the state to monitor its duty.

Bottom line is that one should never give the government any authority that you don't like the idea of them abusing. Governments always abuse and overreach every legal power they are given.

But doesn't this go the other way, too? Sometimes people are just plain bad parents. I don't know why, it just happens. If we really etch a line into the psyche of the people then what happens when a kid shows up to school with cigarette burns and a black eye? What gets abused when no power is given?

If we become too scared of what may happen as a consequence of our actions we forget what absolutely will happen. Danny will, short of some miracle (and that's what Mom and Dad are banking on), die.

I mean, I totally and 100% get your argument. It just seems to me like the "imminent death" card trumps the "what-if" card here.

[Greendruid]

But doesn't this go the other way, too? Sometimes people are just plain bad parents. I don't know why, it just happens. If we really etch a line into the psyche of the people then what happens when a kid shows up to school with cigarette burns and a black eye? What gets abused when no power is given?

If we become too scared of what may happen as a consequence of our actions we forget what absolutely will happen. Danny will, short of some miracle (and that's what Mom and Dad are banking on), die.

I mean, I totally and 100% get your argument. It just seems to me like the "imminent death" card trumps the "what-if" card here.

I've read that there are worse things than dying - I've never been dead, or at least I can't remember ever having been dead in a past life :D I think that may be creeping into some of the arguments here, that death is sometimes preferable to the erosion of freedoms from external rule.

[The Drunk Guy]

Yes, this is my general view about giving the state the authority to rule over children regardless of the parent's wishes.

What's next, children should be removed from homes where parents may smoke or drink? How about removing children from homes where the parents don't make enough money? Or how about parents that have political views that are unacceptable? That's harmful for the children in the state's opinion...

I think once you open that door, the state will find reasons for removing all children from all homes and warehousing them in state facilities since that would be so much more 'efficient' for the state to monitor its duty.

Bottom line is that one should never give the government any authority that you don't like the idea of them abusing. Governments always abuse and overreach every legal power they are given.
I disagree. There are already standards of care required for parenthood. Refusal to take a child to a real doctor should simply be added to the list of abuse charges (and I'm surprised it doesn't already exist.) I do feel, however, that there are too many vague definitions of abuse out there and have seen good parents lose their children because they don't clean house very well. For an abuse code that is already pretty tough, how is this not included?

The problem, to me, isn't about the right to privacy and freedom of religion, but about the lack of maturity these parents are displaying. To me, it goes along with the argument about whether or not the mentally handicapped have the ability to raise a child.
In that case, we should admit that our State represents a specific belief system of its own, and that we expect that the State should enforce compliance with the tenets of that belief system. This goes beyond merely enforcing order, or even guaranteeing the general welfare, this is openly declaring that certain belief systems are legally and morally invalid and should not receive the same legal and moral protections of other, more respectable beliefs.

You may feel good about the first time the State exercises that power on your behalf, but you will regret the second-- even if it's not directed at you.
To me, the State should always support Science over Religion. That's just part of separation of church and state. The State has the right to say, "Hey, I know you think Jesus is going to cure your child, but just in case, go see a fucking doctor before it's too late. Who knows, maybe Jesus works through doctors the same as ministers!"

[dilettante]

To me, the State should always support Science over Religion. That's just part of separation of church and state. The State has the right to say, "Hey, I know you think Jesus is going to cure your child, but just in case, go see a fucking doctor before it's too late. Who knows, maybe Jesus works through doctors the same as ministers!"

I feel torn on this issue, but I'm pretty certain that it really isn't about religion at all; religion is just a factor in this particular instance, but it isn't necessary.

The root of the issue is that the parents chose to respond to their child's condition in a way that the judge (or we might say "the state") deemed to be inappropriate. In this case, the state deemed it to imperil the life of the child. Why the parents made the choice they did isn't really relevant. Whether it was based on religion, culture heritage, ignorance, or even a different interpretaton of scientific findings...in the end all that matters is that the child is, in the opinion of the judge/state, being endangered by neglect. The question is, at that point, how much authority should he/it have to force the parent's to do things his/its way?

[The Drunk Guy]

I feel torn on this issue, but I'm pretty certain that it really isn't about religion at all; religion is just a factor in this particular instance, but it isn't necessary.


