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
BBC 10/07/2009
Daniel Hauser Related Video Clips:
Madeline (Kara) Neumann Related Video Clips:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
Since the dawn of time there have been several medical advances that have cured most common illnesses or prolonged their harmful effects, I believe that it is unethical for parents to refuse potentially life-saving medical treatment for their minor children.
Daniel Hauser the 13 year old boy with Hodgkin’s lymphoma was doing just fine when he was on chemotherapy, however with the religious beliefs of his parents Daniel was what urged him to discontinue his chemotherapy and given the therapy prescribed by his parent’s religion which was Nemanhah which believed in cures through herbs and natural remedies. Daniel was not getting any better with the remedies he received through his parent’s religion. Daniel’s tumor got worse and he was given the ultimatum that his chances of recovery without chemo would be 5%. I felt that this type of healing was unethical because there is an extent to the power of healing through herbs and remedies. And since so many questions arose upon this matter I have one question that I would love to ask his parents, if God allows us to heal ourselves through prayer and remedies then why did he create doctors? Why were doctors placed on this earth then if not to have any purpose? Being Roman Catholic, I felt that their view along with that of the Nemanhah band were conflicting Catholics believe that the power of healing is ok to a certain extent because as far as I know back then Jesus was the only one that could heal through miracles. The utter fact that Daniel was told he was a medicine man without knowing the meaning brings up the big fact that the child isn’t mature enough to make an educated decision in the interests of his own health.
Now in the case of Madeline Neumann, the parents had no clue that the little girl suffered from Type I Diabetes which was neglect on their part for not noticing the abnormalities in her well-being. Having a father with Type II Diabetes I have come to understand the seriousness behind the illness and that the symptoms aren’t unnoticeable. The part that seems to puzzle me most about this case is the EMT’s were not called until after the child stopped breathing while she was in the middle of a prayer circle lead by her parents. I’m sorry but if they sat there and watched their child die they are clearly showing signs of child neglect. It was a clear case that was to me unethical because the child was seen gasping for her last breaths by the people who are supposed to take care of her the most…her parents. Madeline Neumann’s death was a tragedy in which it was the killing of an innocent life.
The healing powers of prayer in my opinion only work to a certain extent and they most importantly shouldn’t be a priority in the case of a child dying of an illness that can be cured by common medicine. Yes, the refusal of care is unethical to me especially because the child in question may not believe that same things that their parents believe in. The child not having the right to choose was disastrous in both cases. Medical advice and cures should be left up to the professionals (doctors) who deal with these sorts of things every day. It all goes back to the analysis of what’s right vs. wrong. Ethics were not anywhere close to these two cases because they were both unethical in the fact that the children were stripped of their rights to live and their rights as far as what they believe in.
After reading both major cases, I do not believe that it is ethical for parents to refuse potential life-saving medical treatment for their minor children. I do agree however, that families should have the right to deny potential life-saving medical treatment if it is somehow against their religion.I believe this is an invasion of a person's rights. However, I believe that the parent should not be able to make this decision because it is THEIR religion, not the childs. If the child does not believe in the parent's religion, they should not be forced to not have the treatment because of their religion. However, this is a problem when the child is very young and cannot decide for themselves if this religion is for them. At a young age, I believe most children are unable to make major decisions such as religion. So they turn to their parents for guidance until they can reach that age where they can "think for themselves". I believe this was a factor in both cases and the children were not old enough to make the religion decision for themselves.
