• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arrest ordered for mom of boy, 13, resisting chemo

Devil505

Banned
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
3,512
Reaction score
315
Location
Masschusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Arrest ordered for mom of boy, 13, resisting chemo
AP





By AMY FORLITI, Associated Press Writer Amy Forliti, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 32 mins ago

NEW ULM, Minn. – Authorities nationwide were on the lookout Wednesday for a mother and her 13-year-old cancer-stricken son who fled after refusing the chemotherapy that doctors say could save the boy's life.



I'm an agnostic,( bordering on an atheist) but I don't see where the state's views should trump the parents, regardless of how wrong the parents may be. (also, in this case, the 13 year old is old enough to have major input in what he does or doesn't do)
 
Last edited:
The boy is still a minor, and his parents are clearly lunatics. I have saw children removed from the custody of parents for lesser evils than this.
 
Colleen Hauser: Authorities search for mother of 13-year-old with cancer -- baltimoresun.com

The Hausers are Roman Catholic and also believe in the "do no harm" philosophy of the Nemenhah Band, a Missouri-based religious group that believes in natural healing methods advocated by some American Indians.

Colleen Hauser testified earlier that she had been treating his cancer with herbal supplements, vitamins, ionized water and other natural alternatives.

The founder of Nemenhah, Philip Cloudpiler Landis, said it was a bad idea for Colleen Hauser to flee with her son.

"She should have gone to court," Landis said. "It's how we work these things out. You don't solve anything by disregarding the order of the judge."

On a related note : This lady is clearly insane and authorities should do everything possible to find this kid before it's too late. Sucks to be born into a family of crazy religious folks.

On an unrelated note : I read this and I look back a few months ago when people got all upset because Obama dared to suggest that maybe there are people in not only Pennsylvania and maybe - gasp - the U.S. - who cling to their religious beliefs and guns. Every time I see one of these freaks I love it. I mean. Because they are seldom 'lone' members of their own church. It's never just one guy. It's one guy. Who is a member of a group of people who hold the same beliefs.
 
The boy is still a minor, and his parents are clearly lunatics.

That's true (boy is a minor) & his parents MAY BE lunatics....Then again, they may not.
I still stand by my opinion:

1. Age 13 is old enough to possibly have pretty good maturity & understanding to decide what should be done to your body that may be against your wishes. Again, if I were the judge, the boy's wishes would weigh heavily in my mind.
2. If the parents are "clearly lunatics." then that would have to be taken into account. There would have to obviously be pretty good legal reason to decide against the parents & the boy himself.
 
MAY BE lunatics....Then again, they may not.

May be? You sound like people who say creationism 'may be' right. Sorry. In this day and age. Ionized water DOES NOT CURE CANCER.
 
That's true (boy is a minor) & his parents MAY BE lunatics....Then again, they may not.
I still stand by my opinion:

1. Age 13 is old enough to possibly have pretty good maturity & understanding to decide what should be done to your body that may be against your wishes. Again, if I were the judge, the boy's wishes would weigh heavily in my mind.
2. If the parents are "clearly lunatics." then that would have to be taken into account. There would have to obviously be pretty good legal reason to decide against the parents & the boy himself.

They did rule against the parents. The courts -from my understanding- ruled the boy was to undergo chemo. Without chemo the boy will likely die. With chemo he has like a 90% chance of recovery.

13 is not usually old enough to have completely overthrown all parental brainwashing you've been exposed to.

The courts interviewed this child and the decision was made to trump the parents for a very solid reason:

The boy did not understand his situation. In interviews the boy stated he believed he did not need treatment and without treatment his survival rate was good. In other words he isn't willing to die for his religious beliefs he just is so brainwashed that he believes his parents over drs. when they tell him he won't die.

In order to view him as old enough to make a decision to refuse treatment he has to prove he understands the decision he is making. Since he refuses to believe his statistical chances of survival are incredibly low without treatment he is not making a sound decision of sound mind. Instead he is trusting his neglectful parents word over the word of medical practitioners.
 
I hope they throw that stupid **** under the jail. Her religious zeal is so blinding that she gambles with the life of her very own son and also doesn't recognize that chemo may be the very hand God is reaching out with to save her son's life.

Poor kid.... :(

Putting it in religious terms, :roll: he's gonna needlessly die and go to heaven and never get to see his mommy again as she burns in hell.
 
