Is it ethical for parents to refuse potentially life-saving medical treatment for their minor children? Consider the recent cases of Daniel Hauser and Madeline (Kara) Neumann in your response.
In the case of Daniel Hauser, his parents refused chemotherapy to treat his cancer (Hodgkins Lymphoma). In the case of Madeline (Kara) Neumann, her parents withheld insulin and chose to treat her Type I Diabetes with prayer.
Background info on both cases is below, followed by video clips.
Daniel Hauser:
Science Blogs (Respectful Insolence) 05/12/2009
Science Blogs (Pharyngula) 05/15/2009
Fox News 05/19/2009
NY Daily News 05/19/2009
USA Today 05/21/2009
KSTP 05/26/2009
CNN 05/26/2009
MPR 05/27/2009
Star Tribune 05/29/2009
MPR 06/23/2009
Madeline (Kara) Neumann:
FoxNews 03/26/2008
CBC News 03/28/2008
Journal Sentinel 04/29/2008
WTMJ 05/15/2009
Religion News Blog 05/20/2009
WTMJ 06/15/2009
Court Filings - Courtesy of WTMJ
AZ Central 07/27/2009
MSNBC 08/01/2009
BBC 08/02/2009
Pharyngula Blog 08/02/2009
Daniel Hauser Related Video Clips:
Madeline (Kara) Neumann Related Video Clips:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
I am so frustrated in this blog. How could a parent refuse treatment to their child that can save them. A parent is suppose to help their child, save them, do anything for them!!!!! These parents should be prosecuted for what they are doing, which is endangerment. I hope that the law will develop fast to protect these children. It makes you wonder why the parent is not treating their child. There is enough evidence that chemo can save many lives or prolong them. The time can bring so many other good resources that treats the disease.
I think it is absolutley crazy for a parent to deny their child treatment for a disease that may help or save their childs life. I have a son and if it came down to him needing treatments for something I would have it done if thats what the physician recommended and said could give him a better survival rate. I would do anything to save my sons life and yes I do beleive in God and his healing powers. In some cases though you need more than prayer.
I am a firm beleiver in natural medicine and prayer. I also know that natural medicine can only help and fix a few minor viruses and sicknesses but not the ones that could possibly turn terminal.
I beleive in some cases prayer isn't enough. Just like some people beleive God can heal maybe they should consider prayer and treatment at the same time. They might just have a better out come with doing both the power of belief is strong and even stronger with the right medicine or treatments.
The right to refuse treatment for minors should depend solely on a case to case basis. The difference in each case would be found amongst the severity and of the treatment. Would the child be put through more pain and suffering from treatment than from the disease itself? Although chemotherapy is a difficult treatment for cancer for even adults, in Daniels case, his parents were wrong in refusing treatment. Hodgkin’s lymphoma symptoms include low-grade fever, night sweats, and weight loss all completely livable “flu” like symptoms. It isn’t until treatment is sought that lymph organs have the potential to enlarge, causing back pain or paralysis if tumor presses on the spinal cord or difficulty breathing if tumor is pressed on the airways, but these symptoms could be avoided with treatment. Since Hodgkin’s lymphoma has a 90% chance of recovery and little painful symptoms leading up to the discovery of the disease, all that’s left to battle is the chemotherapy. Chemotherapy should only be allowed to be withheld in those certain circumstances where the patient is more likely to become terminal regardless of treatment, in those cases, why put the patient through additional rigorous treatments? Daniel was not one of those cases. The courts made the right decision by making the parents treat Daniel’s disease, since the mother fled after the court’s decision, she should now be charged with child endangerment (putting Daniel at even more risk because his tumor is located in his airway), child neglect, and kidnapping. A better question would be why are the parents so eager to refuse treatment to an almost certain treatable disease? The case of Kara is a little more complex, because Kara’s parents were trying a religious based treatment, prayer. Daniel’s parents simply chose to forgo treatment, but Kara’s parents were at least administering prayer, which in their faith could hopefully heal her. Although I completely disagree with not taking Kara to the doctor when her symptoms persisted for over a week, but can understand her parents’ reason. There are many religious people who believe the same as Kara’s parents. It is the combination of prayer and medical intervention/treatment that saves lives and Kara’s death could have been prevented through common treatments in addition to prayer. Although life with diabetes is not easy, it is still life. Kara’s parents should have taken Kara in for a doctor check up after the first week of the symptoms not subsiding. After that initial week of noticing that their prayers were not being answered, they should have added a medical opinion. Kara’s parents claim not to have known she was terminal, but they knew she was sick for about a month and should have taken her to see as a general precaution. It was stated that Kara’s diabetes was un-diagnosed, therefore this really was all simply a tragic accident that hopefully sends a message throughout the religious communities that a illness can lead to death even with prayer.
