Parents on trial for not forcing chemo treatments on son.

[FoolKiller]

Let me get this straight: Waterboarding, bad. Tying a 13-year-old child down and forcing poisonous chemicals and radiation into his system that causes him to feel incredibly horrible and ill, good. WTF?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30824587/

Warrant issued for mom of boy resisting chemo
Teen and mother skipped court hearing; doctor testified cancer has spread
The Associated Press
updated 3:45 p.m. ET, Tues., May 19, 2009

MINNEAPOLIS - A Minnesota judge has issued an arrest warrant for the mother of a 13-year-old boy resisting chemotherapy after the pair missed a court hearing on his welfare.

Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg also is ordering that Daniel Hauser be placed in protective custody so he can get proper medical treatment for Hodgkins lymphoma.

Daniel and his parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, were due in court Tuesday to tell the judge results of a chest X-ray. But Daniel's father was the only one to appear. He told Rodenberg that he last saw Colleen Hauser on Monday evening, and she told him she was leaving. He said that was all he knew.

The family's doctor, James Joyce, testified that Daniel's tumor has grown and he needs immediate assessment by a pediatric cancer doctor.

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

Daniel and his parents stopped chemotherapy after one treatment and opted for "alternative medicines," prompting Brown County authorities to intervene. The cancer is regarded as highly curable with chemotherapy and radiation, but is likely fatal without it.

The teen had vowed to resist chemotherapy by punching or kicking anyone who tries to force it on him will present doctors with a tough task if they can't change his mind.

"It can be very difficult to treat a 13-year-old boy who doesn't want to be treated," said Arthur Caplan, chair of the medical ethics department at the University of Pennsylvania and an msnbc.com contributor. "I don't want to say it's impossible, but it makes it very tough on the doctors."

Last week, Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg ruled that Daniel's parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, were medically neglecting him.

Rodenberg said if a new X-ray showed a good prognosis, chemotherapy and possible radiation appeared to be in his best interest. Chemotherapy would not be ordered if the cancer was too advanced.

Temporary custody possible
If chemotherapy was ordered and the family refused, Daniel would be placed in temporary custody. It wasn't immediately known where the boy might be treated or how medicine would be administered if he fights it.

Caplan said the medical community recognized a person's right to refuse treatments — but those rights didn't extend to incompetent people or children. Still, he said: "It is hard to treat someone who won't cooperate." Restraints could be used.

Officials at some Minnesota hospitals that treat cancer in children described several methods they would try to break through the boy's resistance.

Dr. Steven Miles, a professor of medicine and bioethics at the University of Minnesota Center for Bioethics, said a hospital may assign a companion to a child, or administer a sedative to relieve anxiety. Sometimes foster homes catering to medically ill children can help by providing a loving environment and education about what the child needs.

"The kid says he's not sick and the mom says she'll treat it if it's an emergency," Miles said of the Hauser case. "With cancer, if it's an emergency, it's too late."

In court testimony earlier this month, doctors familiar with Daniel's case said they would have a hard time administering chemotherapy to Daniel if he resisted.

Dr. Bruce Bostrom, a pediatric oncologist at Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota, and Dr. Vilmarie Rodriguez, a pediatric hematologist and oncologist from the Mayo Clinic, both testified their hospitals had child life specialists and psychologists to help children work through their fears.

Children's also has an integrative medicine program to help patients deal with the side effects of chemotherapy and radiation, with such techniques as massage, acupuncture, aromatherapy, or music therapy.

Brian Lucas, a spokesman at Children's, said ethics experts met Monday to make sure everyone was up to speed on Daniel's case and plan for any possibility.

Caplan said he believed the judge made the right decision.

"This case falls, for me, squarely in the 'You've gotta get him treated' camp," Caplan said. "If it's not life and death, you might not push so hard. If it's not a proven treatment ... you wouldn't push so far."

But doctors may not have to follow the court order "if they feel it can't be carried out — if it's literally impossible to get a needle into this kid," Caplan said.

Dr. Susan Sencer, medical director of the pediatric hematology and oncology program at Children's, said incorporating natural healing techniques into medical care can help. And educating parents is a big part of treatment.

"Cancer is the scariest word in our vocabulary and to hear that your child has cancer just shakes you to your very foundation," Sencer said.

Part of the job of the oncologist, she said, is to help families make sense of what is essentially a "fluke of nature."

