very interesting story going on right now in minnesota. what do you think the government's role is?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520318,00.html

Judge Rules Teen Must Get Cancer Treatments

A Minnesota judge has ruled a 13-year-old boy with Hodgkin's lymphoma, a highly treatable form of cancer, must seek medical treatment over his parents' objections.

In a 58-page ruling Friday, Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg found that Daniel Hauser of Sleepy Eye, Minn., has been "medically neglected" and is in need of child protection services. Rodenberg said Daniel will stay in the custody of his parents, but Colleen and Anthony Hauser have until May 19 to get an updated chest X-ray for their son and select an oncologist.

Rodenberg wrote that Daniel has only a "rudimentary understanding at best of the risks and benefits of chemotherapy. ... he does not believe he is ill currently. The fact is that he is very ill currently." Because of that and other evidence in the case, Rodenberg ruled there is a "compelling state interest sufficient to override the minor's genuine opposition."

A court-appointed attorney for Daniel, Philip Elbert, called the decision unfortunate.

"I feel it's a blow to families," he said Friday. "It marginalizes the decisions that parents face every day in regard to their children's medical care. It really affirms the role that big government is better at making our decisions for us."

Doctors have said Daniel's cancer had up to a 90 percent chance of being cured with chemotherapy and radiation. Without those treatments, doctors said his chances of survival are 5 percent.

Daniel stopped chemotherapy in February after a single treatment. He and his parents opted instead for "alternative medicines" based on their religious beliefs. Child protection workers accused Daniel's parents of medical neglect; but in court, his mother insisted the boy wouldn't submit to chemotherapy for religious reasons and she said she wouldn't comply if the court orders it.

"Daniel loves his parents and they love him. He should remain with them as long as he receives treatment complying with the minimum standards of parental care provided by Minnesota law," Rodenberg wrote.

He also said he was following the law in the best interest of the child.

"If the Minnesota Legislature ever reconsiders the relevant statutes, I am confident that I join all of the others involved in this matter in hoping, and indeed in praying, that Daniel Hauser lives to testify at that hearing."

Daniel's parents have been supporting what they say is their son's decision to instead treat the disease with nutritional supplements and other alternative treatments favored by the Nemenhah Band. The Missouri-based religious group believes in natural healing methods advocated by some American Indians.

"This is about the right of a 13-year-old young man to be free from acts of assault on his body," said the family's attorney, Calvin Johnson, on Thursday.

--

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520607,00.html

Minnesota Boy With Cancer Vows to Resist Chemotherapy by Punching, Kicking

A 13-year-old boy's vow to resist chemotherapy by punching or kicking anyone who tries to force it on him will present doctors with a tough task if they can't change his mind.

A judge was due Tuesday to hear the results of his order that Daniel Hauser undergo a chest X-ray and his family pick an oncologist to be treated for Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Daniel and his parents stopped chemotherapy after one treatment and opted for "alternative medicines," prompting Brown County authorities to intervene. The cancer is regarded as highly curable with chemotherapy and radiation, but is likely fatal without it.

Daniel was scheduled for an X-ray Monday. His attorneys couldn't confirm he kept the appointment, and calls to the Hauser home rang unanswered.

"It can be very difficult to treat a 13-year-old boy who doesn't want to be treated," said Arthur Caplan, chair of the medical ethics department at the University of Pennsylvania. "I don't want to say it's impossible, but it makes it very tough on the doctors."

Last week, Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg ruled that Daniel's parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, were medically neglecting him.

Rodenberg said if a new X-ray showed a good prognosis, chemotherapy and possible radiation appeared to be in his best interest. Chemotherapy would not be ordered if the cancer was too advanced.

If chemotherapy was ordered and the family refused, Daniel would be placed in temporary custody. It wasn't immediately known where the boy might be treated or how medicine would be administered if he fights it.

Caplan said the medical community recognized a person's right to refuse treatments — but those rights didn't extend to incompetent people or children. Still, he said: "It is hard to treat someone who won't cooperate." Restraints could be used.

Officials at some Minnesota hospitals that treat cancer in children described several methods they would try to break through the boy's resistance.

Dr. Steven Miles, a professor of medicine and bioethics at the University of Minnesota Center for Bioethics, said a hospital may assign a companion to a child, or administer a sedative to relieve anxiety. Sometimes foster homes catering to medically ill children can help by providing a loving environment and education about what the child needs.

"The kid says he's not sick and the mom says she'll treat it if it's an emergency," Miles said of the Hauser case. "With cancer, if it's an emergency, it's too late."

Brian Lucas, a spokesman at Children's, said ethics experts met Monday to make sure everyone was up to speed on Daniel's case and plan for any possibility.

