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.
Due June 9, 2012
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
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
This is a tough topic. I do believe it is ethical for parents to refuse potentially life saving procedures. The key word is potential. To be ethical, it depends on the illness and the progression of its course. Having watched five family members and close friends go through chemo and go into remission, only to have their cancer come back and metastasize to almost every major organ, I can easily have sympathy and compassion for parents wanting to keep their children from suffering. If cancers are caught in stage one or stage two I believe it is unethical for treatment to be withheld. There is a great chance that the cancer may not return. Above that I believe the patient should seek counseling and decide what they truly want since the chance of recovery is greatly lessened. In the case of Daniel, I was perplexed that from what I could gather, he never spoke to a therapist. He grew up hearing about how chemotherapy killed his aunt without really understanding what had happened to her. I think it was ridiculous of his parents to agree to chemotherapy and then decide religion would work better. That’s like telling half your story and then claiming the Fifth Amendment. I can’t help but think that his mother’s fear is what ended the therapy and drove panic into Daniel. The boy being seriously ill alone incites fear; terrorizing him about what chemo did to someone else was just careless and cruel.
In the case of Madeline I believe her parents committed gross negligence and child abuse. The mother admitted that her daughter’s legs were emaciated and had turned blue. Instead of getting her immediate medical attention, she assumed demons were at work and began to pray. I have nothing against faith or prayer, but those can both be done at a hospital. The girl went into a coma and several people urged them to take her to the hospital and eventually called 911, and still they did not want it. The father at one time mentioned seeking medical help and the mother refused. Praying will not change your genetic make up to create new cells that will create insulin. She did not even have the forethought to Google symptoms to seek advice without seeing a medical professional. She did nothing but watch her daughter die slowly. In her case it was unethical to refuse life saving medical treatment since they didn’t give Madeline a chance to at least be examined to receive any options for treatment.
It is always a tough conversation when the topic has to do with the death of a child. There have been many different stories of completely avoidable or potentially avoidable illnesses. In the cases of Daniel Hauser and Madeline Neumann, the parents are the problems.
Daniel Hauser was a thirteen year old with Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. He was very sick and his mother and father understood what he was facing. I believe that the decision is left up to the parents, until they are making an uneducated and immoral decision. Yes, I believe that it is immoral and my reason is, we should do what we need to do to preserve the lives of our youth. The boy, Daniel, was misled by the decision and conversation from his parents. In order for him to be healed, he would have needed to do different cancer therapies and potentially risk his life to try and save it. His parents should have encouraged him to do the necessary procedures. I mean, they encouraged him to take supplements and herbal remedies. The truth is that the chemotherapy and radiation are terrible. Treatment makes you sick and in most cases, you will feel sicker than you did before the treatment. I believe we should try to preserve life.
Madeline Neumann was a young girl that had a very common disease. As a matter of fact, the treatment had a 98% success rate, but the mother Leilani did not believe in doctors or medicine. As a matter of fact, she voiced that opinion to friends. How ridiculous is it to say that it is not necessary to seek medical treatment? I am sure that if she were in the same situation, her tune may have changed. It is very unnerving to hear of someone who believed that prayer is the only thing that they are willing to try. It is very difficult to comprehend and not blame the parents for Madeline’s untimely death.
I do believe that the right to refuse care can be considered unethical if the situation can be remedied or treated with medications and procedures. In the case of Daniel, his cancer was very treatable with a good chance for continued healthy life. The prognosis was good, said the doctor after his x-ray as taken. I do not understand why parents and the child himself would choose to seek other medical treatments if there was a clear cut way of treating him. A lot of times I think people get in their own way with stubborness and miseducation. If my child was ill, i would be researching and trying to find each and every option available to protect his life and the quality of it.
In the case with Madeline, religion and prayer is one thing, stupidity is another. I believe that God has given doctors and scientists talent and knowledge so that they can help others in these situations. The fact that she had something as noninvasive as diabetes, something many people suffer from, and that her parents refused to allow medication, is just insane to me. The Lord wants us to trust him for healing, but he also appoints people to assist you. It is like the story of the man on the roof during a flood, when a canoe comes, he says his God will save him, when a boat comes, he says his God will save him, finally a helicopter comes and again he refuses, saying his God will save him. When he dies and meets his maker, he asks him why didn't you save me? The Lord says, i sent you 3 rescues and you turned them down. It means to know when to accept help, especially in medical cases.