I am against the state dictating what we can and cannot do with our selves, however, when it comes to children that must rely on an adult to make a rational decision between life or death, religion or modern medicine and the parents refuse to choose the modern medicine side, then let the courts go forward with their dictatorship. My opinion is that God has given the gifts and talents to specific people to improve quality of life and I agree with the judge's statement in the Kara Neumann case. He told the parents that, "God probably works through other people, some of them doctors." (BBC News Article, Wednesday, 7 October 2009 14:16 UK) You can't help but wonder what on earth people are thinking of when they make decisions on behalf of their children that could potential lead to that childs death. In the case of Daniel Hauser, I believe that the parents are in financial red tape and when they saw how much the cost of treatment would be to continue, they backed out. Why else would they begin treatment in the first place if they had been of this particular religious belief, the Nemenhah Band? You don't start the use of modern treatment if you are a solid believer of your faith ever, right? Like the Neumann's never once took Kara to the hospital because they believed 200% that their prayers would heal Kara. That is solid belief in your faith, however, wrong it may be, I don't question that the Neumann's had an alterior motive for what they did. I do question the Hauser's and what their motive was to seek treatment knowing it was successful and would allow Daniel to live and then to stop all of a sudden based on this ridiculous cult they, in my opinion, decided to become part of out of convenience. No it is not ethical for any parent to keep a minor child from receiving treatment that could give that child over a 95% rate of living a full life. If they could provide statistical proof that their alternative medicine choices had even close to just a 75% rate of improving the quality of life for their child then sobeit, but clearly, since one child has already died from ineffective prayer and the other child could die without more chemo treatment then the courts are within their rights to impose what they see best for the minor child.
As one physician pointed out, there is a distinction drawn between experimental treatments and treatments with high success rates. Chemotherapy is extremely taxing on the body, it is not pleasant and the side effects are numerous, however the life saving potential of the treatment greatly outweighs the temporary harm. The children in these cases were not dealing with the flu or a broken bone that may or may not heal with many options for treatment. The girl was suffering from type 1 diabetes and simply needed the insulin to survive. No amount of prayer will make Jesus come down from heaven and give the girl a new pancreas or make the one she has function properly. The signs and symptoms of hyperglycemia are numerous and the simple fact that her parents never thought to let their child see the doctor is somewhat ridiculous, though understandable considering their outlook. I think in both these cases the intent of the parents was not to do harm, although their ignorance largely led them to acts of severe neglect. It is fine if they want their own religious beliefs to guide their own lives, however at the point of development that the child is too young to decide for his or herself what is right then I don’t feel it is ethical to force an opinion on them. The children may not have been able to comprehend the consequences of not seeking medical attention for their respective diseases and therefore the beliefs of the parents were irresponsible and I feel led directly to the deaths of their children. As an EMT it is appalling that the parents did not call until the child had stopped breathing. It is absolutely imperative that interventions are began as soon as possible in instances of cardiac arrest or respiratory failure, I am forced to wonder if the decision to call 911 wasn’t made as an afterthought to avoid prosecution?
Minors with a treatable disease, a loving home with both parents in the home, strong religious beliefs, faith healing, home schooled, uneducated, uninformed parents, child neglect, child abuse, child endangerment, pain and suffering, court cases, and Child Protective Services are the things Daniel and Madeline had in common. Daniel also has an Individual Education Plan (IEP) for a learning disability, and a second chance. Madeline had several chances to live but her parents stole them from her by neglecting to get her the medical treatment she needed which turned out to be a simple insulin injection, and fluids. But instead she became very weak, she couldn’t walk, talk, eat or drink; meanwhile her parents prayed and prayed and prayed for at lease a month as they witnessed her condition deteriate before their eyes. Oh, yeah someone else called 911 after she stopped breathing and died. Should parents have the right to refuse potentially life saving treatment for their children, in this case absolutely not? And poor Daniel thank God for the legal system, doctors, and for changing his parent’s minds. Who now know chemotherapy is the best course of treatment for the type of cancer Daniel has, now they are making an informed decision. What in the world is Nemenhah Band and who is the
ex-convict who conned Daniel’s parents into believing in this religion and faith healing. Also, was this before or after they all sat down and had a big fat hit of peyote. Should parents be able to refuse potential life saving treatment for their children’s situation, absolutely not? The only time parents should be able to refuse potentially life saving treatment for their child is when that child has a hypersensitivity, adverse reaction, or the treatment itself is not compatible with life, other than that absolutely not.
