Convincing your child to want to die

[John99]

this is not the issue here. if you can get passes your bias you would not be so blind and talking as this kid is perfectly fine except of course that he is dying from caancer.

as far as home schooling is concerned: i would say this kids illness played a big part in his abilities and i guess the parent figured learning about the war of 1812 or where gen. grants horse is buried is kind of insignificant.

So the problem of getting the kid to think for himself at this age are going to be horrendous.

think for himself? you think you think for yourself? i dont think so.

 

[John99]

to add to that many very successful people were home schooled, why dont you search for them. einstein for one and even presidents of ivy league universtities.

 

[CutsieMarie89]

It's a 13 year old with incorrect information.
I think his wishes are not his own.

He's 13. Even if given correct information I doubt he would be willing to change his beliefs.

 

[Asguard]

13, 14 year olds are alowed to make medical decisions even against parental or doctors opinions BUT they have to be capable of giving INFORMED consent, this means they need to understand the decision and its implications. there is a VERY strong case that a kid cant understand the risks\rewards for the decisions. further more the courts have to take into account the level of risk from a bad decision, if you put a bandaid or not on a small cut the risks probably going to be quite low in this case the risk is quite high.

john i would agree with you if this was a terminal kid chosing to die after years suffering through the conventional treatments. however thats NOT the case, from what tiassa posted this is an early stage diognosis (hense the predicted 90% sucess rate with treatment) and the kid isnt making an informed choice to die, he is putting his faith in "treatment" which shows no evidence of efficacy and he has clearly shown that he is unable to rationally asses the efficacy of conventional treatments which have a proven ability to help, especially in the early stages

 

[Xylene]

to add to that many very successful people were home schooled, why dont you search for them. einstein for one and even presidents of ivy league universtities.

That may be so--but I daresay Einstein's parents weren't a couple of religious clowns.

 

[Pandaemoni]

john i would agree with you if this was a terminal kid chosing to die after years suffering through the conventional treatments. however thats NOT the case, from what tiassa posted this is an early stage diognosis (hense the predicted 90% sucess rate with treatment) and the kid isnt making an informed choice to die, he is putting his faith in "treatment" which shows no evidence of efficacy and he has clearly shown that he is unable to rationally asses the efficacy of conventional treatments which have a proven ability to help, especially in the early stages

But (to play devil's advocate) this is a particular materialist philosophy you espouse, rooted in the notion that science and testable hypotheses are king, and non-scientific philosophies, though deeply held and genuinely and fervently believed, can suck a fat cock.

Many Native Americans traditionally believe that disease is caused by spiritual and bodily imbalances that can be corrected through acts of personal will and invocations of various spirits and supernatural agents. Suppose an illiterate 20 year old Native American were choosing to rely on his traditional beliefs because that's what he was taught growing up. Because of the cultural sensitivity, I'd be stunned if a governmental agency or court forced him to undergo modern medicine against his will.

Does the fact that the kid is only 13 make a difference? Of course...but the difference it makes is that we instead look to the parents for the decision. In this case, though, we are clearly looking to the parents to make the decision only if they make the one we want, and otherwise it's "bring me the fattest cock in all the land for them to suck upon" time.

In other words, we trust parents only in close cases. In cases where we think the answer is "obvious" then the state if in charge of your medical care.

Again, why limit this to parental cases? Suppose you are a the pro-science 30-something, and you live in the Bible Belt. Would you want an evangelical judge making your medical decisions for you? What if the judge was convinced that you were "really" wrong, based on his view of the universe. If you have the right to make decisions about your health care, no matter who thinks it's "wrong" (which will always tend towards being a subjective measure), then why don't those with anti-scientific points of view?

If they do, then why doesn't this boy? If he doesn't because he's too young, and in every other case we all know that we would defer to the parents, why are we not doing so here? If we can make an exception here, what's to stop us from making exceptions in other cases (with which you or I may not agree)?

I tend to think if these people were not Christians, we'd respect their beliefs except in cases where their decision posed a public health risk. Since it's Christians though, we assume that their "real" culture is (or should be) western materialism and their deviation from that stereotype is why we feel comfortable thinking they are clearly "wrong" in their decision.

I do not disagree with the decision, but then again I am generally less supportive of the first amendment than most. I see nothing wring, really, with doing the same thing on an even broader scale. For example, if you are a member of the Klan, I think the states should just take your kids from you. You'd just screw them up anyway, so better for society that they go to homes with "correct" (in my view) beliefs. I see no reason to let them march either. We all know that they are "wrong" and it seems to me that letting them speak simply spreads their wrong values. It's been a century and they still exist, so our "marketplace of ideas" clearly has room for them as a niche product...but we could eliminate 90% of that if we just imposed our correct views on the incorrect.