OK, I get it. Not treating a child is negligent. But not treating a child that doesn't want it and is seeking "alternative medicines" is not the same in my book. The simple fact that everyone is discussing how to give it to someone who doesn't want it after experiencing it tells me that maybe, just maybe, the parents don't want to torture their child.

They didn't just decide to let him die, they went looking for other methods. Personally, I would make my child get the treatments, but if I were a parent in this situation at this point I would have done the same thing the mother did.

 

[Northstar]

Well the main problem they have is that they are only trying alternatives and not thinking about the chemotherapy. I'm also not sure if it says it in the article as I know what's going on since I live in MN, but the kid is 13 and he is also "special". Last I checked a 13 year old in that state isn't able to make his own decisions about life/death.

 

[Rykon Zero]

I'd force the child to do it even if it didn't want to. Especially if it didn't want to.

 

[FoolKiller]

Well the main problem they have is that they are only trying alternatives and not thinking about the chemotherapy.

According to the article I posted they did do a treatment and opted out after that.

I'm also not sure if it says it in the article as I know what's going on since I live in MN, but the kid is 13 and he is also "special". Last I checked a 13 year old in that state isn't able to make his own decisions about life/death.

Define special.



I also want to make something clear here: If I were the parents I would force him to get the treatments. But I respect a parent's decision in how they chose to treat their child. Had they never sought medical help I would be more likely to be on the side of the courts here.

To me this is the same as parents being charged as negligent when they chose not to put their children on anti-depressants or treat them for ADHD, and even taking away the right of a parent to decide if they can pull the life support on a comatose child. Our legal system has been on a slippery slope with interfering in a parent's choice for treating their child and every case like this just moves us closer to removing those choices from parents altogether and giving sole discretion to doctors.

 

[Keef]

...at this point I would have done the same thing the mother did.

So you would agree that cancer is not an emergency. Okay, just making sure we're on the right page.

I can't tell if it's the kid, the mom, or the judge that is mentally ill. I really can't. I think they all are. The mom thinks cancer isn't important, the kid wants to die, and the judge thinks he controls everyone's rights to life.

I'm about to say that the mom has secretly decided that it's better for the kid to die than live with this cancer any longer.

 

[Northstar]

Well my local news did a thing on the "religion" and it turns out to be ran by a guy that has multiple charges for fraud.

Sorry but even if he was mentally fine he is still 13, we barely allow them to make basic decisions at that age so why all of a sudden should we allow them to decide whether they live or die. Of course no kid wants to get a shot, hell I hate them and I'm 20 but the fact is that what he has is very curable (95% survival with chemo while only 5% without).

As for the alternative treatment it is supposedly a strict diet and sweating, I don't think that will cure anything other than obesity.

 

[Omnis]

I'd force the child to do it even if it didn't want to. Especially if it didn't want to.

Easier said than done. Chemotherapy is a hell that I wish you or your family never have to experience.

 

[TofuStoreDrift]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it is a money issue. I do not believe the mother wants the child to suffer or die, thats why they chose to go with the alternative solution. The hospital does want the child to use the alternative solution because they won't make money. If said child is cured by said alternative, this opens up the chance that others may be cured by the alternative. Hospital then will lose more money, so hospital then tells the judge that the childs life is critical. Of-course, this is just a theory.

I believe the cure for cancer is out there, but politics and money stand in the way. When your bored, research the amount of money the government makes off the issuing of licences for the manufacturing of medical drugs. Then you will ask if yourself, will the government really want you to be cured of illnesses?

 

[Tornado]

Easier said than done. Chemotherapy is a hell that I wish you or your family never have to experience.

This. My grandmother had chemo (she survived the cancer, BTW), and seeing what it did to her was one of the most awful experiences in my life.

 

[Keef]

Sometimes it's a hard decision, to choose whether you die from cancer or die from chemotherapy. A longer life isn't worth so much when you can't even live it. But, the kid is young and still growing. Old people on the other hand are on their way out either way.

 

[FoolKiller]

So you would agree that cancer is not an emergency. Okay, just making sure we're on the right page.

I placed a big if that you forgot to quote. I am saying that if I had opted for one treatment over an other and the legal system decided to force me against my, my spouse's, and my child's choice I would skip town too.

Well my local news did a thing on the "religion" and it turns out to be ran by a guy that has multiple charges for fraud.