It is in no way ethical for parents to deny their children medical care for any kind of clinical illness. Children should always be given the chance to live their lives as healthy as possible and to the fullest. It is simply not fair for parents to make a decision that could inevitably lead to the death of a child, simply because of their “moral or religious beliefs.” For example, in the case of Madeline (Kara) Neumann, a little eleven year old girl with Type I Diabetes; she died because her parents decided that praying was the best form of treatment. The only treatment she needed was a regular shot of insulin and Madeline would have been able to lead a relatively normal and happy life, but instead she passed away because of her parent’s unethical decision. It is true that she was indeed a minor and probably not capable of making medical decisions for herself, but in being her parents they have the ultimate responsibility to look after their daughter and be sure that she is healthy. The signs of Madeline’s declining heath should have been a sure sign that some sort of medical help was urgently necessary. Also as in Madeline’s case, the case of Daniel Hauser is similar in that his family out right refused treatment for him. Even though his family knew Daniel had a form of cancer known as Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, they still denied him treatment initially, until they were ordered finally by a judge to start chemotherapy. It is just unbelievable that a parent would refuse medical treatment even with professional medical advice. Daniel’s parents were even told that if their son received the chemotherapy and radiation he would have a 90% chance for survival, and yet even after that they decided against it! I firmly believe that under no circumstance should parents have the right to withhold vital treatment. Such as in Madeline and Daniel’s case and many others like it and that if such actions are committed the parents should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
If someone is ill and can be treated with a treatment that has been proven affective then that is, what your priority should be whether you are an adult or child. Parents should do what is in the best interest of their child, when your child is sick they should be diagnosed first before there is a decision made on how to treat the child. This way you would know if there is an alternative way of healing or if there is one treatment. In the case of Madeline Neumann, one blood test would have diagnosed her with diabetes which there are only so many things you can do with that and if they went to a medical doctor first instead of trying to fix it themselves she would still be alive. Cancer is getting more evolved and chemotherapy is one of the only things that has been proven to help and even cure cancer. I understand if the chemo is not working using alternative treatments but in the case of Daniel Hauser his parents did not give the chemo a chance to work before they wanted to try different methods of treatment. From what I can see, the chemo can ultimately help or cure him and to refuse the treatment does not seem right. I agree with the judge and his ruling for the boy to get the chemotherapy. Parents have no right to refuse their child of medical advice or treatment if it saves their lives
After reading the articles regarding the medical cases of Daniel Hauser and Madeline Kara Neumann, I believe that it is unethical for parents to refuse or deny potentially life saving medical treatment for their minor child. In both cases, Daniel Hauser’s parents and Madeline Kara Neumann’s parents refused and denied medical treatment due to their religious beliefs. It was their religious beliefs that their faith would heal and cure their children not medical science. The Constitution of the United States of America protects and guarantees individuals the right and freedom to pursue and hold fast to their religious beliefs. It is also the law that a child is not deemed an adult until the age of 18. The law has decided and define that when a child reaches the age of 18, he or she is now considered an adult and has the capacity and understanding to make their own personal choices based on their own beliefs and wishes. It is at this time that the world and law recognizes that a child is now and adult and has the power to determine their own fate in life. When someone becomes a parent, it is their responsibility and job to make decisions for their child under the age of 18. This responsibility is in the hands of the parents because children may not have the full capacity, wisdom, life experience to make decisions and choices that are in their best interest. Understanding that when you become a parents it is your responsibility to protect your child from any unforeseeable danger, I feel it is unethical for a parent to let their religious beliefs influence their decision in regards to life saving medical treatment as it pertains to their child. Parents have a duty and obligation to give their child every opportunity to a healthy and long life and also to protect their child from endangerment. By refusing life saving medical treatment that is statistically proven to increase their chance to survive an illness, they are in fact endangering their own child. In Daniel Hauser’s case, his parents had agreed to the first round of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy is by no means an easy procedure to endure. After a difficult first round of chemotherapy, his parents decided to treat him with healings form their religious beliefs. This led many to suspect the validity of their religious beliefs. However, in Daniel Hauser’s case, the medical profession stated that his type of cancer had a cure rate of 90%. In this case medical treatment is a science and based on factual results and data. There was no guessing in the course of treatment that the doctors where prescribing. The doctors where prescribing a medical treatment supported by scientific and statistical evidence that chemotherapy does in fact cure his cancer with a 90% success rate. The medical doctors were providing a course of treatment that was giving Daniel Hauser the opportunity to live and not die from his disease. When Daniel Hauser’s parents refused treatment based on their religious beliefs they were not upholding the basic principle of not putting their child in harms way. Their religious beliefs are just that. They have no factual evidence that their religious beliefs would cure him. The Hauser’s decision to withhold treatment put Daniel in harms way by enabling his cancer to worsen and endangering his life.
