Refusal of Medical Care: Child Abuse?

[Imagist]

I agree with your conclusion, based upon your take on the issue, but I also see it differently.

For me the question is where we draw the line regarding when a child has sufficient experience and autonomy. It is of course ludicrous to say an infant has a choice. I find it equally ludicrous to say that a 17 year old doesn't.

This particular case is not so clear. With what I'm hearing about the boy's indoctrination and (lack of) education, I doubt his capacity. A more typical child of the same age would be more difficult, however.

Thank you for making that distinction.

Even a very autonomously-thinking 13-year-old is not capable of separating him/herself from parental indoctrination. I would consider myself a very independent thinker at age 13, but I was a born-again Christian then, and now I'm an atheist. There's no question in my mind where the Christian ideas I held then came from, and it certainly wasn't me.

 

[Imagist]

What I find more interesting about this specific case, and thus my posts in this thread probably belong in the other and vice versa, is that the religious exemption claim the parents are making itself may be on thin ice. The group they attached themselves to are not actually a religion but a collection of natural healers. So what specific religious claim are they making. The group's website even states that adhering to the secular laws are important. The questionable nature of the leadership I already mentioned as well as the fact that their claims of Native American tradition are probably not supported by actual members of those societies.

I've easily found a couple of sites supporting alternative medicine and native american traditions that call the group plastic shaman.

edit: It should be remarked that the Nemenhah group while promoting natural healing will default to stating that local laws should be supported specifically to avoid liability claims in a case such as that of Danny Hauser.

Danny Hauser's case may not have been a strictly religious situation, but there are plenty of others which are, such as the case of Madeline Neumann.

 

[blackout]

For me the question is where we draw the line regarding when a child has sufficient experience and autonomy. It is of course ludicrous to say an infant has a choice. I find it equally ludicrous to say that a 17 year old doesn't.

This particular case is not so clear. With what I'm hearing about the boy's indoctrination and (lack of) education, I doubt his capacity. A more typical child of the same age would be more difficult, however.

I agree with all of this.

Hopefully the court took all of these factors into account.
These decisions should be made on a case by case basis.

Honestly, if the mom TRULY believes her son is a Self healer,
she should know he can ALSO self heal from the chemo.

You can always detoxify while you're on chemo...
and after.... as well. (though most people suprisingly do not)
This would be a catalystic action,
to physically uphold one's path as healer of self,
while at the same time going with the high chemo odds they were given.

Just thinking out loud.

 

[theonepaladin]

God is Love. If any religion inflicts pain upon an innocent or ignores the suffering; it is wrong. Christ would never endanger an innocent, and thats what this is.

 

[Luke]

The recent story of Danny Hauser, a 13 year old boy with cancer, has brought into the spotlight the rights of parents to refuse medical treatment for their children.
I really have two minds about the matter.
On one hand, I see refusing life-saving treatment for your child as equivalent to child abuse at best and man-slaughter at worst. You are knowingly subjecting your child to unnecessary pain and suffering, and possibly death, by refusing known remedies.
On the other hand, it does seem a bit murky to force parents to subject their children to treatments they view as bad, sinful, etc.
Where do we draw the line? Should treatment be mandatory?

överens med, the parents are wrong to not let him get medical. how can to save the life be sinful thing. i get medical very much for diabetes and if this were not m y dad and my church to help me i will be die now. everybody need to go to hospital or doctor somtime.

 

[Rakhel]

Most children do know what is going on with their bodies. They know when they are ill, when something hurts, and when it doesn't. The only possible thing they could be uninformed in is the advantages and disadvantages to medicated treatment versus not being treated at all.

Did anyone suppose(tho I think not) that perhaps the child in this case had gone through one or two rounds of chemo and upon becoming violently ill, the parents became concerned. When they brought this issue to the doctors, they were told "We're the experts. We know what we are doing"(I was actually told this. I changed doctors immediately.) This is just an assumption, but seems a logical one to me. Perhaps, this kid made the decision based on his knowledge and wants and not the parents. Maybe the mother is trying to talk him into continuing the treatment.

Also, when doctors first administer Chemo, they give the one-size-fits-all, and hope that it works. Then, when it doesn't, they adjust.

There is too little information to accuse the parents of abuse based on a little article in the weekly times.

 

[themadhair]

There is too little information to accuse the parents of abuse based on a little article in the weekly times.

Court records good enough?
State of Minnesota District Court

 

[Rakhel]

I don't know.
I still can't agree with the idea that a state can force a patient to undergo a medical procedure. It seems unethical to me.
The state may have the patient's best interest at heart, as do the parents. Yet, at the same time, I don't see child abuse.

 

[gnomon]

Danny Hauser's case may not have been a strictly religious situation, but there are plenty of others which are, such as the case of Madeline Neumann.

That's true. I'm merely raising the questions many have raised. That there may be more to the case than religion. It still does not change any aspect of the responsibility required of the parents or the issue of negligence.

