Teen's cancer treatment at center of child protection case (family is part Catholic)

[Wampa]

"SLEEPY EYE, Minn. – Daniel Hauser could be like any other teenager in southern Minnesota, tending to his cows.

But this 13-year-old is also at the center of a controversial child protection case. One that raises the question, does a parent have the right to choose his child’s medical care over the advice of doctors?

“It’s really about our rights. It’s more about our religious freedom here,” says Daniel’s mother."

kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=683153

I saw this on my local news tonight. The family is not having the son take chemotherapy for his cancer. The reporter said “The family’s both Catholic and members of the Native American organization, the Nemenhah Band.”

Is there anything in the Catholic faith that would account for this stance? I’m kind of assuming this idea is coming from their Native American spirituality, but I would be interested to hear any opinions on possible Catholic reasons for this move.

 

[JPUSC]

I’m not sure…I don’t think Church teaching is against chemotherapy.

The natural law and the Fifth Commandment1 requires that all ordinary means be used to preserve life, such as food, water, exercise, and medical care. Since the middle ages, however, Catholic theologians have recognized that human beings are not morally obligated to undergo every possible medical treatment to save their lives. Treatments that are unduly burdensome or sorrowful, such as amputation, or beyond the economic means of the person, or which only prolong the suffering of a dying person, are morally extraordinary, meaning they are not obligatory.

The many advances in medicine during recent decades, however, has complicated the decision whether to undergo or forego medical treatment, since medicine can now save many people who would simply have been allowed to die in the past. Further, having saved them, many people continue to live for long periods in comatose or semi-conscious states, unable to live without technological assistance of one kind or another. The following Questions and Answers will address some of the complexities of this issue.

…

**Q. When may medical therapies, procedures, equipment and the like be withheld or withdrawn from a patient. **

A. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states,

1. Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

The key principle in this statement is that one does not will to cause death. When a person has an underlying terminal disease, or their heart, or some other organ, cannot work without mechanical assistance, or a therapy being proposed is dangerous, or has little chance of success, then not using that machine or that therapy results in the person dying from the disease or organ failure they already have. The omission allows nature to takes its course. It does not directly kill the person, even though it may contribute to the person dying earlier than if aggressive treatment had been done.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/end_of_life_decisions.htm

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate

The doctors give him a 90% chance of recovery. How can chemotherapy on a child be burdensome, if the outcome is recovery? The doctors aren’t saying that he has no chance, and chemotherapy would give him a few extra weeks.

I can’t see this as being Catholic.

 

[Carjack1]

Courts rule that he must resume Chemotherapy…

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_he_me/us_med_forced_chemo

MINNEAPOLIS – A Minnesota judge ruled Friday that a 13-year-old cancer patient must be evaluated by a doctor to determine if the boy would benefit from restarting chemotherapy over his parents’ objections.

In a 58-page ruling, Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg found that Daniel Hauser has been “medically neglected” by his parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, and was in need of child protection services.

While he allowed Daniel to stay with his parents, the judge gave the Hausers until Tuesday to get an updated chest X-ray for their son and select an oncologist.

If the evaluation shows the cancer had advanced to a point where chemotherapy and radiation would no longer help, the judge said, he would not order the boy to undergo treatment.

…

 

[Catholic90]

comcast.net/articles/news-general/20090515/US.MED.Forced.Chemo/

Full article in link. Excerpts below:

[The parents] later informed [the doctor] that Daniel would not undergo any more chemotherapy. Bostrom said Daniel’s tumor shrunk after the first chemotherapy session, but X-rays show it has grown since he stopped the chemotherapy.
"My son is not in any medical danger at this point," Colleen Hauser testified at a court hearing last week. She also testified that Daniel is a medicine man and elder (the kid is 13!) in the Nemenhah Band.
The family’s attorney, Calvin Johnson, said Daniel made the decision himself to refuse chemotherapy, (the kid is 13!) but Brown County said he did not have an understanding of what it meant to be a medicine man or an elder. (of course not, he’s 13!)
Court filings also indicated Daniel has a learning disability and can’t read. (and his parents are letting him make medical decisions he can’t possibly understand?!?!)
The Hausers have eight children. Colleen Hauser told the New Ulm Journal newspaper that the family’s Catholicism and adherence to the Nemenhah Band are not in conflict, and that she has used natural remedies to treat illness.
Nemenhah was founded in the 1990s by Philip Cloudpiler Landis, who said Thursday he once served four months in prison in Idaho for fraud related to advocating natural remedies.

 

[Jean_1958]

I’m not sure…I don’t think Church teaching is against chemotherapy.

No. It is not against Church teaching, which is why I find it hard to believe she wants to refuse it on the basis of religious grounds.

Jean

 

[Carjack1]

She ran off with the child. They are looking for her now.