The question in a sense is: Is it better that this child live and the beliefs of the parents and the child—and their right to live as they have expressed their desire to live—be disrespected, or that the child (possibly) die in order to uphold the rule of law and the integrity of our notion of "rights" and "liberty" as being applied equally to all creeds? I don't think there is a single answer to that, but I do see that we are telling that child and the parents that they have the right to believe in their religion and its tenets, but that those beliefs are nonetheless "wrong" in an official sense (and here's a court order to prove it), so you are not allowed to live by them.

I see the court's ordering the kid to undergo the procedure, in that sense, as being very much akin to courts' ruling that Indian tribes may be prohibited by State and federal law from smoking peyote in their rituals (where smoking peyote is illegal). I am happy with both decisions, but I don't have the sense that the answer is in any sense "obvious" because you are balancing life and other interests versus freedom of belief—worse, freedom of religion. That is balancing a very important apple against a very important orange.

 

[Asguard]

i do see your point and when you started talking about native americans i thought about aborigional med. however aborigional med has intergrated quite well into moden med so that they are co existing quite well (not to mention that i do belive in holistic med anyway) . now medical ethics ard never easy, and i do opose the fed gov NT intervention and forced mec checks. i also strongly opose the forced reporting of teens under 18 being reported for asking for the pill or buying condoms. i dont opose the guardianship boards overruling JW kids when they need blood products and parents sterilising mentally disabled girls

i dont have to worry about the first amendment in surporting a gov action. i have to make up my mind wether an action causes more harm or benifit alone independent of some silly (in these sorts of cases) bill of rights. on the issue of bible bashing judge, a) its not a single judge elected in a small town, its a judge who is goverment apointed to the guardianship board

b) its simply not an issue in australia, state and fed goverments apoint judges and all three branches of gov surport science to the point that unlike the US the australian gov pays for everyone (with an au ip address) to havd access to the biggest repositive of evidence based med, cochrane

 

[John99]

13, 14 year olds are alowed to make medical decisions even against parental or doctors opinions BUT they have to be capable of giving INFORMED consent, this means they need to understand the decision and its implications. there is a VERY strong case that a kid cant understand the risks\rewards for the decisions. further more the courts have to take into account the level of risk from a bad decision, if you put a bandaid or not on a small cut the risks probably going to be quite low in this case the risk is quite high.

john i would agree with you if this was a terminal kid chosing to die after years suffering through the conventional treatments. however thats NOT the case, from what tiassa posted this is an early stage diognosis (hense the predicted 90% sucess rate with treatment) and the kid isnt making an informed choice to die, he is putting his faith in "treatment" which shows no evidence of efficacy and he has clearly shown that he is unable to rationally asses the efficacy of conventional treatments which have a proven ability to help, especially in the early stages

it depends. not only referring to this case at all but we need to look at who has a chiilds best intereswt at heart. from what i have seen in life it is never a group of blinded\rabid\fundamentalist agenda driven activists. i am just speaking in general here.

That may be so--but I daresay Einstein's parents weren't a couple of religious clowns.

they may have been. also, there is a list on the internet with prominent home schooled people. i think you would be very surprised if you take the time to read it.

 

[Tiassa]

Understating the problem?

as far as home schooling is concerned: i would say this kids illness played a big part in his abilities and i guess the parent figured learning about the war of 1812 or where gen. grants horse is buried is kind of insignificant.

I think you might be understating the problem: The kid can't read the word "the". This isn't a matter of priorities, or of the details of history. Without any diagnosed developmental delay, it is hard to explain Daniel's illiteracy in any way that justifies the parents.

 

[John99]

I think you might be understating the problem: The kid can't read the word "the". This isn't a matter of priorities, or of the details of history. Without any diagnosed developmental delay, it is hard to explain Daniel's illiteracy in any way that justifies the parents.

it is hard to say if there is no learning impediment. learning impediments often stem from emotional distress and this is a unique case so there are many factors to consider. usually if a parent can read they would teach their kid to read as well.

 

[Asguard]

it depends. not only referring to this case at all but we need to look at who has a chiilds best intereswt at heart. from what i have seen in life it is never a group of blinded\rabid\fundamentalist agenda driven activists. i am just speaking in general here.

i agree which is why i surport the lawyer for the state or CPS or the hospital\doctors or whstever and the judge's decision to take the decision on medical care (and hopefully in this case education as well) out of the parents hands. the decision to leave the child with his psrents is nither here nor there in this case but if anyone deserves procution based on a failure to provide adquate educatiom its them. there shouldnt be a RIGHT to home school, you should have to prove the adquacy of the education you are going to give is equal or better than that provided by the state including at least yearly estate run exams to prove the child isnt being disadvantaged because of it. personally i dont like home schooling because of the limits on social interaction which is just as important but its not always possable which is why school of the air exists

 

[Orleander]

Both the dad and the founder of their new religion said he should be receiving treatment. But the Mom took him and ran.