I'm an agnostic,( bordering on an atheist) but I don't see where the state's views should trump the parents, regardless of how wrong the parents may be.

Parents can't starve their kids to death just because Jesus told them to do it. This isn't any different.

Devil505 said:
(also, in this case, the 13 year old is old enough to have major input in what he does or doesn't do)

If he was 16, I would be inclined to agree that he can decide for himself. But at 13 (especially when he doesn't even know how to read), I would say no.
 
I hope they throw that stupid **** under the jail. Her religious zeal is so blinding that she gambles with the life of her very own son and also doesn't recognize that chemo may be the very hand God is reaching out with to save her son's life.

Poor kid.... :(

Putting it in religious terms, :roll: he's gonna needlessly die and go to heaven and never get to see his mommy again as she burns in hell.

Prior to the ruling, I would have said that his parents were merely being idiots who should have limited rights to care for their child. But if the kid dies after his mother has defied the judge's orders to allow their son to undergo chemo, she should be prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter.
 
Last edited:
Prior to the trial, I thought his parents were merely being idiots who should have limited rights to care for their child. But if the kid dies after the judge ruled that he had to undergo chemo, the mother should be prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter.

Involuntary?
 
If he was 16, I would be inclined to agree that he can decide for himself. But at 13 (especially when he doesn't even know how to read), I would say no.

Yesterday, I referred to Weithorn and Campbell's The Competency of Children and Adolescents to Make Informed Treatment Decisions.

This study was a test for developmental differences in competency to make informed treatment decisions. 96 subjects, 24 (12 males and 12 females) at each of 4 age levels (9, 14, 18, and 21), were administered a measure developed to assess competency according to 4 legal standards. The measure included 4 hypothetical treatment dilemmas and a structured interview protocol. Overall, 14-year-olds did not differ from adults. 9-year-olds appeared less competent than adults with respect to their ability to reason about and understand the treatment information provided in the dilemmas. However, they did not differ from older subjects in their expression of reasonable preferences regarding treatment. It is concluded that the findings do not support the denial of the right of self-determination to adolescents in health-care situations on the basis of a presumption of incapacity. Further, children as young as 9 appear able to participate meaningfully in personal health-care decision making.

I'm inclined to believe that such empirical literature is suitable for general policy analysis, but not for evaluating specific cases such as this, obviously. It's true that he's been brainwashed, but IMO, all variety of religious fanatics are brainwashed to some extent. The most preferable course of action to prevent situations like this is to permit individuals of all ages to freely access the information that they wish to access, regardless of parental consent.
 
Parents can't starve their kids to death just because Jesus told them to do it. This isn't any different.



If he was 16, I would be inclined to agree that he can decide for himself. But at 13 (especially when he doesn't even know how to read), I would say no.

When he can't attest in an interview that he understands the ramifications of his decision and his statistical outcome then he's not mentally sound enough to make the decision regardless of age.

It's one thing to have religious conviction. But if that religious conviction has you denying reality and unwilling to digest the ramifications of your situation then you're mentally unsound.

This child is not choosing to die for his religion. He does not believe that he will die. He is mentally unsound.
 
When he can't attest in an interview that he understands the ramifications of his decision and his statistical outcome then he's not mentally sound enough to make the decision regardless of age.

It's one thing to have religious conviction. But if that religious conviction has you denying reality and unwilling to digest the ramifications of your situation then you're mentally unsound.

This child is not choosing to die for his religion. He does not believe that he will die. He is mentally unsound.

That doesn't seem a matter of actual mental unsoundness so much as a lack of information. He doesn't lack the capacity to understand and rationally analyze the information. He's simply not been provided the opportunity to do so.
 
Yesterday, I referred to Weithorn and Campbell's The Competency of Children and Adolescents to Make Informed Treatment Decisions.



I'm inclined to believe that such empirical literature is suitable for general policy analysis, but not for evaluating specific cases such as this, obviously. It's true that he's been brainwashed, but IMO, all variety of religious fanatics are brainwashed to some extent. The most preferable course of action to prevent situations like this is to permit individuals of all ages to freely access the information that they wish to access, regardless of parental consent.

The child is not choosing to disregard medical advice despite the consequences. The child does not believe the consequences exist. Even if he was an adult he'd be mentally unsound in my opinion.

There's a big difference between, "If I die, I die. I accept that."

vs.

"The drs. are lying. I'm not sick. I'm not going to die."

