• Welcome to our new home!

    Please share any thoughts or issues here.


What? Judge Napolitano sticks up for the Gov. in the Chemo Case

Epic

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2008
Messages
3,432
Just now on Fox, Judge Napolitano said that the government was right to order that kid to have chemo when both he and his parents didn't want it.

This is absolutely ridiculous. How can the government know what works medically and what doesn't?

And this is out of the mouth of somebody who says "Every individual is more moral than the state."
 
Last edited:
This is probably in line if the parents are beating the kid an the kid doesn't mind. In other words the kid hasn't reached the age of majority which is where the government has considered the individual legally competent to be able to decide for themselves. The parents could probably be tried for neglect.
 
The parents aren't "beating the kid".

They want to use a different medical technique. Since when should the government control what medical techniques private citizens can use?
 
Here's the story for reference. I'd like to see exactly what Judge said before making judgment.
NEW ULM, Minn. — A Minnesota judge issued an arrest warrant Tuesday afternoon for the mother of a 13-year-old boy who is resisting chemotherapy for cancer after she and her son failed to show up at a court hearing.

Daniel Hauser was diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma in January and received his only chemotherapy and radiation treatment that month. He did not return for a second treatment in February and the family began substituting alternative care, including herbs and vitamins.

His doctors notified child-protection officials, prompting Brown County Attorney James Olson to file a child-neglect petition.

Anthony Hauser, the father of Daniel Hauser, testified that he doesn't know the whereabouts of his son and his wife, Colleen.

Anthony Hauser said he last spoke to his wife at about 4 p.m. Monday as he milked cows at the family's farm in Sleepy Eye, Minn. He said his wife told him she was going to leave and "That's all you need to know."

Tumor grows back

Earlier in the afternoon, the boy's family physician, Dr. James Joyce, said that he took an X-ray of Daniel Monday, which showed that his tumor had grown back to its original size after responding well to treatment in January.

Joyce said he gave Colleen Hauser the names of three oncologists, but she declined to take them. He said that another woman accompanying Daniel and his mother told him they had to leave for another appointment. She was identified in court as California attorney Susan Daya.

A medical report filed with the court noted a "significant worsening" of the boy's tumor since May 13. The doctor said the boy complained of severe pain around a "port" that was placed in his chest in January to administer cancer-fighting drugs, pain probably caused by the tumor pushing at the port.

County Attorney James Olson said the judge's order will allow officers to arrest Colleen Hauser in any state. "We don't know where she is, and we're all pretty concerned about Daniel and getting him into treatment." He said the mother will be jailed when arrested, but "she can get out by producing Daniel."

On Friday, Judge John Rodenberg ordered the parents to take the boy for a chest X-ray to see how his Hodgkin's lymphoma was progressing, and to choose an oncologist for probable treatment.

Testimony at hearing


Colleen Hauser testified at the May 8 hearing that use of chemotherapy, which they regard as a potentially fatal poison, violates the family's religious beliefs. She said they prefer natural remedies such as herbs and vitamins that they began after Daniel's only chemotherapy treatment in January, shortly after he was diagnosed.

Daniel's doctors testified during an hearing May 8 that with chemotherapy and perhaps radiation, his chance of survival was 80 to 95 percent; without it he likely would die within 5 years.

In addition to issuing an arrest warrant today for Colleen Hauser, Rodenberg ordered that Daniel be turned over to Brown County authorities and be placed in foster care.

Once that happens, he ruled, Daniel's condition must be immediately evaluated by a pediatric oncologist.

A court-appointed attorney for the boy had recommended that custody of the boy be transferred to Brown County.

Rodenberg noted that all five doctors who had examined the boy agreed on the recommended course of treatment.
 
This is probably in line if the parents are beating the kid an the kid doesn't mind. In other words the kid hasn't reached the age of majority which is where the government has considered the individual legally competent to be able to decide for themselves. The parents could probably be tried for neglect.

This. I don't think it would be too difficult to argue the parents are demonstrating gross neglect for the child's well-being.
 
This reminds me of the case where a girl died because her parents chose to pray for her instead of seeking medical help for a treatable form of diabetes.
 
As owner of his own life, the child himself should be able to make up his own mind what kind of treatment he wants.
 
This. I don't think it would be too difficult to argue the parents are demonstrating gross neglect for the child's well-being.

The government demonstrates gross neglect for every person's well-being.
 