What religion? I see nothing in the MSNBC article referring to any religion playing into this. See if you can find the article from your local news station's site. More information will help this discussion.

That said, if religion does play into this, even if it is more cult than religion, then I am even more against the courts on this. Various religions have differing thoughts on certain forms of medical treatments, and throwing out religious beliefs to force treatments is even worse than just forcing an ill-advised parent's hand.

Sorry but even if he was mentally fine he is still 13, we barely allow them to make basic decisions at that age so why all of a sudden should we allow them to decide whether they live or die. Of course no kid wants to get a shot, hell I hate them and I'm 20 but the fact is that what he has is very curable (95% survival with chemo while only 5% without).

He didn't make the final call, his parents did. They may have been following their son's wishes but at the end of the day they are the ones who tell the doctors what to do. That is why they are on trial, not the child.

As for the alternative treatment it is supposedly a strict diet and sweating, I don't think that will cure anything other than obesity.

Some people swear by alternative methods. Personally, I think they are insane, but that does not invalidate the rights of a person to seek them out. What standard do we lay out here? If a parent is crazy and negligent for seeking alternative treatments for their child, then why don't we just judge all medical patients with life threatening disease as mentally incompetent due to the stress of the situation and force them into traditional treatments? Better yet, charge all practitioners of alternative treatments with malpractice.

Easier said than done. Chemotherapy is a hell that I wish you or your family never have to experience.

And I can only imagine the trauma becomes worse if it is forced upon you. I wonder what the emotional health of a 13-year-old would be after that?

Also, if the kid lives due to being forced the judge and doctors involved should probably be preparing their own legal defense when he turns 18. If he dies, they might as well immediately resign, as if I were the parents I would accuse them of nothing short of torture. I would sue for everything possible in civil court and then guarantee their professional reputations are destroyed.

Sometimes it's a hard decision, to choose whether you die from cancer or die from chemotherapy. A longer life isn't worth so much when you can't even live it. But, the kid is young and still growing. Old people on the other hand are on their way out either way.

So, we should determine human rights based on whether someone still has a possible long life ahead of them?


----------------------------

I would like to clarify that the debate here is not whether any of us think he should have chemo. It is a mostly sound treatment for different forms of cancer and I am sure all of us at least know of someone who has had it done. The question is if it is justifiable to force it on someone after they and/or their guardian determine they do not want it.

Personally, I find that fact that only temporary custody until the treatment is done would the end result in this parental negligence case. If they were blatantly negligent it would be full custody of the state. Nothing outside of this case has led legal entities to determine these are bad parents.


I should add a bit of history that may be giving me a more personal perspective on this, whether it is for good or bad.

I have had two heart surgeries. During my second (age 14) I had a seizure and then went into congestive heart failure after. While spending my summer retraining my brain and muscles to move my left arm and leg my parents and doctors were in a debate as to whether or not I should have another surgery immediately to fix the congestive heart failure. After coming out worse than I went in my mother wasn't letting that butcher near me again. Eventually we sought a second opinion from my first surgeon in Chicago who put me on the drug cocktail I am on now. It has been 16 years since and I have led a mostly normal life. What if my doctors had accused my parents of being negligent? Could I be here now typing this? I don't know. What I do know is that the surgeon didn't see me until I was checking out of rehab and only gave my parents my medical records to send after my father stormed his office, on his third visit, in a blind rage (an act which could have easily supported a negligent accusation). Also, if we are to allow religion-based decisions also count as negligent then my doctors could have pointed out that my mother went to the hospital chapel to pray, multiple times a day, every day.

I agree the parents in this case have allowed their emotions to block them from making the best decision here, but my personal experience tells me that a precedent for doctors to over ride a parent/guardian decision regarding treatment can be bad. Doctors have to be arrogant and have to always believe they are right. It comes with the job. An unsure and/or hesitant doctor will get someone killed. That does not mean we setup a system where that natural arrogance will over ride the decisions made by parents/guardians.

 

[Northstar]

The only reason they are refusing the treatment is because of their religion(Link). Obviously you don't know much about this issue yet for some reason also think you know everything about it.

Also it has nothing to do with money, the recent scan before they ran away showed a growing tumor. They are trying to save a child and apparently most people just want to let him die.