Sorry, I should clarify that I was referring to instances of "faith healing" where parents circumvent scientific medicine entirely. There are many such cases like that.

As far as this case in particular, I do feel torn. It seems to me that the parent has a fear of chemo, which is understandable. With this case, the results should all depend on the time line of the case. If doctors say, "We can only stop it with immediate radiation," then I say hang the bitch. But if there was some breathing room for her to try alternative approaches, I say let her be. This goes for other cases, too. Immediacy is a hugely important factor.

[Margot]

I've read that there are worse things than dying - I've never been dead, or at least I can't remember ever having been dead in a past life :D I think that may be creeping into some of the arguments here, that death is sometimes preferable to the erosion of freedoms from external rule.

Yup. But now we're attributing that choice to a minor. I mean, if I died every time I wanted to die as a kid, I'd be dead a thousand times over. Every flu season came the inevitable "ugh! This can't go on! I don't want to go on!"

Now, though, I've seen a lot of people die. None of those deaths, not one, was pleasant. I respect the right to die with dignity, and I respect wanting to just get out instead of drag through the mire and shit of it all. I will respect Daniel's informed decision when he's older.

Right now Daniel doesn't have the right to drink, or smoke. Sex is iffy. He's not old enough to drive or see a rated R movie on his own. How do we define erosion of freedom? Does Daniel have any freedom to begin with?

And as for his parent's freedom, how far does that really go? I'm serious when I ask the difference between passively letting a child die and this:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jan/10/usa. I don't see one. Is there one? How much does intent affect a dead person? Lam Luong (charged with four counts of murder) from the article above maliciously threw four children off of a bridge, Daniels parents are passively going to let him die. Daniel will be as dead as the four kids who took the tumble, and so what's the difference?

[partofme]

A similar situation has concluded in Australia. http://www.smh.com.au/national/parents-guilty-of-manslaughter-over-daughters-eczema-death-20090605-bxvx.html?page=-1

[JHC]

This mother isn't thinking like you, though. She's going for alternative medicine because of her religion, not because she thinks it's more likely to help her son. She isn't thinking about what's best for her kid, she's not weighing the facts, she's throwing in some unproven and intangible entity. What's worse is that she is putting her faith over logic and has come to the conclusion that her faith is of more importance than the life of Daniel. We know Chemotherapy works on this kid's brand of cancer. We know that alternative medicines do diddly. This is about as heinous as you can get, in my opinion. If this kid dies this isn't just negligence, it's murder. He's a minor! You can't take your kid into a liquor store but you can let him die? I have a problem with this.

I mean, I'd feel wayyy differently if this woman had him in chemo and was trying to find an alternative method that would help on top of that. Kudos to you and doing absolutely everything in your power to protect someone whom the government has decided can't yet take care of himself. Kudos for protecting a child, your kid. But she's not. She's being totally, utterly, one hundred percent selfish.
Can we talk? I feel like we just don't talk enough.

A lot of folks that know us would be surprised to see how really different we are. I am proud that you think for yourself even though...
You're wrong!

When Daniel was in the womb, you would have been on his mothers side because Daniel was part of his mother and it was her body and her right.
How much less a part of his mother is Daniel at the age of 13? By law he is still a minor - unfit to enter into a binding contract, unfit to hold a full time job, unfit to live on his own. If he breaks the neighbor's window, his mother is liable for the damages.

I'm imagining someone trying to take you away from me when you were 13 because my mothering was seen as detrimental to your well being. Is it?

What if it is my view that death is not that big of deal? It happens to everyone after all. Our fear of death is nothing more than evolutionary by-product. What if this is what I taught my children in order that they could face the inevitable in a way that I see is more healthy?

[JHC]

Concentrate.

[Margot]

Can we talk? I feel like we just don't talk enough.

A lot of folks that know us would be surprised to see how really different we are. I am proud that you think for yourself even though...
You're wrong!

When Daniel was in the womb, you would have been on his mothers side because Daniel was part of his mother and it was her body and her right.
How much less a part of his mother is Daniel at the age of 13? By law he is still a minor - unfit to enter into a binding contract, unfit to hold a full time job, unfit to live on his own. If he breaks the neighbor's window, his mother is liable for the damages.

I'm imagining someone trying to take you away from me when you were 13 because my mothering was seen as detrimental to your well being. Is it?