In Madeline Neumann’s case, her parents ignored early symptoms and never took Madeline to a doctor. They held fast that God would heal and cure her if they believed and prayed. In her case, the autopsy report found that she had Type I diabetes. This medical condition is diagnosable with a simple blood test and a 100% manageable with monitoring daily insulin levels. It was unethical for Madeline’s parents to ignore the signs she was exhibiting. At some point during the decline of Madeline’s illness, her parents should have sought out medical help. A simple blood test would have saved her life. Madeline’s parents were negligible by not putting aside their religious beliefs and doing what was in the best interest of Madeline. . Medical treatment is a science with proven facts and success rates in treating illnesses. The Neumann’s had a duty to provide Madeline with some sort of medical treatment in order to discover with what was wrong with her. Waiting until she stops breathing before calling for help is way too late to act. They were unethical and negligent to not provide medical treatment for their child. They let their religious beliefs interfere with what is in the best interest of the child.
Parents have a right to hold onto and practice their own personal religious beliefs. However their religious beliefs are just that. There is no proven record or data that shows that religious prayer or healings cure major diseases or illnesses. It is the parents’ responsibility to protect their children and do what they think is best. Laws enable parents to make these judgments and decisions for their children. However, parents cannot allow their religious beliefs to interfere with proven medical treatment which can be life saving. To ignore the recommendations of medical professional or not even seek medical treatment is an endangerment to a child and unethical.
In the case of Daniel Hauser and Madeline Neumann, I think that the parents are unethical to refuse potential life-saving medical treatment for their minor children. In the United States, we can have the freedom to believe in any religion. However, the ethical problem in these two cases was that the parents imposed their religious belief on their minor children. I believe that adults who live in the U.S. can have choice to believe in anything they want. However, they cannot use that religious belief to make the decision in the situation of life or death for their minor children. In these cases, Daniel was just 13 year old who have had learning disability, and Madeline was only 11 years old. They were too young to understand what treatment could help them the most, so they totally relied on their parents. In the case of Daniel Hauser, his parents said that according to their religious belief, Daniel was old enough to make his own decision. In addition, Daniel refused the treatment because he believed that he was a “medicine man,” and he knew what was best for his body. With learning disability, Daniel could not even read or write, so how could he understand holistic treatment or chemotherapy would help him better? He absolutely did not understand. Everything that he believed in was directly came from his parents. According to Daniel’s doctor, there was a 95% chance that he could survive with chemotherapy and only 5% without. This case was a win or lose situation. If Daniel undergoes chemotherapy, he would survive, if not he would die. I acknowledge that individual can have his or her own religious belief, but he or she cannot base one that belief to make an imperative decision that relate to potential life-saving medical treatment for his or her children. Parents can decide for themselves, but does this right extend to their minor children? If parents refuse potential life saving medical treatment for their minor children, then they violate the principle of not to do harm to others. Even more, according to the law (1974 federal Child Abuse and Treatment Act), parents who refuse the necessary medical treatment constitute child abuse and neglect of their child. In addition, parents would never know with certainty that their children will decide to join the parents’ religion when they reach adulthood. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Committee on Bioethics said: “Children deserve appropriate medical treatment that is likely to prevent substantial harm, suffering or death regardless of the parents’ objections on religious grounds.” Because of all these important reasons, I think that parents are unethical to refuse potential life-saving medical treatment for their minor children.