The one patient is making a choice, right or wrong. The other patient is delusional.
 
That doesn't seem a matter of actual mental unsoundness so much as a lack of information. He doesn't lack the capacity to understand and rationally analyze the information. He's simply not been provided the opportunity to do so.

Doesn't matter. What matters is for whatever reason he doesn't understand and is deluded about his circumstances. He did not tell the courts he accepts he may die without treatment and that is his choice. He told them he doesn't believe he's as sick as the drs. say, he doesn't believe he needs treatment, and he doesn't believe he may die.

If he were an older man, my father, I'd have him declared mentally unsound. I don't much care why he can't grip reality, it's only important to note that he hasn't. If he had a hold on reality, a grasp of the weight of his circumstances, and then made the choice that would be a bit different.
 
The child is not choosing to disregard medical advice despite the consequences. The child does not believe the consequences exist. Even if he was an adult he'd be mentally unsound in my opinion.

There's a big difference between, "If I die, I die. I accept that."

vs.

"The drs. are lying. I'm not sick. I'm not going to die."

The one patient is making a choice, right or wrong. The other patient is delusional.

That's not in conflict with my statement. He doesn't believe that the treatment is necessary because he's simply been indoctrinated with that irrationality. If he had the opportunity to access to every variety of information, I'd expect that he'd be capable of making an informed decision about the matter.
 
If both he and his parents have decided to reject medical treatment IMO that's their choice
That he may die or live do to that choice is meaningless.
 
Parents can't starve their kids to death just because Jesus told them to do it. This isn't any different.

This is not the same thing. This is rejecting a course of medical treatment because you feel there is a better way. The fact that the lady is clearly stupid in no way changes my belief that the government should not involve itself in medical decisions.
 
If both he and his parents have decided to reject medical treatment IMO that's their choice
That he may die or live do to that choice is meaningless.

I think whether the choice is being made by someone of a sound mind is pertinent regardless of age.
 
I think whether the choice is being made by someone of a sound mind is pertinent regardless of age.

Being intelligent is not a legal requirement to make medical decisions.
 
This is not the same thing. This is rejecting a course of medical treatment because you feel there is a better way.

In either case, the parents are denying the child something (chemo or food) which is necessary for that child to not die.

The only difference is intent. Which is fine. Prosecute parents who starve their kids to death with voluntary manslaughter or murder, and charge these nuts with involuntary manslaughter. In either case, they are criminally responsible for the death of their child.
 
Being intelligent is not a legal requirement to make medical decisions.

No it's not. However in these types of cases whether or not the person understands the ramifications of their decision is key whether the person is a kid or a 65 year old.

Stating, "I know my cancer is growing. I know the drs. put my survival rate at such and such percent without treatment but I still have more faith in doing it my way come what may," does not require intelligence.

Looking at x-rays and listening to drs. tell you your cancer is in fact growing and then going to interviews where you insist it is not is - delusional regardless of intelligence. Folks with high IQ's can be delusional.
 
Being intelligent is not a legal requirement to make medical decisions.

Intelligence doesn't have anything to do with mental competence. I'd trust Forrest Gump to make his own medical decisions before I'd trust Bobby Fischer to do the same.
 
In either case, the parents are denying the child something (chemo or food) which is necessary for that child to not die.

That is a similarity, it does not mean the two situations are the same, only that they share an attribute. Your example does not accurately describe the situation.
 
This is not the same thing. This is rejecting a course of medical treatment because you feel there is a better way. The fact that the lady is clearly stupid in no way changes my belief that the government should not involve itself in medical decisions.

We should also not hesitate to note that authoritarian governance can just as effectively be manifested through parental decisions, considering the limited legal rights of minors and the rather expansive legal rights of parents in regards to them. Political scientist Robert Dahl has defined a spectrum of "influence terms" that range from the relatively benevolent to the openly malevolent. They include rational persuasion, manipulative persuasion, inducement, power, coercion, and physical force.

In my opinion, judging by the hierarchical strictures of families deeply immersed in Roman Catholicism, young Hauser has probably been subjected to manipulative persuasion by his parents, and may also be subjected to inducement and power were he to refuse. So the authoritarianism is not only able to come from the government. As I said, my advocacy is for him to have the opportunity to make a rational decision (which I believe he is capable of doing), once he has been sufficiently informed of all the consequences and implications of the treatment. Such a situation may necessitate his capture or detainment.
 
Back
Top Bottom