What if it is my view that death is not that big of deal? It happens to everyone after all. Our fear of death is nothing more than evolutionary by-product. What if this is what I taught my children in order that they could face the inevitable in a way that I see is more healthy?

Well, you have to take that up with the laws of the society in which you chose to raise me, wouldn't you?

Daniel's body is a body capable of sustaining itself. And death isn't "inevitable" at this juncture, unless he believes that it is. Sure, he may die after chemo, but he would probably survive (By the way, he turned 14 this past March-- his parents are blaming the chemo for his need for glasses).

You are right (lady, I wrote that shit a year ago!). My moral judgements are weak ones. But in a society which functions in binaries, and which litigates on those binaries (life and death being one of them), what Daniel's mother was doing was murder.

Did the guys who murdered Matthew Shephard feel that they were just making a more healthy decision for him?

Or, better yet, are these women guilty of murder? (http://www.smh.com.au/world/baby-starved-to-death-because-he-did-not-say-amen-20100225-p4el.html) The kid's best interest was in mind, after all.

Where do feeling and science collide?

[Margot]

Concentrate.

Hmmm. Damn, I don't think I'm allowed ad hominem attacks even if you are my mother, so, I'll write you a poem:

Turkeys are very nice
When you bake them twice
Absolutely divine
Tender, juicy, all mine!

Only, take the first letter of each line.

[JHC]

You don't really have a class at 4:30, you're just avoiding this issue. Also, without me, the forum has been languishing so I decided to resurrect some old news. I'm glad to hear that your lame moral judgements are evolving. Give your mother my congratulations.

"Daniel's body is a body capable of sustaining itself". Not without chemotherapy. And, (I read somewhere that it is okay to begin a sentence with 'and'), according to the laws you fall back on in your argument, Daniel is not capable of sustaining himself without his mother. That was my point in bringing the law into it in the first place.

Now that I have you agreeing that the only issue is what is legal, then I assume that you will comply when and if abortion becomes illegal.

The point being, we make the laws as a community based on both our feeling and science. Clearly, I'm not fooling you. The point is precisely stated in your last sentence:
"Where do feeling and science collide?"

It occurs to me that this area is where Michael and I diverge in philosophy. Humans have a particular level of intelligence with really very little practical divergence in the broad sense; i.e., an IQ of 30 verses an IQ of 180 make very little difference in the universe of possible intelligence. We are limited. Human philosophy is the limit of human intellect without much consideration of how the universe functions outside of our tiny little heads.
Each time we gain a little knowledge of what happens...out there..., our perspective changes.

Back to the subject at hand.
There is a chance that Daniel's mom has some superior insight. How would we know if we didn't question it. Is it stooping to delve into someone else's faith?

My REAL opinion is that our laws are likely justified. More than merely how I feel about the sanctity of children and my love for every single one, I also believe that death is likely beyond hers or any of ours reckoning and until it is, she should not be allowed to take that risk for any other individual be it her son or my own.

BUT, then you have the discontinuity of your opinion (and probably mine), that abortion should remain legal. As long as we don't know, is the risk to another being a legitimate risk to take upon yourself?

[JHC]

Hmmm. Damn, I don't think I'm allowed ad hominem attacks even if you are my mother, so, I'll write you a poem:

Turkeys are very nice
When you bake them twice
Absolutely divine
Tender, juicy, all mine!

Only, take the first letter of each line. OMG, you are brilliant!

[JHC]

Well, you have to take that up with the laws of the society in which you chose to raise me, wouldn't you?

Daniel's body is a body capable of sustaining itself. And death isn't "inevitable" at this juncture, unless he believes that it is. Sure, he may die after chemo, but he would probably survive (By the way, he turned 14 this past March-- his parents are blaming the chemo for his need for glasses).

You are right (lady, I wrote that shit a year ago!). My moral judgements are weak ones. But in a society which functions in binaries, and which litigates on those binaries (life and death being one of them), what Daniel's mother was doing was murder.

Did the guys who murdered Matthew Shephard feel that they were just making a more healthy decision for him?

Or, better yet, are these women guilty of murder? (http://www.smh.com.au/world/baby-starved-to-death-because-he-did-not-say-amen-20100225-p4el.html) The kid's best interest was in mind, after all.

Where do feeling and science collide?
Would they be guilty of murder if they had aborted her on religious grounds instead?