 

[canadianguy1143]

I didn’t know that they were Catholic. I thought they were JW’s or Scientology.

 

[Cobbfmly]

"SLEEPY EYE, Minn. – Daniel Hauser could be like any other teenager in southern Minnesota, tending to his cows.

But this 13-year-old is also at the center of a controversial child protection case. One that raises the question, does a parent have the right to choose his child’s medical care over the advice of doctors?

“It’s really about our rights. It’s more about our religious freedom here,” says Daniel’s mother."

kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=683153

I saw this on my local news tonight. The family is not having the son take chemotherapy for his cancer. The reporter said “The family’s both Catholic and members of the Native American organization, the Nemenhah Band.”

Is there anything in the Catholic faith that would account for this stance? I’m kind of assuming this idea is coming from their Native American spirituality, but I would be interested to hear any opinions on possible Catholic reasons for this move.

There is nothing in the Catholic faith that accounts for their stance. Their stance is derived from the Nemenhah Band and Native American Traditional Organization, which is an educational auxiliary of The Oklevueha Native American Church of Sanpete.

Personally, I think the Oklevueha Native American Church of Sanpete beliefs are not compatible with the Catholic faith, much the same as Scientology is not compatible with the Catholic faith.

 

[Ana]

Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate

Is this quote from the CCC? If so, then chemo certainly seems to fall under burdensome, and possibly even dangerous. Which may imply that their stance could be legitimate even according to Church teaching. Either way I am uncomfortable with the government’s intervention. Chemo being FORCED on a 13 year old, (fought and tied down) could result in extremely dangerous psychological trauma with possible disastrous long term consequences.

 

[wapsi]

Either way I am uncomfortable with the government’s intervention. Chemo being FORCED on a 13 year old, (fought and tied down) could result in extremely dangerous psychological trauma with possible disastrous long term consequences.

Yes, me too. It would be one thing if the child were 8 years old, but by age 13 they have some degree of reason and autonomy. I think the government is going overboard in this situation.

 

[canadianguy1143]

Yes, me too. It would be one thing if the child were 8 years old, but by age 13 they have some degree of reason and autonomy. I think the government is going overboard in this situation.

I’m kinda conflicted on this. In theory the Courts/Government is doing the right thing in **this **case because I believe that it will save the boy’s life but on the other hand, I know that the Courts/government doesn’t always favor in side of life. Look at Terri Schiavo.

I remember in Canada, people of the Sikh religion wanting the law changed mandating Bicycle helmets as its contrary to their religious beliefs. Helmets save lives.

 

[srlucado]

I’m kinda conflicted on this. In theory the Courts/Government is doing the right thing in **this **case because I believe that it will save the boy’s life but on the other hand, I know that the Courts/government doesn’t always favor in side of life. Look at Terri Schiavo.

I remember in Canada, people of the Sikh religion wanting the law changed mandating Bicycle helmets as its contrary to their religious beliefs. Helmets save lives.

I agree; I can see arguments on both sides, but what scares me the most is the precedent. If the state can take a child for this, where does their authority end? With kids who are overweight? With crooked teeth? Unfashionable clothes?

Government never says, “Okay, we’ve messed around enough.” It *always *looks to expand its authority, and allowing so much intrusion into one’s private life will be a disaster.

 

[canadianguy1143]

I agree; I can see arguments on both sides, but what scares me the most is the precedent. If the state can take a child for this, where does their authority end? With kids who are overweight? With crooked teeth? Unfashionable clothes?

Government never says, “Okay, we’ve messed around enough.” It *always *looks to expand its authority, and allowing so much intrusion into one’s private life will be a disaster.

The other thing is how religion is being misapplied to life and death issues. It is reasonable to go for the chemotherapy from what we are being told. To say that its wrong for religious reasons is to misuse religion for what could be a death sentence.

Look at how Al-Qaeda misuses Islam for its purposes.

 

[Ana]

Who gets to decide if the religion is misapplied? As I mentioned previously, I think chemo could reasonably considered burdensome and even dangerous as stated by the CCC.

Science is not infallible. To a mother a child is MORE than a statistic, MORE than a number. Even if in this situation the mother or sons motive comes into question … I think that there could be any number of factors that could weigh more heavily than statistics in a parents choice of medical treatment for their child.

A few examples:
Gut instinct: It is a gift, a built in inner warning system, when properly working is directly geared towards protecting our own offspring.

Religious Convictions: I can think of a few examples where the Catholic expression of our belief in the sanctity of life could be seen as medical neglect in the near future. Euthanasia, etc…

Even a premonition or a divine warning could occur that IMO could trump any numbers. SOMEONE will be in the five percent and what if you just had a knowledge
that even if 95% survived the chemo, that YOUR child was not going to be one of them.