In the case of Daniel Hauser, I think it is unethical that his parents refused potential life-saving treatment for him. Daniel a 13 year old, knows very little and follows his family's belief. They did not want to undergo chemotherapy instead they sought other alternatives medicine. This is also acceptable but does not guarantee recovering or that it could save his life. His parents should have follow through will doctors suggested therapy in order to get their son better.
In the case of Madeline ( Kara ) Neumann, her parents knew she was sick and did not seek medical help until it was too late. Instead the family depend on prayers. I am a Christian and I pray for God for everything, also when I'm sick or my son is sick I pray that he would get better through the help of trained doctors. Kara could have been saved if her family took her to the hospital and seek treatment.
I think parents are responsible for their minor children, they have to follow through and care for them when they're sick. Parents who neglect to see this should have a penalty against them.
I really had a hard time on this one, but I feel that it is unethical for parents to refuse potentially life-saving medical treatment for minor children. When considering these two cases, I feel that there could have been ways to help the parents come back to ethical behaviors with out disrespecting their values. I feel that getting a second opinion on the cancer may have helped with the case of Daniel Hauser. Also, I feel that the parents could have been better educated on the chemotherapy and risks opposed to benefits. I truly believe that if Daniel was in a huge amount of danger form the chemotherapy and was that close to death anyways, the judge would have ruled differently. Consenting adults can make the decision to seek alternatives to chemotherapy, which made this a little tough for me. I have a friend who just passed away from cancer. He found out he had it really late in the stages, and refused to be sick when he was so close to death. His family was upset, but he was not court ordered to take the treatment. He sought out alternatives. I feel that if Daniel’s cancer had progressed that far in stages, the doctors would have needed to respect the family’s wishes, as well as the patients.
Now I feel that Kara (Madeline Neumann) was in a different type of situation. The parents were neglecting their child’s basic need for medical attention. I am shocked that they get to keep their other children, and feel that they are sick people. It is most definitely unethical to seek medical attention when your child is obviously dying.
I believe that it is ethical for parents to have control over their child's health and treatment to a certain point. Everyone has their own religions and beliefs.
Daniel was diagnosed with Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Hodgkin's lymphoma has a 90 percent cure rate in children if treated with chemotherapy and radiation, but doctors said Daniel was likely to die without those treatments. His parents wanted to rely on natural remedies to battle Daniel's cancer. I understand parents not wanting to poison their children in order to keep them alive, but when the doctor's are telling them that their son has a great chance of survival, how can they not give it a chance?
With his parents, Daniel opted instead for "alternative medicines," citing religious beliefs. That led authorities to seek custody. A court ruled that Daniel's parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, were medically neglecting their son.
Madeline Neumann died of untreated diabetes March 23, 2008, surrounded by people praying for her. When she suddenly stopped breathing, her parents' business and Bible study partners finally called 911. Her parents relied on prayer only instead of taking her to the doctors or the hospital when their daughter started showing signs of distress. I don't believe that the parents in this case made ethical choices in the care of their daughter.
Prosecutors contend a reasonable parent would have known something was gravely wrong with Madeline, who had become so weak she couldn't walk or talk. They say Neumann recklessly killed her daughter by praying instead of rushing her to a doctor. The mother has said the family believes in the Bible, which says healing comes from God. The defense has said Neumann and her husband, who is awaiting trial, didn't know how sick their daughter was until it was too late.
Whether or not you believe in a god, I think the evidence is quite clear that praying for God to save you isn’t going to do anything.
In the case of Daniel Hauser it's a little hard for me to make a decision. First off they let Daniel go through chemotherapy one time and then said he will no longer receive treatment due to their religion. If religion is the reason then why let him go through treatment in the first place. So I question if that is the real reason, I know that the effects of chemotherapy can be horrible and I feel that Daniel's aunts death and how Daniel acted after treatment is what changed his parents mind of chemotherapy. I believe that is unethical to refuse treatment that is a guarantee to help the child's condition or to help them live a longer life. In this case I don't believe that the parents were unethical and did have there child's health in best interest, but wanted other alternatives to treat him.
In the case of Madeline I believe is unethical, abuse, and child neglect. That poor little girl suffered for at least 30 days with no proper treatment. They fact that they seen the symptoms and knew something was wrong and didn't seek help is horrible. It disgust me that they say "We didn't know what was wrong with her or we didn't know what was going on". The reason you didn't know is because you didn't care to seek answers from a medical professional. Something as common as Diabetes which can be controlled, it angers me that the parents did not do more. As a mother after a day or two of my child now feeling well I'm calling a doctor's office seeking help or recommendations. Her father especially being an ex police officer should have especially knew better, they should have called 911 as soon as they found her passed out on the bathroom floor. If they were just leaving it in God's hands then why do CPR on her. Regardless of them not knowing she had Diabetes as parents they should have seek answers from somewhere other than Bible, and prayed that she get better with her treatment.