Lack of intent is meaningful only to a certain point. In this case it's only the difference between manslaughter and murder.

Lack of intent is a defining factor within manslaughter law. Involuntary manslaughter, such as criminally negligent homicide (which would be applied in this case), is a case without malice intent. I fail to see anything in all reports of this story or any case I've read where children have died due to medical neglect or exorcism where the parents held the intent to kill their child.

 

[Luke]

I don't know.
I still can't agree with the idea that a state can force a patient to undergo a medical procedure. It seems unethical to me.
The state may have the patient's best interest at heart, as do the parents. Yet, at the same time, I don't see child abuse.

the parents there refust t o allow the medical so what choise? if medical is not given to the person he will die. i f medical is given he have chance he will live.

 

[themadhair]

I don't know.
I still can't agree with the idea that a state can force a patient to undergo a medical procedure. It seems unethical to me.
The state may have the patient's best interest at heart, as do the parents. Yet, at the same time, I don't see child abuse.

From the court dox:

24. Dr. Bostrom testified that, in a clinical study conducted on 800 people, only one person died from complications due to the method of treatment prescribed for Daniel. By contrast, and if the oncologists who have diagnosed Daniel are correct with the stated probabilities for survival, a similar group of 800 patients not treated with this course would result in approximately 760 deaths.

When directly requested by Dr. Joyce for authorization to X-ray the mass on May 7, 2009, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the mass was continuing to become larger, the mother declined to allow that X-ray. It is at this point where medical neglect as defined by statute had doubtless occurred. At that point, three different oncologists at three different and very reputable facilities had recommended the identical course of chemotherapy and radiation. Both the family doctor in Sleepy Eye and Dr. Kotulski, the osteopath, agreed with those opinions. Dr. Kotulski's X-ray had indicated the possibility of an increase in the mediastinal mass. The mother's refusal on May 7, 2009 to allow another X-ray constituted a clear failure to provide what was medically necessary to Daniel.

50. The mother testified that she is currently attempting to "starve" Daniel's cancer. Methods of "starving" cancer, according to the mother, include using high pH water to make the body more alkaline, because cancer does not thrive in an alkaline environment. The mother is also treating Daniel with supplements and an organic diet of greens, some protein, and no sugars. The mother testified that she learned about many of these remedies through searching for information on the internet.

Ms. Oliver testified that, in her opinion, Daniel does not understand what chemotherapy is other than that it is something that made him feel sick. Ms. Oliver opined that Daniel does not understand his illness because he does not presently feel sick. Ms. Oliver expressed the belief that Daniel is afraid of chemotherapy because he has been told that his aunt, a sister of Daniel's mother, died from chemotherapy. Ms. Oliver stated that counselling for Daniel and the family regarding chemotherapy would be helpful in this regard.

Ms. Oliver opined that Daniel is not fully aware of what his religious beliefs are. Ms. Oliver testified that Daniel does not truly fully understand Nemenhah. Ms. Oliver expressed concern over Daniel's state of mind and observed that a patient can change his mind regarding treatment if things are presented in a proper way.

Ms. Oliver testified that it would be in Daniel’s best interests for the petition to be adjudicated and for the Hawser family to cooperate with the recommendations of physicians who have examined the child.

Accordingly, and analyzing things from the standpoint of the Minnesota statute, there are five medical/osteopathic doctors who make recommendations for necessary (and indeed very probably life-saving) medical care which have not been followed by the parents. In addition, there are three consulting doctors called at trial by the parents who all acknowledge that the five (5) medical/osteopathic doctors who have seen Daniel are correctly expressing the treatment which is the standard of practice for children with this disease.

This really seems very clear cut. The parents, by withholding required medical treatment, endangered their son’s life. To expose their son to remedies found on the internet, while ignoring the advice of three separate qualified doctors, seems like child abuse to me.

The bottom line is that the kid is simply too young to make an informed decision. To be frank, the kid was also born into a family of such morons that it is almost a joke to have expected him to make an informed decision. Given the evidence as laid out in the dox you really cannot reach any other conclusion other than, at best, gross incompetent negligence or, at worst, unintentional attempted homicide.

 

[Seven]

There's a problem with saying the child has a choice. Of course they do but it's all but been made for them. When I was 13 I would have rejected a blood transfusion even if it cost me my life, but looking back I think it would be completely immoral for a doctor to let me as a child, or my parents for that matter, make that decision.
I'm just bloody glad it never came up.

I've no doubt that if my younger brothers, who haven't yet broken the cycle of indoctrination, found themselves faced with a choice between accepting blood or dying, they would choose death. And I would everything I could to make sure the doctors didn't listen.

