Quote:

A 13-year-old boy who has refused treatment for cancer because of religious objections was on the run with his mother on Wednesday after a US judge ordered his parents to take him to a doctor.

Judge John Rodenberg issued an arrest warrant for the boy's mother after they failed to appear in a Minnesota court on Tuesday.

He also ordered that the boy, Daniel Hauser, be placed in foster care and evaluated by an oncologist as soon as he was found.

Hauser was diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma in January and received just one round of chemotherapy and radiation therapy before his parents put him on an alternative treatment that included herbs and vitamins.

The boy's doctor called child welfare authorities when Hauser did not return for treatment in February.

The boy's mother, Colleen Hauser, testified at a May 8 hearing that the family considers chemotherapy a potentially fatal poison, and its use violates their religious beliefs.

The boy's father, Anthony Hauser, testified on Tuesday that he last spoke to his wife at about 4pm on Monday while he was milking cows on the family's farm.

She told him she was going to leave and "that's all you need to know," Hauser testified.

The boy's doctors have testified that he will likely die within five years without treatment. Chemotherapy and radiation would increase his chance of survival to 80 to 95 per cent.

A court-ordered chest X-ray showed that while the first round of treatment helped destroy some of the cancer, it has now grown back to its original size. A medical report noted a "significant worsening" of Hauser's tumour in the past week.

Minnesota law requires parents to provide their children with medically necessary care.

---

Quote:

Alex talks with Diane Miller, attorney and director of the National Health Freedom Coalition. Miller is currently working as an attorney on the case of a 13-year-old cancer patient in Minnesota who was ordered by a judge to take chemotherapy. Alex also covers the important news stories of the day and takes your calls.

---

Quote:

Doctors 'rely on chemo too much'

Doctors are being urged to re-think their approach to giving chemotherapy during care at the end of life.

A review of 600 cancer patients who died within 30 days of treatment found that in more than a quarter of cases it actually hastened or caused death.

The report by the National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death said doctors should consider reducing doses or not using chemotherapy at all.

England's cancer tsar Professor Mike Richards said he was "very concerned".

The group of patients the independent group was looking at represents 2% of the 80,000 people who receive chemotherapy each year.

“ This report provides very disturbing information about the safety of treatment for incurable cancer ”
Professor Jane Maher, of Macmillan Cancer Support

They were all severely-ill patients for which the chemotherapy was mostly being used to manage their condition rather than in an attempt to cure the cancer.

After examining case notes, the group said that 35% of patients received good care.

But it found that in 27% of cases it hastened or caused death - the toxic nature of the treatment can lead to a range of problems, the most serious of which is an infection called neutropenic sepsis.

Report co-author Dr Diana Mort said doctors should be more "cautious in prescribing chemotherapy for very sick patients".

And she added: "The process of consent may require more than one discussion.

"Patients must be made aware of the risks and side-effect of chemotherapy as well as the potential benefits."

Transfer arrangements

The report also criticised the facilities made available to patients with nearly half being admitted to general medicine wards during the last 30 days of life rather than a specialist cancer unit.

The authors recommended where hospitals did not have specialist units they should put in place transfer arrangements to centres that did.

Professor Jane Maher, chief medical officer at Macmillan Cancer Support, said: "This report provides very disturbing information about the safety of treatment for incurable cancer.

"It shows that doctors and nurses need to be much better at helping patients understand the pros and cons of such powerful treatments in the last year of life."

Professor Richards said he was "very concerned".

"I am asking all chemotherapy service providers to consider these reports urgently and to reassess their own services immediately against the measures we have set nationally."

But Dr Peter Clark, of the Royal College of Physicians, said while lessons could be learnt it was important to remember that chemotherapy carried "substantial short and long-term benefit" for the majority who undergo the treatment.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/7722626.stm

---

Quote:

I dont see it necessary or acceptable for the government to step in.

---

MushroomTrip said:

Quote:

I dont see it necessary or acceptable for the government to step in.

---

Why not?
The mother is obviously irrational and has a negative influence on her underage son, so why shouldn't the govt intervene? It's the same old case of unfit parents, and legally (and also realistically, at least in this case, he lacks discernment) the kid isn't legal of age.

---

zouden said:

I think that's irrational.

---

awesomebastard said:

The boy refused treatment.

It's illogical but none of your business.

This is his life not ours, he has made a decision misguided maybe but who are we to force treatment upon someone.

I understand he is a minor, and his parents are likely influencing his thoughts however there is no proof that he didnt suggest this.

I dont see it necessary or acceptable for the government to step in.

My 2 cents.

---

I completely agree.
Although this can be a very interesting topic for discussion , i really see no way of adding anything but your 2 cents.

Nice thread

Quote:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

---

jivJaN said:

Nice thread

---

Quote:

She refused chemotherapy, they gave her 18 months to live without it back in 2003. She's still alive and kicking.

---

If you can't pay your bills, they give you longer to live.

zouden said:

What if the boy was six years old? Or ten? If a little kid says "I don't want to take my medicine, it's yucky" no reasonable person would say, "oh he's made his choice, we can't intervene". You can only say that if you have reason to believe he's made a fully-informed decision. The same would apply to a 14-year-old, I think. That's why he's considered a minor until 18.

In this case, the mother has stated that they are objecting to the medicine on religious grounds. Not medical grounds. I think that's irrational.

---

Redstorm said:

So do you apply the same logic to sex?  As long as a child says they consented, even without knowledge of what the decision means, they should be no legal recourse?

---