Daniel Hauser

I'm wondering what you all think of this case.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/05/19/2009-05-19_arrest_warrant_issued_for_mother_daniel_hauser_13yearold_resisting_chemo_for_tre.html

Personally, I think the parents should have their son go through chemo, but that is my personal opinion. I think it's a slippery slop to have the state involve themselves in families health decisions. Yet, in many cases, they are. I started thinking about this, apparently, Daniel has decided not to go ahead with chemo. Now, at 14, I don't think he has a complete understand of the situation but then again, I also don't think a 14 year old female has a complete understanding concerning abortion but is allowed to get one without parental notification.

What I find surprising is so many people who favor the right to an abortion have no problem with the state getting involved in this boys life. Is this a double standard?

The parents' refusal to follow through with the chemo is tatamount to child neglect. I saw this story on the news this morning. He has non-hoctkins lyphoma and he had great chance to survive it. They did one treatment and stopped. Since then the tumor has grown and the lad will probably die.

I am not sure how much their Catholic Faith has played a role in the Mom's decision. They also subscribe to natural remedies perscribe by an indian tribe I have never heard of.

There was to be a court hearing and Mom and the boy did not show. Mom has subsequently fled.

They interviewed Dad. He said his wife sometimes makes rash decisions and is prone to fly off the handle. He offered no input into why they didn't treat the boy, it looked like Mom was running the show.

I feel bad for the boy.

think this is neglect. I'm just not sure I agree with the state forcing anything on the family. I also find it very hypocritical that many are calling for the parents to be charged in this case (though, IMO, the boy is ill informed, he made the decision not to go through with chemo), when the very same people do not want parents to have a say when their child has an abortion. What they are basically saying is that the child doesn't know what's best for him in this case but a 14 year old getting an abortion does know what's best.

Heck, in our state you can't even get a tatoo without your parents' permission while you're a minor--but an abortion? No problemo.

These "alternative" treatments sound like hocum, but it's not really surprising that people reject the authority of Western medicine. You tell people to Question Authority often enough, and they'll do it.

Regarding the boy's age, and the comments on age-related limitations, I see that the new Congress and Obama are proposing a credit card law that says no one can get a credit card without a parent's signature if he or she is under 21 years of age.

It's funny what we think children are capable of and what they're not.

I'm not so sure that it's a double standard we see so much as the same standard at work: in both cases, the state is presuming to act as a parent, isn't it? In the case of abortion for minors, the state presumes to grant to children a "right" which allows them to bypass their normal relationship with the parents and receive "medical treatment". I suppose the analogy would be more apt if the child wanted the treatment and the parent's didn't. :?:

comes into play, imo, in regards to the people who support the state in this case. They want the state out of their families medical decisions when the topic is abortion or euthanasia but not for cancer treatment in other peoples families. There are some wonderful homeopathic medicines out there but I think it's dangerous to ignore one over the other.