...The family was due in court Tuesday to report the results of a chest X-ray and their arrangements for an oncologist. But only Daniel’s father appeared. He told Rodenberg he last saw his wife Monday evening.

“She said she was going to leave,” Hauser testified. “She said, ‘That’s all you need to know.’ And that’s all I know.”

He said Colleen Hauser left her cell phone at their home in the southern Minnesota town of Sleepy Eye.

Anthony Hauser now agrees that Daniel needs to restart treatment, said Calvin Johnson, an attorney for the parents.

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.”...

 

[Tiassa]

Two things about a learning disability

it is hard to say if there is no learning impediment.

I would go so far as to say if the boy has a legitimate learning disability, either,

(A) the parents are negligent for not having had it diagnosed, or,
(B) the family's lawyers need to answer for why this isn't prominently included in the arguments.​

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Both the dad and the founder of their new religion said he should be receiving treatment. But the Mom took him and ran.

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.”...

Sounds to me like Cloudpiler is saying that the child ought not receive treatment, but that the community must abide by court decisions.

What happens in the US when Jehovah's witnesses don't want their children to have blood transfusions?

 

[Tiassa]

Turns out there is a learning disability

Turns out Daniel does have a learning disability:

The judge has said Daniel, who has a learning disability and cannot read, did not understand the risks and benefits of chemotherapy and didn’t believe he was ill.

(MSNBC)​

I wonder why his lawyer avoided any mention of that issue in his final argument. Perhaps he felt it would reflect poorly on Daniel's comprehension, and therefore judgment.

At any rate, the latest is that authorities suspect—based on an alleged sighting in Los Angeles—that Colleen and Daniel Hauser are fleeing to Mexico.
____________________

Notes:

MSNBC. "Boy who fled chemo may be heading to Mexico". May 20, 2009. MSNBC.com. Accessed May 20, 2009. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30824587/

 

[Captain Kremmen]

This is another example of modern fundamentalism.

I think that the adoption of some of the beliefs and practises of the American Indians would be of great benefit to all the cultures of the world, and Americans in particular. Their worship of nature, and their desire to leave it untouched, has great pertinence to our current predicament.

In this case the mother is denying her natural instincts to do anything to save the life of her child, in order to obey dogmatic religious precepts.

 

[Bells]

I wonder why his lawyer avoided any mention of that issue in his final argument. Perhaps he felt it would reflect poorly on Daniel's comprehension, and therefore judgment.

Most probably.

After all, he was attempting to portray the boy as being competent enough to make that kind of decision. If he admitted that the child had a learning disability that would impair his ability to understand the treatment or his illness, then he would supposedly be failing his client.

That said, it says a lot about the lawyer who should be looking out for and after his client's best interest that he argued for his client's death sentence in not receiving the treatment.

In this case the mother is denying her natural instincts to do anything to save the life of her child, in order to obey dogmatic religious precepts.

And when that child dies from lack of treatment, she will turn to that religious belief for comfort.

As a parent, I find it astounding that one could willingly and knowingly refuse lifesaving treatment for one's child because of a religious belief. To convince a sick child that he is not sick and that the treatment could kill him is beyond my scope of understanding as a parent. You are correct. She is ignoring what should be a natural instinct to save the life of her child because of her fundamental religious beliefs. How utterly selfish, to care about one's religious beliefs before one's child.

 

[ili]

What does the kid say?

 

[Tiassa]

He wants what Mommy tells him to want

He said he will punch and kick the doctors and nurses. He believes that chemotherapy will flat-out kill him.

 

[Pandaemoni]

I doubt that anyone could convince me that the child should be the one making the decision. He is too young and he has a learning disability, so that's a double whammy.

That he has made irrational threats against doctors then doesn't much change anything for me.

The curiosity for me relates to when we, as a society, feel it is justified to put a total stranger from the government in change of an incompetent person's medical care rather than trust that person's wife, parents, siblings, or other close loved one's to do it. If there were evidence of ill will between the ward and the would-be guardians, then that is one thing, but here everyone acknowledges that the kid's parents love him dearly.

It seems to me to be an inescapable inference that has to be draw from the judge's ruling is that, as a matter of law, the parents religious beliefs in this matter are false (or, at least, so highly likely to be false that it justifies temporarily ceasing their child against their and the child's will and forcing the child to undergo invasive medical procedures that the parents and child object to. That is pretty remarkable.

There are not many times that a judge gets to so unambiguously tell people that their religious faith (or any particular tenet of it) is wrong, especially on pain of losing your parental rights unless you agree with the judge that your faith is wrong and should be disregarded. I have to imagine that is a power that is likely to be wielded unfairly, with fringe religions and non-western religions being given less deference than more mainstream religions.