There are many examples in Scripture and through the lives of the Saints that Divine wrnings have and do occur.

What if your Guardian Angel warned you not to do it?

What if your son who was already 13 yrs old has said he will fight and kick and scream if they tried to do the chemo on him. What if he threatened to run away?
What if you were **very **aware of the tremendous psychological damage that would result of a multi year FORCED treatment on a resistant 13 yr old boy. What if it
even made you wonder if it would compromise the effectiveness of the treatment?

It will be the parents and the child that face the consequences of whatever decision is made. If the judge orders chemo and the boy dies, will he and the doctor be charged with manslaughter? Will they attend the graveside service and mourn everyday for their tremendous loss? Will they have to live their lives with an aching gaping hole in their heart? If the answer is no, then it is just not their decision to make.

My opinion may not be popular, but it is the only one that respects
justice. That those who make the decisions pay the consequences and those that pay the consequences are the ones to make the decision.

 

[Ana]

By the way, even if the boy died without chemo, that is not proof that he would have survived with it. But the boys parents would have been charged with (medical neglect/manslaughter), even though in reality it was the Hodgekin’s that killed him. But if he died with chemo, they won’t even list the death as because of the chemo, but of Hodgekin’s, and there would be no criminal charges pressed. Am I the only one that sees the indiscrepancy here?

 

[masondoggy]

Who gets to decide if the religion is misapplied? As I mentioned previously, I think chemo could reasonably considered burdensome and even dangerous as stated by the CCC.

Science is not infallible. To a mother a child is MORE than a statistic, MORE than a number. Even if in this situation the mother or sons motive comes into question … I think that there could be any number of factors that could weigh more heavily than statistics in a parents choice of medical treatment for their child.

A few examples:
Gut instinct: It is a gift, a built in inner warning system, when properly working is directly geared towards protecting our own offspring.

Religious Convictions: I can think of a few examples where the Catholic expression of our belief in the sanctity of life could be seen as medical neglect in the near future. Euthanasia, etc…

Even a premonition or a divine warning could occur that IMO could trump any numbers. SOMEONE will be in the five percent and what if you just had a knowledge
that even if 95% survived the chemo, that YOUR child was not going to be one of them.

There are many examples in Scripture and through the lives of the Saints that Divine wrnings have and do occur.

What if your Guardian Angel warned you not to do it?

What if your son who was already 13 yrs old has said he will fight and kick and scream if they tried to do the chemo on him. What if he threatened to run away?
What if you were **very **aware of the tremendous psychological damage that would result of a multi year FORCED treatment on a resistant 13 yr old boy. What if it
even made you wonder if it would compromise the effectiveness of the treatment?

It will be the parents and the child that face the consequences of whatever decision is made. If the judge orders chemo and the boy dies, will he and the doctor be charged with manslaughter? Will they attend the graveside service and mourn everyday for their tremendous loss? Will they have to live their lives with an aching gaping hole in their heart? If the answer is no, then it is just not their decision to make.

My opinion may not be popular, but it is the only one that respects
justice. That those who make the decisions pay the consequences and those that pay the consequences are the ones to make the decision.

Your opinion may not be popular, but I’m right there with you. I’m horrified that government control has gone this far, and even more horrified that the citizens of this country are in agreement with what the gov’t is doing.

Gov’t has NO business butting in and making medical decisions for children against the parents. This is a huge, HUGE slippery slope and we Catholics had better wake up and start fighting.

I don’t agree with this mother’s decision, but I sure would hate to find myself in a position with one of my kids having a life-threatening condition and the only cure was to use stem cells from an aborted fetus…FORCED on me by a judge. It’s coming soon people.

Oh, and how about my teenage daughter gets pregnant and some doctor decides that the pregnancy could kill her so she has to abort. Oh no problem there, all that doc has to do is go to the judge. The heck with what I say as her mother.

 

[Ana]

Your opinion may not be popular, but I’m right there with you. I’m horrified that government control has gone this far, and even more horrified that the citizens of this country are in agreement with what the gov’t is doing.

I am so grateful that you posted. I have been the lone voice on this issue in real life, and I thought for sure I was going to get flamed when I posted my opinion here. I am relieved to not be the only one to see the writing on the wall.

I am in agreement with the rest of your post as well. I would put a smiley, but nothing about this situation makes me want to smile. I am concerned for our future and the road we are heading down while the frogs happily boil.

 

[petitfleur]

I dont think the government has the right to force treatment- but the father wanted the boy to get the chemo. What about his rights?

 

[masondoggy]

I dont think the government has the right to force treatment- but the father wanted the boy to get the chemo. What about his rights?

I was under the impression that the father was in agreement with the mother at first…until she took off with the kid. I could be wrong, though.