This is probably in line if the parents are beating the kid an the kid doesn't mind. In other words the kid hasn't reached the age of majority which is where the government has considered the individual legally competent to be able to decide for themselves. The parents could probably be tried for neglect.

You might want to reference this from a case similar in Utah

http://www.patriotsaints.com/MyChildMyChoice/cases/ParkerJensen/

As to Napolitano saying the state was right; he just lost my vote of confidence and I will not be watching the show any longer.
 
And check out this case which got a lot of national attention a couple years back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_v._Cherrix

The kid used alternative medicine and now he is all better.

"In Mexico, he underwent the controversial herbal Hoxsey Therapy, which has been illegal in the United States since 1960 because it is known to be ineffective."

The kid DID NOT use poisonous chemo and now he's just fine.

But I digress. The issue is not whether chemo is good or not, that is irrelevant to the principle. The principle is that the state should have no say over medical decisions.
 
Last edited:
I disagree with the Judge on this one, but I understand where he is coming from. He cares about the kid, and knows that an effective treatment is available, and thinks the parents are neglecting the kid.

Now, in a perfect world, the kid would be informed enough to make his own decision, and nobody would question his decision regarding his own personal well-being.

The reality is, Mom is making the decision for him. Her decision may result in a positive outcome, but our knowledge of cancer at this time suggests that the likelyhood is higher that the result will be negative and ultimately the death of the child. If we grant that parents have guardianship over their children and are entrusted with their well-being, then we cannot interfere with that mother's decision, be it good or bad, and she will have to live with the consequences if her decision is wrong.
 
This kinda reminds me of a story from years ago. There was a couple that were
prosecuted for the death of their kid. He had an intestinal blockage & instead of getting a
simple procedure to fix it his parents prayed & laid hands over him (I think they were
Christian Scientists if I remembered correctly). Anyway over a week or two the boy died
with literally 40 lbs. of shit in him. I can't remember if they were prosecuted for murder
or manslaughter but that had to be a brutal way to die.
 
Since death is a question of when, not if, there's nothing wrong with people taking risks that could result in choosing their moment according to existing circumstances and desires. The only troublesome thing here is that this is not an adult, and furthermore he's a learning disabled kid as well, can't read at 13. There's been some speculation that they've holed up on an Indian Reservation somewhere, but that's speculation.
 
I don't like this assumption that there is only one kind of treatment for cancer. It seems like paying for your death I don't like it one bit.
 
I don't like this assumption that there is only one kind of treatment for cancer. It seems like paying for your death I don't like it one bit.
"With chemotherapy and perhaps radiation, his chance of survival was 80 to 95 percent; without it he likely would die within 5 years"

Tough call I guess.
 
This kinda reminds me of a story from years ago. There was a couple that were
prosecuted for the death of their kid. He had an intestinal blockage & instead of getting a
simple procedure to fix it his parents prayed & laid hands over him (I think they were
Christian Scientists if I remembered correctly). Anyway over a week or two the boy died
with literally 40 lbs. of shit in him. I can't remember if they were prosecuted for murder
or manslaughter but that had to be a brutal way to die.

lol that's a pretty bad way to go out....

On the serious side, no amount of anecdotes on either side of the equation really changes the principle. Does the government make medical decisions, or does the family? If the government made people's medical decisions all throughout history, there would be so many negative anecdotes of government doing the wrong thing due to crazy medical techniques.
 
Oh yeah I almost forgot, when the Judge was talking about the case on TV, he said that when he was a judge, he decided on cases like this "with his heart."

With his heart?

If people governed "with their hearts" they'd all be bleeding-heart do-gooder liberal communists.
 
OK, so you spotted them on the sidewalk 2 minutes ago. Do you call the authorities?

Me: No. Its between them and the court, I want no part in it either way.

So you noticed they climbed into the back seat of your car, scrunching down to hide, in the hotel parking lot- while the authorities are busy at the front desk finding out which room they were in. Do you get in your car and drive them to another town?

Me: No. Its between them and the court, I want no part in it either way. Let the chips fall as they may.
 
I disagree with the Judge on this one, but I understand where he is coming from. He cares about the kid, and knows that an effective treatment is available, and thinks the parents are neglecting the kid.

Now, in a perfect world, the kid would be informed enough to make his own decision, and nobody would question his decision regarding his own personal well-being.
With rights come responsibilities. Children do not have the maturity or mental capacity to understand the responsibilities that come with those rights. Therefore their rights are limited because their ability to be responsible with those rights are limited.

We don't let children walk around with a hand gun now do we? This is a prime example.
 
Back
Top