Lawyer: Police drop warrant after mom, son with cancer return

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 25 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Lawyer: Police drop warrant after mom, son with cancer return


www.cnn.com

The return came a day after Jennifer Keller, an Orange County, California, attorney representing the pair, called the Brown County Sheriff's Office and indicated Colleen Hauser wanted to bring her son home, Hoffmann said.

Late last week, authorities said they thought the mother and son were near Los Angeles, California, and may have been planning to travel to Mexico for a holistic treatment.

They arrived in Minnesota at 3 a.m. Monday aboard a chartered flight paid for by Asgaard Media of Corona, California, Hoffmann said.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 25 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Looks like the family wised up and came back, hopefully they'll treat their son instead of letting him die a dog with rabies.

Weirdo cultists, thinking some Indian voodoo is going to save the kid from cancer. What a load of garbage. These parents don't have the right to breed. The poor kid is going to die now in part because his parents believe that spirits from the wind, trees, and rocks are going to kill his cancer away. What a load of garbage.

www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Illuminatus I
 


Actually it's not that crazy.


In our local hospital a boy was treated for the same type of cancer but the chemo gave him leukemia. They put the lymphoma in remission but he died of the leukemia the chemo gave him.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by Illuminatus I
 


Actually it's not that crazy.


In our local hospital a boy was treated for the same type of cancer but the chemo gave him leukemia. They put the lymphoma in remission but he died of the leukemia the chemo gave him.



That doesn't mean that voodoo and magic spells work any better, though. Most successful treatments have inherent risks and/or side-effects. A routine surgery always has the risk of death, but that doesn't mean we should resort to voodoo.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Illuminatus I
 


I thought it was up to the parent to decide what is best for their child? There are several medical experts that do not believe in the merits of chemo.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by Illuminatus I
 


I thought it was up to the parent to decide what is best for their child? There are several medical experts that do not believe in the merits of chemo.


Sure, there are also several people who think that they have super powers. It doesn't make it right. Parents shouldn't have the right to kill their children through inaction.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
It was the chemo that killed my mom. It burst her stomach. She had a pea sized brain tumor that was operable.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Illuminatus I
 





Parents shouldn't have the right to kill their children through inaction.


What if she believes that chemo is a deaths sentence as many medical professionals would agree. Why should anyone have the right to force a parent to do something they believe to be harmful to their children, expessially when they have support from many in the medical community.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by hadriana
It was the chemo that killed my mom. It burst her stomach. She had a pea sized brain tumor that was operable.


They put your mom on chemo for a reason, not just out of the blue. If the tumor was operable then why wasn't it operated on?



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by Illuminatus I
 





Parents shouldn't have the right to kill their children through inaction.


What if she believes that chemo is a deaths sentence as many medical professionals would agree. Why should anyone have the right to force a parent to do something they believe to be harmful to their children, expessially when they have support from many in the medical community.


There are plenty of wackos in the medical community as well, that's why.

For all you know, these parents want the child to die and are holding back treatment to collect life insurance.

How do you know they didn't give the child cancer in the first place by feeding him toxic food and fluoride, artificial sweeteners etc.. etc.. all the stuff that gives people cancer which people talk about on here?

Talk about a conspiracy!



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Illuminatus I
 


I'm sorry but going from your posts in here you seem like a very ignorant person. Chemo is nothing more than poison for your body. When you along with the entire human race can figure out why people get cancer no matter how well they live then your debate on whats right or wrong for a child should go on. However I agree with these parents, many many people think chemo does more harm than good, so they as parents have an unalienable right to protect their child. Please explain the people who do everything "wrong" in their life never get cancer which is nothing more than the body not being able to remove damaged cells from areas of the body. Or how about people who do everything "right" yet they still get it?



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigshow
reply to post by Illuminatus I
 


I'm sorry but going from your posts in here you seem like a very ignorant person. Chemo is nothing more than poison for your body. When you along with the entire human race can figure out why people get cancer no matter how well they live then your debate on whats right or wrong for a child should go on. However I agree with these parents, many many people think chemo does more harm than good, so they as parents have an unalienable right to protect their child. Please explain the people who do everything "wrong" in their life never get cancer which is nothing more than the body not being able to remove damaged cells from areas of the body. Or how about people who do everything "right" yet they still get it?


Well it looks like you've figured out what the entire medical and scientific community couldn't figure out: that chemo kills normal cells as well as cancer cells.

Good job.




Please explain the people who do everything "wrong" in their life never get cancer which is nothing more than the body not being able to remove damaged cells from areas of the body. Or how about people who do everything "right" yet they still get it?


Wow.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Illuminatus I
 


You seem to feel as if there is an absolute right or wrong in this situation.

There isn't.

Chemo is nothing more than the voodoo you are railing against. The difference is that the voodoo you are railing against tries to remove all problems while chemo tries to create enough chaos to kill off the cancer without killing the patient, which it has a horrible track record at.


Keep in mind that the child has gone through one dose of chemo already... and he doesn't want anymore. Who gives a damn if he is right or wrong in this situation... the point is they don't want it.

My mother is a nurse and would never take Chemo either. One of the reasons other than quality of life... She doesn't want to leave behind the exorbitant bills that come along with it.

[edit on 25-5-2009 by HunkaHunka]



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Illuminatus I
 





There are plenty of wackos in the medical community as well, that's why.


There are also profiteers in the medical community, that as a result, creates huge conflicts of interest. It creates an environment where medical corporations may have their employees recommend lengthy and expensive "treatments" over cures. I, for one, find it horrifying that parents are now being forced to subject their children to these "treatments" against their will. Expessially when there is no where near a consensus in the medical community.

I also wonder what gives you the ability to diagnose those in the medical community who would disagree with the corporate oligarchy as wackos?



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by Illuminatus I
 


Chemo is nothing more than the voodoo you are railing against. The difference is that the voodoo you are railing against tries to remove all problems while chemo tries to create enough chaos to kill off the cancer without killing the patient, which it has a horrible track record at.


Chemo is a last ditch effort. The kid is going to die anyway, and at least a second round of Chemo might give him a shot at life.

At least Chemo has a track record.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Illuminatus I
 





The kid is going to die anyway, and at least a second round of Chemo might give him a shot at life.


And what qualifies you to make this assessment or are you just repeating what you hear on your tv.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   
[edit on 25-5-2009 by Illuminatus I]



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by Illuminatus I
 





The kid is going to die anyway, and at least a second round of Chemo might give him a shot at life.


And what qualifies you to make this assessment or are you just repeating what you hear on your tv.



Cancer kills. This is common knowledge.

Cancer left untreated will kill you.

Cancer treated, with even a 2% chance of success, is a shot at a cure.

How are you assessing this?



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Illuminatus I
 


You are forgetting to factor in that quality of life might take priority over longevity.


It does in my moms case, and it did when my Father had pancreatic cancer.

[edit on 25-5-2009 by HunkaHunka]



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Illuminatus I
 





Cancer treated, with even a 2% chance of success, is a shot at a cure.


Is that the prognosis. 2%? A 2% survival rate to a painful and debilitating "treatment"? I would venture to guess that this child has decided to focus on the quality of the remainder of his life as opposed to the quantity. I hope that if you or your family ever has to make a decision such as this you aren't forced against your will to do which you oppose. Why would we allow someone to have such jurisdiction to impose their "treatments" on us is beyond me.





top topics
 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join