 

[Rakhel]

Luke
It is not that simple. How would you feel if a doctor came to you and said that unless you took this medicine, that will kill the disease you have now but may cause more in the future? Is it a simple "yes" or "no" answer? If you said "No i will not take this medicine" and the doctor felt it was the only way to save your life what would stop him from filing a court order forcing you to take it? He has your best interests at heart. Suppose you were in Russia and were illiterate in that language? Does that make it any less right?
There are a lot of factors that include more than a yes or no decision.

 

[gnomon]

Luke
It is not that simple. How would you feel if a doctor came to you and said that unless you took this medicine, that will kill the disease you have now but may cause more in the future? Is it a simple "yes" or "no" answer? If you said "No i will not take this medicine" and the doctor felt it was the only way to save your life what would stop him from filing a court order forcing you to take it? He has your best interests at heart. Suppose you were in Russia and were illiterate in that language? Does that make it any less right?
There are a lot of factors that include more than a yes or no decision.

Is that not what the mother is doing to the child?

There is no "none" option being taken here. The mother has chosen a "medical" route for the child. That "medical" just happens to be an unfounded method against one that has sound reasoning behind it.

If anything your complaint in this case only solidifies that the state holds a greater interest than the mother based on rational grounds.

Now if you throw in the "none" option you have a better case.

If your neighbors child broke their leg and the parents decided to do nothing about it what should be done?

 

[Autodidact]

Luke
It is not that simple. How would you feel if a doctor came to you and said that unless you took this medicine, that will kill the disease you have now but may cause more in the future? Is it a simple "yes" or "no" answer? If you said "No i will not take this medicine" and the doctor felt it was the only way to save your life what would stop him from filing a court order forcing you to take it? He has your best interests at heart. Suppose you were in Russia and were illiterate in that language? Does that make it any less right?
There are a lot of factors that include more than a yes or no decision.

The parents have the right to commit medical suicide by refusing treatment. They do not have the right to kill their child.

This case is not rare. Hundreds of children have died in the U.S. from medical neglect because their parents religious beliefs included a rejection of medical care. The Neumann family is currently being prosecuted in Washington for allowing their 12-year old daughter to die from diabetes. At least a child a year that we know of dies from this cause. I say "that we know of" because most of these families live in isolated, like-minded communities and home school their children. It is only when a relative who does not belong to the church becomes concerned that authorities learn of a specific case. The children die from meningitis, operable tumors, diabetes, appendicitis, and other treatable conditions.

The issue for inidividual states is whether to allow an exception to the general rule that parents who fail to provide their children with medical treatment have the chilren taken away from them, or are prosecuted for child abuse or murder, for families who fail to provide the treatment because of their religious beliefs.

I'm sure no one will be surprised to learn that I am against such exceptions. The reason we have them is an effective lobbying effort by Christian Scientists. The reason I oppose them is whether you have a mistaken religious belief, or are just mean or lazy, your child ends up equally dead. I place protecting children above religious freedom.

 

[Storm]

This is a bit off-topic, and not really directed at anyone here, but I just have to say it.

I find it royally hypocritical that a country that lets its children go without healthcare because people hate taxes and socialism has the gall to condemn people for refusing treatment on religious grounds. It's ok to die of poverty, but not prayer, I suppose.

[/rant]

 

[gnomon]

This is a bit off-topic, and not really directed at anyone here, but I just have to say it.

I find it royally hypocritical that a country that lets its children go without healthcare because people hate taxes ad socialism has the gall to condemn people for refusing treatment on religious grounds. It's ok to die of poverty, but not prayer, I suppose.

[/rant]

You are correct.

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I don't think the mother should be arrested and I don't think any medical treatment should be forced on the child without the parents' consent. When you start saying that you are going to override someone's beliefs for any reason, you are stepping on dangerous ground. There is always the question of where we draw the line, but this is her child, and if chemotherapy goes against their religious beliefs, then it's their business. I mean, Amish people generally don't have to give their kids what our society considers appropriate medical care because of their beliefs. And I agree with Storm, when we have thousands of kids and parents who WANT the medical care but can't get it, why is the media raising a big stink about this one family that has the means to get the care but just doesn't want it?

 

[Autodidact]

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I don't think the mother should be arrested and I don't think any medical treatment should be forced on the child without the parents' consent. When you start saying that you are going to override someone's beliefs for any reason, you are stepping on dangerous ground. There is always the question of where we draw the line, but this is her child, and if chemotherapy goes against their religious beliefs, then it's their business. I mean, Amish people generally don't have to give their kids what our society considers appropriate medical care because of their beliefs. And I agree with Storm, when we have thousands of kids and parents who WANT the medical care but can't get it, why is the media raising a big stink about this one family that has the means to get the care but just doesn't want it?

What if parents don't take their kids to the doctor because they don't want to pay for it or just can't be bothered?

Here's a research article by a pediatrician. "CONCLUSIONS: When faith healing is used to the exclusion of medical treatment, the number of preventable child fatalities and the associated suffering are substantial and warrant public concern."

 

[Autodidact]

Hey Lindsey, weird question for you. Should abortion be legal?