I do not believe that is ethical for parents to refuse potentially life-saving medical treatment for their minor children, especially under the circumstances of these two children. With treatment these child could live happy long lives. Daniel Hauser not only was uneducated on his own religion, but he could not have fully comprehended what was going on with his own body. Children are very eager to please their parents, and I believe in the Hauser case that is what was happening. Daniel’s parents were proud to call him a medicine man and he simply wanted to see the happy, so he followed their guidance. I believe that Daniel’s parents were negligent in their guidance to him. Daniel was doing chemotherapy, and it was working. Instead of rejoicing in this, they choose to stop what was working in hopes that a natural remedy that has not proved to work will save their sons life. Even to the simplest person this cannot fully make since. And then there is Madeline who suffered unnecessarily because her parents did not believe in doctors and medical treatments. It’s hard for me to understand how a parent can watch their child suffer and not seek any trained help for her. When modern medicine has proven to cure or allow someone to live a long and comfortable life (as with diabetes) parents should choose to let their children live, not give them a cruel debilitating and sufferable death.
Both these family used religion as a reason to withhold medical treatment for their children. One could argue that religion is the reason to seek medical care. Aren’t you reasonable for the welfare of these children? Hasn’t He entrusted these children to you? Aren’t you then obligated to educate them, keep them safe from harm and prepare them to live a life that is honorable? To take that away from them would be a sin, wouldn’t it?
I believe in God and his healing power. I believe prayer can and does heal wounds, sorrow and gives guidance to those that seek it. I believe in miracles. I believe that modern medicine is a miracle. I do not understand how a parent would not choose life for the children. For me, bottom line—medicine has proved to save lives, if chances of living happy, comfortable life with the assistance medical treatment outweigh the chances of death; then actions to save life should be taken. It is unethical for a parent to choose otherwise, especially in these two cases.
When it comes to being ethical these parents are doing the opposite thing of ethics and doing what its right. I believe this is so unethical and it is wrong to refuse treatment to minor children that would save their lives. I say that the State and the government should also have some say on these matters as to abortion and the trimesters. I say that because the State can have a say regarding the 2nd and 3rd trimester of ending a pregnancy and trying to save the fetus after the 3rd trimester. Therefore the State should also put restrictions to parent and to try and save a child’s life when they need medical treatment. As in the case of Daniel Hauser I believe that if the parents give permission to doctors to do what it’s needed to save the child’s life then it would make everything easier for everyone. I believe if he is treated with a medicine that will make him relax of even go to sleep then the doctors can force the chemotherapy to save his life. I don’t see a reason why it makes it too hard just to treat a child. I also believe that the child can get counseling so that he can change his mind. There is still hope to save Daniel’s life if he and the family just cooperate. IN the other hand for Kara Neumann the hope is over from dying from untreated diabetes. In all words what Kara parents did was the most unethical thing in the world. I believe than when it comes to a deathly sickness then we still need to pray but not just think about it in a religious matter because we still need to treat every illness with the right medication. I believe that it was wrong leaving it to god and to the prayers. Now Kara is dead and I believe truly that it was the parents fault. I believe that in this case Congress needs to do something about it, and even though the parents will be serving time in jail that there needs to be a laws passed to give the rights to children to get their medical treatments without the parents consent.