I think it’s absolutely crazy and stuipid for any parent to think that religion or prayers can safe the life of a sick child. I believe in God, but I think we live in a world today where science and technology can help to improve our lives. I for one do not think that there’s any amount of prayers that will save a sick child. Although we’re parents, I think our children still have the right to an informed dicision. In the Daniel Hauser cancer case, he could not read or write and could not even understand what his parents were doing to him.
There must be limits on the ability of parents to determine their children’s life. We do not allow parents to abuse his or her child. Although the child can’t stand for his or her self, the government will step in and take control in an abuse situation. The cases where parents do not seek medical treatment for their children is very much like child abuse.
The cases of Daniel Hausner and Madeline Neumann is very controversial. These children are minors in which their parents have legal authority over them. This should not give them all authority as is this case in which the children's medical diseases which can be helped with modern day technology. And the parents are refusing to allow chemotherapy in the case of Daniel and insulin in the case of Madeline This in my mind is child abuse although the parents have not physically abused them they are withholding the proper medical attention which can directly harm the children medically. It is nothing but ignorance being showed by the parents. Would you starve your child or not provide shelter? This is in my eyes the same as not providing the children with the chemotherapy or insulin. At some point the state must exercise their obligation to protect the welfare of the children.
I am a father of a 21 month old son. It puzzles me that these parents would put their religious morals ahead of their children's health it is their duty to protect and be their advocate it is a shame that it would take the state to intervene. What the parents lack is common sense and fortitude when dealing with their children's health problems
No I do not think it is ethical for a parent or parents to refuse treatment for their under aged children. As far as I know is there not an unspoken rule, a responsibility a parent partakes in without even blinking an eye, you know if you’re a parent- my child’s health even before my own. Parents put their child first and foremost. Well any sane parent that is! In Madeline Neumann’s case her parents were so wrong. Diabetes is controllable and the little girl could have lived a good life if not for her parents taking care of her. Even though I am Catholic, prayers are not going to cut it, obviously! What a shame the little girl died because the lack of control with insulin. How about the Daniel Hauser case, the parents stating refusal of chemotherapy because of religious beliefs. The first thing that came to my mind was that they were refusing chemo because there was little chance the cancer can be beat and all it would do is make the boy’s last days miserable, but that was not the case he had roughly a 90 % chance of survival with chemo. I agree with a few of the articles that have implied the parents came up with the religious excuse after the first round of treatment. I am sure it is horrible to go through chemotherapy and cannot even imagine if it was my child, but I think the excuse is made up so that they have a chance of refusing treatment now that the courts got involved. I wonder if the parents are totally protecting their child because he has decided that he does not want anymore treatments and he will accept death. If this is the case and my spouse or I was unable to get through to Daniel about how positive the turn out can be I would have seeked professional help and got him talking to a therapist. I really hope it was not the parents brainwashing Daniel into refusing the treatments.
If you have children you must protect them, period! The actions of the parents of both Daniel Hauser and Madeline Neumann are inexcusable in my opinion. For Neumann it was too late, at 11 years old she passed away. However, for Hauser, it was not. Fortunately for him the Minnesota courts stepped in and ruled according to a status that requires parents to provide necessary medical care for their children. I could understand if these diseases had high fatality rates, they did not; both were treatable with high levels of success. Neumann had Type 1 diabetes; compared to other diseases this is not that big of a deal. Type 1 diabetes is an inconvenience, sure, but with medication, a changed diet and dedication these individuals can live a relatively normal life, it’s inexcusable that she died from this disease at such a young age. Hauser’s case is different, its not too late, his mother returned with him so he could undergo chemo for treatment of his Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a form of cancer that is treatable with high levels of success. In some cases I could understand prayer and alternative forms of medicine but that’s only if all other modern mainstream treatments have been exhausted and death is inevitable. There is no excuse to turn the other cheek and rely simply on religion or fate for some of these illnesses.