 

[TheCracker]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it is a money issue. I do not believe the mother wants the child to suffer or die, thats why they chose to go with the alternative solution. The hospital does want the child to use the alternative solution because they won't make money. If said child is cured by said alternative, this opens up the chance that others may be cured by the alternative. Hospital then will lose more money, so hospital then tells the judge that the childs life is critical. Of-course, this is just a theory.

I believe the cure for cancer is out there, but politics and money stand in the way. When your bored, research the amount of money the government makes off the issuing of licences for the manufacturing of medical drugs. Then you will ask if yourself, will the government really want you to be cured of illnesses?

Just to fight cynicism with cynicism... - if a person is cured of one disease or illness, then surely this opens up the opportunity for new ailments to be fought by other 'government funding' medicine$$$?

 

[FoolKiller]

The only reason they are refusing the treatment is because of their religion(Link).

Thank you, this is an aspect that wasn't covered in the MSNBC article I ran across and I think it does add to it, but again I refer to my previous statements regarding religion. Do we just throw out religious freedoms?

Obviously you don't know much about this issue yet for some reason also think you know everything about it.

If I thought I knew everything about it I wouldn't have asked you to link me to the article referring to religion. I am stating my opinions based on my personal experiences and principals regarding rights. If you find an issue with my opinions, please feel free to discuss it. We are in the opinions forum, and that is what we do here. If I appear to be misled on a fact, then please show me the actual facts so that I can reconsider it. Just telling me I am missing a detail, without showing me those details, adds little to the discussion because I cannot respond to your comments properly.

apparently most people just want to let him die.

Who said that?

 

[Northstar]

The only problem with the religion argument is that there has to be a line where you just can't allow something to go on. Take the polygamists in Texas for example, they believed it was part of their religion to have multiple wives that were barely teenagers. I'm guessing that 99.9% of people didn't have a problem with the authorities raiding the compound and taking the children.

The problem with religion is that it could be used as a loophole if we were to strictly follow the constitution. I could set up a religion and say that paying for stuff is a sin and you have to make a human sacrifice every year and there wouldn't be anything you could do as long as I call it a religion.

 

[FoolKiller]

The only problem with the religion argument is that there has to be a line where you just can't allow something to go on. Take the polygamists in Texas for example, they believed it was part of their religion to have multiple wives that were barely teenagers. I'm guessing that 99.9% of people didn't have a problem with the authorities raiding the compound and taking the children.

The problem with religion is that it could be used as a loophole if we were to strictly follow the constitution. I could set up a religion and say that paying for stuff is a sin and you have to make a human sacrifice every year and there wouldn't be anything you could do as long as I call it a religion.

The line for religion is drawn where it violates the rights of others. Not paying for anything is theft, a violation of rights. Human sacrfice involves killing another human being, a violation of rights. In this case neither son nor parents wish to pursue chemotherapy and do wish to pursue an alternative course. Where is the rights violation? At most the entire family has been misled by their religious leader. From what I can tell there is no ill-intent or desire to allow harm to come to the child.

If we call it negligent then where do we draw the line between parents legitimately disagreeing with a doctor on a medical treatment and negligence? Is the word of a group of doctors all that is required to over ride a parent's right to choose?

 

[Prosthetic]

I'd force the child to do it even if it didn't want to. Especially if it didn't want to.

I've watched my mom for 5 1/2 years struggle with Chemotherapy, and my god are other options better. At this point my mom gets to work maybe 2-3 days a week. When not at work she is laying down in bed for 15-20 hours a day. She gets sick easy because of a poor immune system. She has to do all these check ups all the time, which is a pain since she can't drive because she is on morphine all the time which impairs her driving abilitys. And beyond that, she has lost tons of weight, her hair has thined, she hasn't felt very good since Christmas break (she was off for a few months.)

I say go with alternative medicines. Chemo takes a lot out of your life, more then you could imagine.

 

[FoolKiller]

Here is a CNN article from today where the father is asking the mother to bring the son back. He doesn't appear to have changed his mind, just wants them back.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/20/minnesota.forced.chemo/index.html

Father urges mom and sick boy to come back

(CNN) -- The father of a 13-year-old boy whose family has refused treatment for his cancer is urging his son and wife to come back, after neither of them showed up for a court appearance.

A Minnesota judge issued an arrest warrant Tuesday for the mother of Daniel Hauser after she and the boy did not attend a court hearing. A judge had scheduled the hearing to review an X-ray ordered by the court to assess whether the boy's Hodgkin's lymphoma was worsening.