I think it is unethical for parent to refuse treatment for a child. As a parent you need to provide a safe and healthy life for your child. Children are so innocent and especially with the case of Madeline (Kara) Neumann with Type 1 Diabetes. How could you have not known that your child was terribly sick? With a father that has Type 1 Diabetes and I formed Gestational Diabetes with both pregnancy, we both knew quite quickly that something was wrong and was able to control it with either medicine or good nutrition. Even though I am sure everyone can be detected differently, still as a mother you should have known that your child is critically getting worse. When the mother said, in the article from FoxNews.com, “The family believes in the Bible, and it says healing comes from God, but they are not crazy, religious people, she said.” Oh my goodness, how can you circle around your child and pray for wellness, when God has given the power to so many doctors to cure or control so many life threatening diseases. How can you circle around your daughter and watch her take her “last breath of life from her body,” quoted from her father, and not still do something way before that time ever got there? I still feel very strongly about modern medicine, and that is has been proven over and over again that it can help people from life to death. But if you are in a religion that does not believe in medicine to heal, that is your choice as an adult, but when it comes to a child a minor. It is your responsibility as a parent to protect that child and give them the best life provided,
In the case of Daniel Hauser, his parents refused chemotherapy to treat his cancer, Hodgkins Lymphoma. This kind of cancer if detected in time and treated with chemotherapy and radiation is very likely curable. Even after the first treatment, it was showing improvement. This again has been proven with hundreds of studies that this could give there son the quality of life he deserves as a 13 year old boy. Again,everyone has there own different spiritual believes and no-one has the right to judge what they believe, even though in our minds they are unethical. But in the cases of these two kids, there is written facts on behave of the medical research that has been studied that shows that these two minors can or will live normal lives with the help of medicine. So morally I think that children should have the help of the courts to keep them alive or healthy, if the parents cannot ethically make the right choice. And once the minor reaches adult age, they then can make the choice of what there spiritual believes are going to be for there life.
March26, 2008 an eleven year old girl by the name of Madeline Neumann died due to a condition known as diabetic ketoacidosis, which left her with not enough insulin in her body. Basically she died from a treatable form of diabetes which she had been quietly suffering from for quite some time. Madeline’s parents hadn’t taken her to see a doctor in 8 years they didn’t believe in doctors. They were a very religious and spiritual family they believed in the bible and that healing comes from God. They looked to God when Madeline got sick they felt if they prayed God would heal her. Except something went wrong she wasn’t getting better according to doctors they believe she had probably been deathly ill for at least 30 days suffering with symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, excessive thirst, loss of appetite and weakness. However Mrs. Neumann reported that she was fine and in good health until recently she noticed severe tiredness within the 2 weeks leading up to her death.
In a case like this I feel the parents were wrongly guided I know that they never intended for their daughter to die. It seems pretty obvious that Madeline had been sick prior to this last time and I’m sure the parents used prayer to heal her, and to them is seemed to be working because she would always seem to recover. I think where Mr. and Mrs. Neumann dropped the ball was when they stopped listening to God and started listening to their own mind. I know God was telling them to take their daughter to see a doctor, family members were calling paramedics and police and telling the Neumann’s that they needed to take Madeline to see a doctor. To me those are signs from God he’s not going to come down and heal Madeline by his own hands, but instead he will use the hands of one of his creations which in this case would be a medically qualified doctor to help God to save this little girls life.
What I don’t believe to be ethical is to charge Mr. and Mrs. Neumann with second- degree reckless homicide after their daughter just died. They were sentenced to six months in jail they are to serve one month in jail for the next six years of their life along with 10 years probation. I thank God that I haven’t had to encounter anything of this magnitude in my life so all I can do is try and put myself in their shoes and I know their hurting and suffering enough, and then to add jail time. Jail is for criminals these two people are not criminals. I know they will learn from this I don’t think they need to sit in jail for the next six years to learn from this. I think what would be ethical is to set up counseling services for the family, that seems much more appropriate than jail for a case like this.
Daniel Hauser a thirteen year old boy diagnosed with Hodgkin’s Lymphoma which is a cancer of the lymphatic system. With this type of cancer there is a 95% success rate with chemotherapy and without chemo there is only a 5% chance of living. When Daniel was diagnosed in January his parents had then seemed to accept chemotherapy as the method of treatment for their son. Daniel went through one round of chemo in which he had a terrible experience. But just that one round of chemo had reduced the size of his tumor, so it proved to be an effective method of treatment for Daniel, besides the horrible side effects that comes along with it. The parents decided to look for other methods of treatment. They found an American Indian religion named Nemenhah which focused on Native American natural healing practices. In this case I feel the parents were negligent in the fact that they were fully aware of the benefits of the chemo for their son, the tumor had shrunk with just one round. Also the fact that the religion they had chosen for guidance was a bootleg religion. Daniel was 13 and he couldn’t even read let alone be deemed a medicine man under their newfound religion. I believe counseling services would really help this family out also.