Caplan said he believes the judge made the right decision.

"This case falls, for me, squarely in the 'You've gotta get him treated' camp," Caplan said. "If it's not life and death, you might not push so hard. If it's not a proven treatment ... you wouldn't push so far."

But doctors may not have to follow the court order "if they feel it can't be carried out — if it's literally impossible to get a needle into this kid," Caplan said.

What do you think c_b?

You can't post this and not give us an opinion. It's interesting that there are many more cases of parents forcing their children to undergo procedures that the children don't want. What if the boy eventually wants treatment, but the parents don't want it?

i just did.

I think two of the related issues are euthanasia and giving kids permission to approve medical procedures such as abortions.

I'm quite sure there are medical procedures that adults (especially elderly adults) routinely decline that the courts would force a child to under go. That's just a form of age prejudism. There's just seem sto be no consistency in what's acceptable and not acceptable. As a society we don't know where we stand on death and dying.

do you think this 13-year-old has fully developed reasoning capacities?

Strangely enough, I don't think that where we stand on life and death is the issue here.

Adults of sound mind are allowed to decline any medical procedure. In fact no medical procedures can be carried out on an adult without formal consent of the adult. Children are routinely forced to undergo medical procedures that they explicitly state they don't want at the behest of their parents because they aren't considered competent to make decisions.

Here's the problem that I have with this situation. The child doesn't understand his physical condition. He doesn't believe that he's sick. How much effort was made to educate him on his condition? Are the parents undermining his understanding of his condition? His disease is not always fatal, and the treatment is not always a success. Would this have gone to the courts if the child understood that he was sick and choose, along with his parents, not be treated?

No but then again I know lots of adults that don't either.

If we conclude that a 13-year-old does not have fully developed reasoning capacities should they be permitted to make any healthcare decisions, such as birth control or abortions?

Well they should definitely become parents

There's been many cases where a child is forced to have medical procedures done that neither the child not parent want.

This is a particular case though. This 13-year-old does not understand that he is sick. Should he be considered competent to make this decision when he doesn't understand the consequences of it?

Not at all. More like I'm advocating that if you're going to give children the responsibility for their healthcare then give it to them. Do away with this piece meal process currently in place.

If some 13 year old does't want to take chemo, accept a blood transfusion then let them decline the procedures. I see no reason to intrude on their freedom when allowing their freedom causes no harm to outsiders.

Not many cases. A few. Mostly in emergency situations with life or death consequences. Diabetic shock, intestinal obstructions, uncontrolled bleeding. Often it's too late to save the child's life by the time emergency procedures are begun. This one is unique because, as one of the doctors stated, if they wait for an emergency situation, there won't be any treatment options left.

Who cares, as long as the legal guardian(s) go along with it, it should not be societies place to second guess.

There are many cases surrounding blood transfusions where the child is forced to take the medical procedure. The only ones that make the news are when the parents fight it.

The doctors care. I know that you've dealth with some serious health issues. Didn't you read any of those consent forms? You indicate on them that you understand what your medical condition is and that you understand what the treatment entails. You must also indicate that you understand the risks involved. Refusing treatment is certainly a viable option if it's clear that you understand the consequences. When doctors deal with patients who refuse treatments recommended by the doctor, they must also sign forms indicating that they understand the consequences of refusing treatment against medical advice. Don't you want your health professionals to be sure that you understand your situation and your options?

Where's the consistency. Does/should a 13 year old be able to make their own health choices? Would the kid be facing the same grilling if he had made the same choice that the doctor would make? It doesn't seem like much of a system when we only question a 13 year old's ability to decide when they make a choice different than our own. Has the kid and parents become informed and thought about their decision? If the answer is yes, thats all we should be asking for. Would we allow the court's to step in if the kid was 18 and making the same decision?

The kid does NOT understand his situation. He has made that clear. Doesn't that matter?

But his legal guardins back that decision and are aware. Shouldn't that matter?

Do we care when an 18 does not understand his/her situation? As someone who had to sign consent forms I can tell you that I'm not giving informed consent. I've given I don't feel I have a choice consent. It would have taken about 2 days of the doctor's time to provide me with informed consent. "Do it or he'll die" should not count as informed consent. Let's face it, signing consent forms is all about covering the doctor's ass and nothing else.

are the parents really aware and reasonable if they're choosing death over life for their child? isn't that child abuse?

I don't have much of a problem with the kid being forced to get these cancer treatments. I see it as kind of along the same lines as the government taking a kid out of a bad home or whatever.

i have faith in cancer treatments

Spoiler: show

irony