Hearing Set For Boy Forced To Get Chemo

Judge To Receive Update On Minn. Teen Who Fled With Mom To Avoid Cancer Treatment

(AP)  A Minnesota judge expects to get an update on the condition of a 13-year-old boy who fled the state to avoid chemotherapy.

A hearing on Daniel Hauser's case was set for Tuesday afternoon.

Daniel was diagnosed with childhood Hodgkin's lymphoma in January but resisted chemotherapy, citing a preference for alternative treatments.

When authorities attempted to compel the Hausers to treat the cancer conventionally, Danny and his mother fled for about a week in May. They returned to their Sleepy Eye home and were ordered by a judge to see an oncologist.

Attorney Barbara Gislason says Daniel is receiving chemotherapy, though the family is still seeking alternative treatments.

Gislason says Daniel has had acupuncture and acupressure to help ease pain.

[jj2014-2009]

The commenter Susan is incorrect. Jehovah's Witnesses do NOT allow blood transfusions for their children. Hospitals must apply for court orders to transfuse JW Children, and those children's JW Parents generally will fight the application tooth and nail. Even now, there are a few scattered hospitals and even Judges who side with the JWs, and allow the children to DIE!!!

SUMMARIES OF 1400 JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES MEDICAL & OTHER COURT CASES


The following website summarizes over 900 court cases and lawsuits affecting children of Jehovah's Witness Parents, including over 400 cases where the JW Parents refused to consent to life-saving blood transfusions for their dying children:

DIVORCE, BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS, AND OTHER LEGAL ISSUES AFFECTING CHILDREN OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES

http://jwdivorces.bravehost.com


The following website summarizes over 500 Jehovah's Witnesses Employment related lawsuits, etc, including DOZENS of court cases in which JW Employees refused blood transfusions, and/or other cases involving Worker's Comp, medical, health, and disability issues:

EMPLOYMENT ISSUES UNIQUE TO JEHOVAH'S WITNESS EMPLOYEES

http://jwemployees.bravehost.com

[saturn05]

This patient is a child and the rules are different for children. Our whole society is based on the welfare of the child and this case is no different. Yes chemo makes you sick and tired, but being alive is better than being dead if you don't have to be. As the saying goes, no one said life is fair. Five out seven of my dad's siblings have cancer with my dad being the only one alive out of the five. They all have had lymphoma, both non-hodgkin's and hodgkin, so I am talking about seeing the effects in person. He in all liklihood would be dead without the chemo and to me that is a crime. He may suffer for awhile, but he has a lifetime ahead of him with this medical intervention. So why is this case any different that any other case of child welfare. It is the right thing to do to make this child get the chemo. It isn't right to let him die a certain death because of some crazy thought of a miracle alternative cure. If there was alternative medicine available that would be any better, don't you think someone would be making millions off of it by now? The parents should be arrested.

[SusanStoHelit]

Anyone who fully understands the consequences can refuse treatment. That means they need an adult understanding of death - something this illiterate child who doesn't even think he's sick (testimony by the child in court) doesn't remotely have.

Parents are not allowed to let their children die however - that is a decision that can only be made by the person who is to die. To let this child die because the parents think it will be easier or might improve their status in a religion - that is pure child abuse. We don't let you kill your children - not directly, not through neglect either.

95% chance of death - this is an aggressive cancer, it kills - all the time. 90% chance of the treatment curing it. Zero alternative treatments that have any odds of working. This is a straightforward case.

Jehovah's witnesses who don't believe in blood transfusuions still must get them for their children when that is the only way to avoid death. Parents who starve their children to death feeding them only a special religiously assigned diet are prosecuted for the murder. Parents are guardians for children - they are not our possessions, they are not our toys, they are not animals we can just kill if we feel inclined.

[rf35]

How can authorities force someone to get treated? It is a patient's right to refuse treatment. It is on the doctor to fully inform them of the possible consequences of refusal, but it is ultimately the patient's decision (or in the case of a minor like this one, the parent's). If the mother and child both agreed that chemo was not the way to go, then that should be the end of it.

After further review of the case, the boy's parents are obviously idiots, probably mentally ill. Nevertheless, it is still wrong to force treatment on someone. Unless and until the parents are found incompetent by the proper authorities, their decisions are still valid. That's the way the system is supposed to work. Forcing the chemo opens up a can of worms for both patients' and parents' rights. Unfortunately, stupidity is not a bar to breeding...yet.

[rf35]

How can authorities force someone to get treated? It is a patient's right to refuse treatment. It is on the doctor to fully inform them of the possible consequences of refusal, but it is ultimately the patient's decision (or in the case of a minor like this one, the parent's). If the mother and child both agreed that chemo was not the way to go, then that should be the end of it.

[SusanStoHelit]

Anyone who fully understands the consequences can refuse treatment. That means they need an adult understanding of death - something this illiterate child who doesn't even think he's sick (testimony by the child in court) doesn't remotely have.

Parents are not allowed to let their children die however - that is a decision that can only be made by the person who is to die. To let this child die because the parents think it will be easier or might improve their status in a religion - that is pure child abuse. We don't let you kill your children - not directly, not through neglect either.

95% chance of death - this is an aggressive cancer, it kills - all the time. 90% chance of the treatment curing it. Zero alternative treatments that have any odds of working. This is a straightforward case.

Jehovah's witnesses who don't believe in blood transfusuions still must get them for their children when that is the only way to avoid death. Parents who starve their children to death feeding them only a special religiously assigned diet are prosecuted for the murder. Parents are guardians for children - they are not our possessions, they are not our toys, they are not animals we can just kill if we feel inclined.