MN family wants court out of son's cancer case
By AMY FORLITI Associated Press Writer
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) - The parents of a Minnesota teenager who once fled the state to avoid chemotherapy are asking a judge to end the court's role in the case.
Thirteen-year-old Daniel Hauser is undergoing radiation for Hodgkin's lymphoma. He finished his chemotherapy treatments in early September.
In an affidavit filed in Brown County District Court, Daniel's mother, Colleen, says the family is following the court's orders and the advice of doctors. She says the county doesn't need to supervise Daniel's treatments because there's no evidence he's being neglected.
Colleen Hauser says the family will make sure Daniel gets the best medical care. They initially rejected chemo for religious reasons, saying it harms the body.
A hearing is set for later Monday.2009-10-26 16:31:03 GMT
http://news.findlaw.com/ap/other/1110/10-26-2009/20091026095007_04.html
This is interesting. Does the court have the right to tell parents what kind of treatment to get for their child? I understand the court's point of view to have the childs best interest at heart but if the parents were denying chemo thereapy for religious reasons then does that make a difference? Also, since the court seems to have such a role as to making sure the child is receiving chemo therapy shouldn't they have to pay for it becuase im sure it's not cheap. I'm on the border with this one. The court wants to save the child's life but at the same time, they have to respect the family's religious views and civil rights. There are no signs of neglect in this case only a preference of treatment.
ReplyDeleteThis article is compelling because it underscores the tug-of-war between the rights of parents to make medical decisions on behalf of their children and the resposibility of government to intercede on a child's behalf--a child who is legally incapable of making such a decision for himself. Adults often will tell their children to do something "for their own good." This is because children do not have the foresight and capacity to understand that sometimes people must do things that are uncomfortable at the time, but in the long run the benefits of such action bring about a desirable result. When parents are making decisions on their children's behalf that will most likely have an extremely negative effect on the health and welfare of the child, the government has a responsibility to intercede. I definitely believe that people should be free to decide for themselves what course of action they want to take for themselves personally; however, when a parent forces the repercussions of their beliefs on a child, that child is at the mercy of bad decision-making and should be protected. Protecting the rights and welfare of children must necessarily come before protecting the rights of adults.
ReplyDelete