The boy's father, Anthony Hauser, testified at the hearing that he last saw his wife at the family's farm on Monday night, when she told him she was going to leave "for a time."

He later told a reporter that he would like his wife and son to return.

"I'd like to tell them, you know, 'Come back and be safe and be a family again,' " he said. "That's what I'd like to tell them."

District Judge John R. Rodenberg of Brown County, Minnesota, said that the boy's "best interests" require him to receive medical care. His family opposes the proposed course of treatment, which includes chemotherapy.

"It is imperative that Daniel receive the attention of an oncologist as soon as possible," the judge wrote.

During the hearing, Dr. James Joyce testified that he saw the boy and his mother on Monday at his office. He said the boy had "an enlarged lymph node" near his right clavicle and that the X-ray showed "significant worsening" of a mass in his chest.

In addition, the boy complained of "extreme pain" at the site where a port had been inserted to deliver an initial round of chemotherapy. The pain was "most likely caused by the tumor or mass pressing on the port," testified Joyce, who called the X-ray "fairly dramatic" evidence that the cancer was worsening.

Rodenberg ordered custody of the boy transferred to Brown County Family Services and issued a contempt order for the mother.

A call to the family's home in Sleepy Eye, Minnesota, was not immediately returned.

Philip Elbert, Daniel's court-appointed attorney, said he considers his client to have a "diminished capacity" because of his age and the illness and believes Daniel should be treated by a cancer specialist.

Elbert added that he does not believe Daniel -- who, according to court papers, cannot read -- has enough information to make an informed decision regarding his treatment.

Daniel's symptoms of persistent cough, fatigue and swollen lymph nodes were diagnosed in January as Hodgkin's lymphoma. In February, the cancer responded well to an initial round of chemotherapy, but the treatment's side effects concerned the boy's parents, who then opted not to pursue further chemo and instead sought out other medical opinions.

Court documents show that the doctors estimated the boy's chance of five-year remission with more chemotherapy and possibly radiation at 80 percent to 95 percent.

But the family opted for a holistic medical treatment based upon Native American healing practices called Nemenhah and rejected further treatment.

In a written statement issued last week, an attorney for the parents said they "believe that the injection of chemotherapy into Danny Hauser amounts to an assault upon his body, and torture when it occurs over a long period of time."

Medical ethicists say parents generally have a legal right to make decisions for their children, but there is a limit.

"You have a right, but not an open-ended right," Arthur Caplan, director of the center for bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, told CNN last week. "You can't compromise the life of your child."

 

[Keef]

So, we should determine human rights based on whether someone still has a possible long life ahead of them?

Definitely not. I'm more worried about the parents' seeming indifference toward the cancer in this case. Some old people never even go through chemo because they and their families would rather them have enough energy to actually live their life as opposed to the chemo sapping everything they've got. But it seems like more logical choice for parents of a 13 year old. Yeah, the chemo will be hard on him, but 13 year olds tend to recover quickly from typical injuries. Seems logical that he'd be able to recover from chemo also.

 

[FoolKiller]

Definitely not. I'm more worried about the parents' seeming indifference toward the cancer in this case. Some old people never even go through chemo because they and their families would rather them have enough energy to actually live their life as opposed to the chemo sapping everything they've got. But it seems like more logical choice for parents of a 13 year old. Yeah, the chemo will be hard on him, but 13 year olds tend to recover quickly from typical injuries. Seems logical that he'd be able to recover from chemo also.

It doesn't appear that the parents are indifferent, just not liking what they feel amounts to torture as a cure. They did apparently get him one treatment, then after seeing the side effects decided to look into other stuff.

But then your post is primarily about what would have been the better decision for parents to make, which I agree with. My concern is in regards to rights.

 

[Northstar]

I've watched my mom for 5 1/2 years struggle with Chemotherapy, and my god are other options better. At this point my mom gets to work maybe 2-3 days a week. When not at work she is laying down in bed for 15-20 hours a day. She gets sick easy because of a poor immune system. She has to do all these check ups all the time, which is a pain since she can't drive because she is on morphine all the time which impairs her driving abilitys. And beyond that, she has lost tons of weight, her hair has thined, she hasn't felt very good since Christmas break (she was off for a few months.)

I say go with alternative medicines. Chemo takes a lot out of your life, more then you could imagine.