Neumann was 11 years old, a child, I’m sure she didn’t have any idea what was going on. Her parents robbed her of her life by not treating her diabetes; her mother was convicted of “second degree reckless homicide”, this seems fitting. Now, Hausner was a little older but he was also mentally handicapped. This makes the actions of his parents even greater since he is lacking in mental capacity of some form. Did he really even know what was going on? He was quoted saying he would kick and punch his way out of treatment if it was forced upon him; this makes me wonder if he actually knew the extent of his disease and the results of not treating. Hopefully the treatment works and it’s not too late for him.
Bottom line, children need to be protected! If you’re an adult and you want to refuse treatment, fine, turn it down. Children have rights too; we need to do what’s in the best interest of them when considering medical treatment, even if that goes against ones faith.
Is it ethical for parents to refuse potentially life-saving medical treatment for their minor children?Absolutely not!All parents in their right minds should always do whatever they can to safeguard the well being of their children regardless of their cultural,religious or social economic status or beliefs.Children,being limited in their mental or financial capacity to decide on what is good for them sometimes fall in the mercy of their parents who decides how they should or should not live their lifes and it is a shame that some parents use such things as religious beliefs as scapegoat to justify denying their children life saving medical treatments.
Parents should always do what is right for their children.Its their sole duty as parents to make sure that their children grow up healthy enough to make right decisions about their health in future.By denying their children such life saving treatments, they fail in their part as parents,a role they themselves choose on their own.
In the case of Daniel Hauser and Madeline Neumann whose medical conditions were highly treatable with simple procedures such as insulin injections and chemotherapy,it is absolutely unethical and selfish for the parents to have denied them medical treatment.Given the numerous information provided to these parents by the experts and the risks involved should the parents choose to refuse treatments,these two parents had no right at all to deny their children the treatment.They choose to impose their own believes on their helpless children who depended on them for survival.Their should be stricter laws that safeguard the rights of children in the light of life saving treatments.Their should be a fine line on what decisions parents make for their children and when parents cross these lines,the law should intervene to ensure that no parents take advantage of their children,and that all children grow up to adulthood.
The right to refuse treatment for your child is and isn’t ethical depending on the treatment and its benefits. In regards to both cases we reviewed, the parents were wrong in denying treatment for their children. Religious beliefs or not, the ultimate sacrifice was made for one child and had the courts and FBI not stepped in it would have been two.
Based on Daniel Hauser, from the start I agreed with the courts to force chemotherapy. The religious belief defense appeared to be a legal maneuver to appease Daniel’s misery from the side effects of the chemotherapy. I truly believe the “religion” they were following border-lined on being a cult and taking advantage of its followers. Daniel being mentally challenged was another concern; I don’t believe he truly understood he would die without the treatment. If the outcome would have been his death, I would have expected his mother, father, and Susan Daya to be charged with at least Manslaughter or Negligent Homicide. The only possibly way I would agree to the parents refusing chemotherapy was if the chances of success were minimal or the risk and side effects outweighed the benefit. In this case it clearly did not.
In regards to Madeline Neumann, I want both of those parents serving time. I don’t care if they are “suffering enough” from the loss of their child. They wouldn’t be suffering if they had used common sense and taken their daughter to a doctor. Religious beliefs aside, their daughter had to be suffering tremendously during the last two weeks of her life. Any parent should do what’s best for their child. They didn’t even want to understand what was wrong. Determining what the cause of their daughter’s illness was would at least have shown they had the best interest at heart for their daughter. Whether they chose the treatment prescribed or another approach would have maybe changed the outcome. Ultimately they signed a death certificate for their daughter…to me this is murder. Where were Madeline’s siblings? Why didn’t they call 911 when they saw what was happening to their sister? Maybe the children did not know any better but I don’t truly believe that. This is a heart-breaking tragedy and I fear for the remaining children. These parents should be locked up or at least remove the remaining children from their care. I’d hate to see another life lost over stupidity.
Overall, a parent’s right to refuse treatment should not be a one size fits all law. I think it should be judged on a case by case basis. As we have seen, parents don’t always have their child’s best interest at heart. When the treatment outweighs the disease and will significantly prolong the child’s life with minimal discomfort and complications, treatment should be provided. If a treatment is experimental and the outcome is undetermined the parents have the right to refuse the treatment. However, if the child asks for or agrees to the prescribed treatment then it should be the child’s choice.
I think its crazy that if it works and did the first time you that would be the choice that should be made. How can they claim under the religion when the first time they were open to it and proceeded I think that would be a contradiction to there actions in the past. Anyone can hid anything under the cloak of religion that started less than 15 years ago.
