It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Judge rules family can't refuse chemo for boy

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on May, 18 2009 @ 04:38 PM
reply to post by riddle6

Seeing as how the tumor had grown then it is obvious that what he was doing wasn't working.

I don't care if he had half a session of chemo. He was responding very well to it. Alot better then what ever type of treatment his family had him doing.

posted on May, 18 2009 @ 04:40 PM
reply to post by jd140

But that's the thing though, regardless of if it was a full treatment or a half of a treatment, it would be too early for the Doctors/Judge to say that it would work for the rest of his treatments.

posted on May, 18 2009 @ 05:17 PM
Here are the specifics from the recently released court documents. I found the closing arguement of Daniel's attorney particularly compelling, although I suppose that is the purpose of the closings.

Even the medical professionals thought the parents decision was "reasonable".

Daniels testimony

The Decision

[edit on 18-5-2009 by searching4truth]

posted on May, 18 2009 @ 05:32 PM
reply to post by riddle6

So because it is working and nobody can give him a 100% that it will continue to work it is okay to give a treatment that doesn't work at all?

I know I have to change the oil in my car to make it work. Nobody will tell you that it will keep your car running forever though. Does that mean I should stop feeding the oil companies my money?

A little common sense goes a long way.

posted on May, 18 2009 @ 06:17 PM
reply to post by searching4truth

Thank you for posting that. I have to say that I agree with the attorney's closing argument. I really hope the Court sides with Daniel and his family.

posted on May, 18 2009 @ 06:18 PM
reply to post by jd140

I do not have the time nor the energy to argue with you any more. I'll have to say that I agree to disagree.

posted on May, 18 2009 @ 09:46 PM

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by VelmaLu

I don't care about these other methods you are talking about. I don't care that we don't use them. I don't care that other countries do. What if he took it and got all better, what if he took them and died.

[edit on 18-5-2009 by jd140]

Yes, by all means, reject what might be working BETTER in other countries because America is so great.

This is why people die of cancer here all the time.

posted on May, 18 2009 @ 11:22 PM
reply to post by VelmaLu

Nice cut job you did there on what I said.

Your arguement is tired.

I don't agree with you.

I thought I made that point clear. Oh well, I'm not bored anymore so you can play by yourself.

Have fun.

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 03:25 PM
Warrant Issued As Mother, Son Skip Chemo Hearing

NEW ULM, Minn. (AP) ―

A Minnesota judge issued an arrest warrant Tuesday for the mother of a 13-year-old boy resisting chemotherapy after the pair missed a court hearing on his welfare.

Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg also ordered that Daniel Hauser be placed in protective custody so he can get proper medical treatment for Hodgkins lymphoma.

The cancer is considered highly curable with proper treatment, but Daniel quit chemo after a single treatment and with his parents opted instead for "alternative medicines," citing religious beliefs. That led authorities to seek custody, and Rodenberg last week ruled that Daniel's parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, were medically neglecting their son.

The family was due in court Tuesday to tell the judge results of a chest X-ray and arrangements for an oncologist. But Daniel's father was the only one to appear. He told Rodenberg that he last saw Colleen Hauser on Monday evening, and she told him she was leaving.

"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 his wife left her cell phone at home.

The family's doctor, James Joyce, testified by telephone that Daniel's tumor has grown and he needs immediate assessment by a pediatric cancer doctor.

Joyce said he examined Daniel on Monday and that an X-ray showed his tumor had grown to the size it was when he was first diagnosed.

"He had basically gotten back all the trouble he had in January," Joyce said.

Daniel was accompanied by his mother and Susan Daya, who Joyce said was an attorney from California.

Joyce testified that he offered to make appointments for Daniel with oncologists at Children's Hospital, the University of Minnesota, Mayo Clinic or elsewhere, but the Hausers declined.

Joyce also said he tried to give Daniel more information about lymphoma but that Daya, Daniel and his mother left in a rush.

"Under Susan Daya's urging, they indicated they had other places to go," Joyce said.

Daya did not immediately return a page left on her cell phone Tuesday by The Associated Press. Her voice mailbox was full.

Besides examining Daniel's chest X-ray, Joyce also said he asked Daniel how he was feeling. The doctor said the boy told him he had pain on the right side of his chest, which Daniel rated a 10 on a scale of 1 to 10.

Joyce said the pain was around the port that was inserted into Daniel's chest to administer chemotherapy, and he said the pain is being caused by the growing tumor, which is pushing the port out of place.

Daniel also told the doctor he had a cough, although he wasn't having any trouble breathing, Joyce said.

Daniel's court-appointed attorney, Phil Elbert, asked Joyce if Daniel was at risk of substantial physical harm if no action is taken. The doctor said yes.

In his ruling last week, Rodenberg wrote that he would not order chemotherapy if Daniel's prognosis was poor. But if the outlook was good, it appeared chemotheraphy and possibly radiation was in the boy's best interest, he wrote.

Daniel's lymphoma was diagnosed in January, and six rounds of chemotherapy were recommended. Daniel underwent one round in February, but stopped after that single treatment. He and his parents sought other opinions, but the other doctors agreed with the initial assessment.

Colleen Hauser testified at the earlier hearing that her son "is not in any medical danger." She said she had been treating his cancer with herbal supplements, vitamins, ionized water, and other natural alternatives.

Rodenberg wrote that state statutes require parents to provide necessary medical care for a child. The statutes say alternative and complementary health care methods aren't enough. He also wrote that Daniel, who cannot read, did not understand the risks and benefits of chemotherapy and didn't believe he was ill.

Daniel testified that he believed the chemo would kill him, and told the judge in private testimony unsealed later that if anyone tried to force him to take it, "I'd fight it. I'd punch them and I'd kick them."

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

Rodenberg wrote that Daniel claims to be an elder in the band, but does not know what that means. Daniel also says he is a medicine man under Nemenhah teachings but can't say how he became a medicine man or what teachings he has had to become one.

This is going to heat this topic up fast. Especially if they take Daniel away from his parents and put him in protective custody as the warrant specifies.

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 04:06 PM
reply to post by yankeerose

Thanks for posting that!!!! It will be most interesting to see where it goes from here.

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 04:17 PM
reply to post by yankeerose

I have a feeling that this is going to cause such a storm of controversy. It makes me wonder what the state would do to give Daniel the chemotherapy. How far are they willing to go?

I don't agree with the neglect charge, but I agree even less with Daniel and his mother not showing up to court. Personally, if I wanted to convince a judge of something like not giving my child chemotherapy, not showing up to court would not be an option. Now the state will probably use that as reasoning to take Daniel away from his parents.

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 04:19 PM
That's non-sense, and you should be ashamed for suggesting that it happen.

Let it happen to you one day, and what will you do!

[edit on 19-5-2009 by Illuminatus I]

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 04:26 PM
reply to post by Illuminatus I

What are you talking about? Are you saying that Daniel's parents are wrong and that he should receive chemotherapy, or that the state is wrong and he shouldn't have to?

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 05:01 PM
Definately, I agree that the state has no place in medical decisions, but she should have shown up. Now it makes we wonder why we are in court defending rights we already possess. Well, she did show up for all hearings up until this point so she should've completed it. Now that she's demonstrated that she is willing to leave with the kid, that state very well may take him.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in