I have no problem with alternative MEDICINES, but what they are supposedly doing as a treatment is sweating the cancer away. Well I may not be a doctor I'm fairly sure cancer isn't the type of thing you can just sweat off.

Also, hopefully your mom feels better.

 

[Northstar]

Just an update. The mom finally came to her senses and returned voluntarily. Link

Not sure what this means for the treatment but it is good to know that he is still alive.

 

[FoolKiller]

Just an update. The mom finally came to her senses and returned voluntarily. Link

Not sure what this means for the treatment but it is good to know that he is still alive.

On Good Morning America this morning they said that they will obey whatever the judge orders, but that they are going to ask that they be allowed to attempt the alternative treatment first. It is also believed that he will remain in their custody as long as they are working with the judge.


However, I am growing suspicious of their true motives. While in California they hired a documentary crew who paid for their air travel back home. If this crew pays for much else and hangs around for more than just a documentary on the court trial I will wonder if the whole thing is a ruse to get money. Possibly to pay for the treatments?

 

[Danoff]

Someone has to speak for (make decisions for) the child - because he cannot do so himself. We have two choices, we can allow his parents to speak for him, or we can allow the state to do so.

There are about a thousand reasons (many of which are painfully obvious) why we should choose the parents as the decision makers here rather than the state.

That's really all there is to it.

 

[wildo01]

I know chemo isn't a nice experience, but it is the_best_way we have to treat cancer. That kid had an 85% chance of survival if he had chemo straight away, but his mother took that chance away by running away. Without chemo he will die. No herb rubbed on his belly is going to save his life.
Alternative medicine is bull****, I cant believe some of you are on the side of the mother. That child doesn't know what is best, especially if his mother has been filling his head with ridiculous ideas about modern medicine.

 

[wildo01]

I've watched my mom for 5 1/2 years struggle with Chemotherapy, and my god are other options better. At this point my mom gets to work maybe 2-3 days a week. When not at work she is laying down in bed for 15-20 hours a day. She gets sick easy because of a poor immune system. She has to do all these check ups all the time, which is a pain since she can't drive because she is on morphine all the time which impairs her driving abilitys. And beyond that, she has lost tons of weight, her hair has thined, she hasn't felt very good since Christmas break (she was off for a few months.)

I say go with alternative medicines. Chemo takes a lot out of your life, more then you could imagine.

Alternative medicines don't cure cancer.

 

[FoolKiller]

Alternative medicines don't cure cancer.

Can you prove that this particular remedy does not? Is there a study?

I agree with you partially, that in this case what they are looking at will not be a cure, but to throw off any alternative medicine, when old wives tales have turned into modern medicines like penicillin, is a bit quick to judge.

Unless an alternative has been studied scientifically it is premature to immediately say it doesn't work and deem the choice to use it as criminal.

 

[mindwise]

Someone has to speak for (make decisions for) the child - because he cannot do so himself. We have two choices, we can allow his parents to speak for him, or we can allow the state to do so.
There are about a thousand reasons (many of which are painfully obvious) why we should choose the parents as the decision makers here rather than the state.
That's really all there is to it.

I also want to make something clear here: If I were the parents I would force him to get the treatments. But I respect a parent's decision in how they chose to treat their child. Had they never sought medical help I would be more likely to be on the side of the courts here.

It may be a rights issue, but who's rights then?
The rights of the parents, or the child?

I think; since the child cannot make his own decision, it has the right that the best decision be taken for him, the 'source' of the best decission is imo irrelevant.

When i hear 'religion' in such cases, the hairs in my neck straighten, thinking of things like vaccinations such as smallpox, the Jehovah Witnesses 'blood issue' (refusing blood transfusion for their child who'd need it) many issues along these lines exist.

I have no case against adults taking their own religious decision, i am not for it but what can i do, i won't protest.
But a child in my opinion should be protected from that i think.
A thirteen year old child may think very different from it's parents at a later age.

 

[Prosthetic]

Alternative medicines don't cure cancer.

Neither does Chemo... infact all the radiation in your body, its more likely for it to return later in your life.

 

[Danoff]

I think; since the child cannot make his own decision, it has the right that the best decision be taken for him, the 'source' of the best decission is imo irrelevant.

You think the state can make a better decision than the parents? Or you think sometimes the state makes a better decision and sometimes the parents do and we have to decide which one to follow based on how good an argument they make...