I believe it is unethical for parents to refuse potentially life-saving medical treatment for their minor child. I understand that in the Untied States we have freedom of religion and spiritual practices and the state should have no right to intervene, but when the issue of child endangerment and medical neglect of a minor arises, the state should step in. Yes your beliefs and practices are your prerogative and they should be respected according to the amendment, I feel that state has a right to intervene. Even though the parents may think they have that child’s or their children best interest in mind, when in actuality they are putting the child/children in great danger because of their believes.
Take for interest the Daniel Hauser and Madeline Kara Neumann cases. Both parent thought they had the best interest of the child in mind. In both cases their diseases were curable with medical attention, but both of the children’s parents decided to go with their beliefs and practices.
Daniel Hauser mother was very religions and believed her son could be healed with natural medicine and she opted out of chemotherapy for her son, and fled that state. She believed the chemotherapy would make him sick or even kill him, even thought the chemotherapy seemed to be working. This child has only 13 years old and like any other child he believed his mother, he never thought his mother would steer him wrong. Fortunately this case was brought to the public eye which saved Daniel because his tumor had grown while we was going the natural way vs. chemotherapy, which proved natural medicine was not working.
Unfortunately for the Madeline Neumann the medial and the state were unable to help her. Her parents deserved to go to jail; they watched their 11 year daughter waste away and die. Diabetes is curable if detected early even enough, they should have gotten that child help, the main concern as a parent should be the safety on your child/children Madeline’s parents did not believe in doctors or medicine they believed that healing comes through the power of prayer but when you see a decline in health after all the praying you have done, you should get help. I also believe healing comes through the power of praises, but with the help of doctors and medicine. If Madeline was 18 and this was her choice I would be ok, but this was her patents choice and because she was a child she believed what they said she went along with it. She was a child that didn’t have a say so over her life.
In both cases these beliefs and practices were those of the parents. Whose to say that these children would have or wanted had the same beliefs as an adults or when they were old enough to deicide. Religious beliefs and practices change the all time do to personal preference, partners/spouses, and family, etc. Either way they would have the right to choose. Daniel Hauser parent’s received the chance to make it right for their child, unfortunately it’s was too late for Madeline Neumann.
When children become hurt or ill it is expected that the parents would have the presence of mind and maturity to make decisions for their children which are in the best interest of the child’s health and well being. While I do support medical autonomy and freedom of religion, I do believe that state is within its rights to step in and intervene on behalf of the child. Refusal of treatment may be reasonable when the expected outcome is little improvement or poor quality of life for the child even with treatment. Also, I do believe that parents may be able to seek alternative means of treatment, perhaps less invasive treatments before considering the more traditional methods of practice and only in the event that such alternative means taken would not be detrimental in regards to the immediacy of treatment. On the other side of the coin, I do not believe treatment should be denied when conditions can and would have successful and favorable outcomes. In the cases of both children, with treatment the impact would be highly favorable for both. Daniel Hauser’s lymphoma was diagnosed to have an 85-90% success rate and Madeline Neumann’s Type I Diabetes is very treatable with insulin and monitoring. Reasonable medical treatment for both children would have yielded very favorable results and an expected normal life. Ultimately, treatment should not be denied when favorable and reasonable results are expected.
After hearing the videos and analyzing the case I think it’s unconceivable. In the case of Daniel Hauser, where he has lymphoma, a type of cancer where it can be cure by using kimo- therapy and instead the mother oaths to refuse the treatment because of her religious beliefs. I am like shocked if the doctor said that she has a 90 percent of being cure by using kimo-therapy I will like not even hesitate to put my child in that treatment if I knew if is going to save my child. I believe in God and I believe in prayer but sometimes we have the help in front of us and we refuse to grab it. Common, this is insane! I am thinking, the mom is a total ignorant. How is she going to put a child life in jeopardy? As I was hearing in the video tapes the mom told the child that he was a medicine guy in their religious beliefs, common the 13 year old kid does not even know how to write or read because the parents did not put the kid in school before all this happen. The mother totally is crazy! Daniel Hauser got worse the natural medication that her mother was given him were not working and of course he had cancer he needs something more than natural medicine to cure him and kimo-therapy is the way to go. I respect each person beliefs; because we are in a country of free will of choosing our own religion and freedom of speech but people should not put somebody else life at risk if medicine today can save a person life will go for it. I don’t know why can’t prayer and today medicine can work together I think is a win, win situation.
Post a Comment