In reading the examples for the topic "The Right to Refuse Care" discussion I have been stuck starring at the screen. I feel its hard to find if something is ethical when i have other persons religion mixed in. In our other discussions it was more what do you think but in this situation its your beliefs vs another persons religion and its hard for me to knock someones religious beliefs vs someone who is not religious. I feel that I would have two different opinions just based on that .... one way is that they mean no harm because they are following their religious beliefs but for the non religious i feel that is more towards neglect.
In the case of Daniel and chemo i think its a matter of how good was the survival rate vs the quality of life. If a person was going to live for 2 month without chemo vs 6 months with chemo I dont think it would be worth the hassle to feel worse just to live a little longer in pain. The fact that they let him go to the doctor and get the first chemo sits two different ways with me . One is that if their religion is against it then why did they go thru with the first treatment ? that could be two things.... either they made a mistake went against their religion and wanted to fix it or they just didnt like the effects of the medication on their child and blamed it on the religious views rather then say what it really was. I cant say that I disagree with either way because for one people make mistakes all the time and its not wrong to try to correct that for the other I dont believe they should blame it on religion if they didnt like the effects but we see people all the time who refuse medication due to the side effects so I dont really
know. So I guess it was ethical for the parents to refuse medication considering the son didnt want the treatment either and the tumor was pretty large and the known success rate of chemo for cancer patients.
I the case of Madeline I dont believe the parents had bad intentions for their daughter because they were following their faith but i do believe that they should have received medical attention. In the text it was stated that the parents were religious and read the Bible but do not belong to any church. I believe that church is a place to get a better understanding of the word in the Bible. That being said they have religious hospitals that follow the Bible like St. Luke's St. Jude, St. Josephs and others maybe they are a different denomination or just were lacking the benefits of understanding from attending church. With a 99.8% survival rate if treated I believe it was unethical for them not to take Madeline to a hospital when she developed symptoms they should have taken her to the hospital and prayed over her there with the hospital staff they provide. But like I said I dont think the parents wanted to let their daughter die on purpose they followed what they believe in and unfortunately she died.
e` the right to ecide what they wanna do it is their life not yours and that is a big choice when she went into a com they should of called 911 right away and made sure she had all the help she could get.
I believe that the right to refuse care that is reasonable and prudent for a minor is unethical perhaps if the care is experimental without documented good results then the situation maybe different. If the care were unorthodox and unproven then perhaps administering that kind of care would be unethical. But in the case of Daniel, a thirteen year old diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma the propose care of chemotherapy is very appropriate and has been proven to be very effective and successful in treating that particular type of cancer. Chemotherapy for Hodgkin’s lymphoma has a 90% cure rate and without treatment there is a 100% mortality rate. And there are no documented studies for natural remedies. Therefore Daniele parents through their poor judgment were placing Daniel at an unnecessary risk.
In the case of Madeline who died of untreated diabetes, this again was very poor judgment on the part of her parents. It is the same principle in that diabetes is very treatable illness. The treatment of diabetes has been well proven and tested with time. And although prayer has been responsible for many miracles it should not substitute for well founded in proven medical treatment. There are many documented cases where prayer has succeeded and traditional medical care has failed. But in all these instances prayer supplemented traditional medical care and did not replace it. I believe it was unethical for Madeline’s parents to refuse proven care knowing that diabetes untreated would kill their daughter. Perhaps in both Daniel and Madeline’s case there was failure to communicate the benefits of proven medical care. And perhaps these concerns
I think if you are a parent, it is your duty to do everything in your power to save your children. Whether its donating an organ for their well being or sacrificing your life for them, it's your duty as a caring parent to protect your child. I understand that there are parents that do not care about their children. Maybe that is what happened with Daniel Hauser and Madeline Neumann. The parents were careless and insincere. I know the costs and tribulations that come with physical illnesses. It is emotionally and physically taxing to see a family member suffer that much. But it is no excuse for a parent to neglect their children the treatment that can potentially save their lives. Once the child is of adult age and finally capable to make and understand their own decisions, they can emancipate them and make their own medical choices.
Post a Comment