I strongly disagree with the decision Kara and Daniels parents made regarding these serious diseases. I understand the separation of church and state but I view this as medical neglect and these young lives are seriously at risk. The wellbeing of these children is the most important issue that needs to be addressed. The fact that Kara’s disease and life could have been spared and easily been solved with insulin. Kara's parents watched her suffer for months before her bad decision eventually led to Kara’s death. I believe in miracles and faith but at the same time the parents of these two children surpassed the ethical and rational decision regarding the welfare of their children.
In Kara’s case I wish the law would have stepped in to save her. I think everyone has a right to refuse treatment but they should be of legal age and right frame of mind to do so. I don’t think the fate of the children should fall into the hands of reckless, extremist parental care. In Daniels case he was brainwashed and strongly convinced by his parents. In both cases this is neglect, manslaughter, a child abuse! Withholding a child from much needed medical care is 100% wrong!
After reading about both cases I realized that it is potentially dangerous for a sick child to be under the care of ignorant parents. I can confirm this opinion because I’ve seen how people that I know (old women in its majority) tend to be blinded by their faith, and most ethical decisions of theirs are influenced by this. When I was a child I had a friend that almost died because of parental negligence. His parents (specially his mother, who was the most fanatical) refused to take him to the hospital hoping that prayer and home remedies alone would cure him. It was only when my friend’s health got worse that made his parents realize that their methods were not helping and they took him to the hospital. I was reminded of this incident when I read about Daniel Hauser. This 13-year-old kid has been diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma but has a good 90% success rate of treating the cancer with chemotherapy, without the treatment his chances of survival go down to 5%. In addition, Daniel’s parents are part of a religious cult called Nemenhah and according to their faith chemotherapy and radiation are poisons, so they begin treating their son with herbs and other natural supplements that have 0% success rate. It was only when the judge ordered Daniel Hauser to undergo chemotherapy that he and her mother have gone missing. It is because of cases like this that I really dislike religious fanaticism. Obviously the kid does not understand how fragile his situation really is. Unfortunately, he will believe everything his parents say and he can’t do much about it because he is a minor, therefore, the mother is abusing her own son by neglecting the medical treatment he requires to survive. The mother is driven by religious beliefs of a cult that charges $250 for spiritual adoption. There is also the case of Madeline Neumann, the 11-year-old girl that died because her parents decided to treat her Type 1 Diabetes with only prayer. I think I recall that Madeline’s condition was unknown to the parents but still they chose not to take her to the doctor when she got really sick, believing that prayers would ultimately heal their daughter. For weeks she got sicker and sicker until she finally succumbed to the disease. Her parents did not believe in doctors, instead, they turned to God each time that Madeline got sick. What is really concerning about this case is that Type 1 Diabetes can be controlled with insulin injections. My conclusion is that it is unethical for parents to refuse potentially life-saving medical treatment for their minor children. People need their faith but when it comes to the life of a child, it’s just best to let a medical expert handle the situation and provide you with undeniable truths.
In both cases I believe this is a from of child abuse, these are both minors that can't make decision for themselves. As minors yes we believe that our parents can do no wrong, I'm 28 and i just really now know my parents for who they really are. When we are children we look to our parents as if they're super hero ,what they say goes and you don't ask why. When we do began to make decisions on our own we still tend to look back to what our parents have told/ tough us in the pass.
I think the judge in the case of the 13 year old boy way absolute right, the mother is killing her own son. see as there is a treatment that work and has a proven record of 90 to 95% survival rate and she want to follow a herbal pathway that has no proven survival rate. Yes this is MEDICAL NEGLECT you can't put it any other way his mother is allowing him to die have a child of my own and yes no one want to see their child in any type of pain but if the doctors are telling the chemotherapy will keep your child from dying then you hold your baby hand and rub his back and be by his side every chemotherapy visit.I know we all have our religion but sometime we can be blind to what our religion is trying to teach us.
Post a Comment