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 September 21, 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
19 comments:
I think that it is unethical to refuse potentially life saving treatment to a minor child. I believe that a child should be given every available treatment to allow them the chance to live a longer life. A child is unable to make their own decisions and I think that it is up to the parent to do anything in their power to save their child's life no matter what the parents religious/personal beliefs are. As a parent, I cant imagine making the decision to let my child suffer and/or die. I would do anything in my power to save them and that includes all reasonable options for treatment.
Chelsea Holgate
It is hard to say that it is ethical for parents to refuse potentially life-saving medical treatments for their children. I think that parents should do everything they can to protect their children. In the two cases mentioned about Daniel Hauser and Madeline Neumann, both children died due to their parents refusing life-saving treatments.
In Daniel’s case, he did not want to undergo chemotherapy and his parents agreed with him. He was suffering from Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and was afraid to be treated with chemotherapy. He didn’t want to feel worse because of his treatments, and had a family member die after having chemotherapy treatments. This was the only treatment available for his type of cancer because surgery was not an option. He refused treatment, and his parents supported his decision. This would be an extremely hard thing to do as a parent, but I can sort of understand why they did it. Their son was already dying, and he did not want to receive chemotherapy treatments. He had already been treated by chemotherapy before and decided not to get treatments anymore. They could have forced him to get treatments, but he was terrified and it was the last thing he wanted. He could have been saved with treatment, but it wasn’t a guarantee that he would survive. I think his parents should have tried harder to get him to accept treatment, but it’s such a difficult situation that only those involved would know what was right for Daniel.
Madeline’s case was different. She had a treatable form of diabetes that with medicine, would have allowed her to live a long life. Her parents decided that instead of taking her to the doctor and getting insulin treatments that they would pray for her recovery. With terminal illnesses that have little chance of survival, I can understand praying for recovery. But with a completely treatable disorder, that is just ridiculous. Madeline had several symptoms that showed she was obviously not okay and needed medical attention, but her parents did not even attempt to get medical treatment for their daughter. In my opinion, they failed as parents. They could have saved her, and chose to let her die instead.
Not only is it unethical but selfish for a parent to refuse life-saving medical treatment for their minor child. I could maybe understand if numerous treatment has been done on the same child and it is time for them to rest but not if it is a first time treatment that could save their life. Regardless of what they think or what they think might save them like in the noted cases religion, the minor should get a chance to voice their own opinion. Most likely the child is going to have the same answer as the parents because of their influence but I believe that within time they will voice their own opinion. I also understand that there are many different religions where their beliefs vary and their decisions are based on that, but I think that these children should be given the opportunity to understand their medical issues or at least get asked if they want it or not. Not necessarily to get to make their own decisions because they may be too young to make it but at least that they know.
In the case of Daniel Hauser, he was the one who decided not get the treatment because of what happened to his aunt after her treatment of chemo. He was given a high chance of surviving with treatment but due to their religion they would not accept treatment. I could not imagine what it would be like to have to go through this with a child especially if he is the one who decided not to continue. How do you approach them? Maybe if the parents would have pushed a little harder then maybe Daniel would have changed his mind. Maybe if they would have gone through counseling like the guardian ad litem suggested his mind would have changed. Again parents are the main influence on their children and are the only advocates for minor children. It is sad to see that sometimes that is not the case.
The first thing that comes to mind about the case of Madeline (Kara) Neuman is neglect. Her parents neglected to seek treatment when clearly she had serious complications due to her disease. It is absolutely absurd in the parents’ part to think that prayer would be the cure. I am a parent myself and have my own beliefs in certain things but in no way would I jeopardize the health of my children.
When it comes to Daniel's case, I believe that this is so unethical. How can you stand and watch your child get worse every day knowing that you can do something about it. I know that they have believes, I do have mine of my own. When it comes to your child I just think that you will do anything in your power to help them get better, no matter what it takes. No one is saying that she should stop praying or to stop believing in her religion but when it comes to someone’s life being at risk there is no limitations. For that little boy to have that mentality of going to the extreme to say "I will kick or punch anyone who tries to force it on him .“ It has to come from the parents telling to believe that. The kid not only has Hodgkin’s lymphoma, but a learning disability and can’t fully understand everything that is going on. So I just feel like he goes off what his parents believe because he only trusts them. In the case of Madeline (Kara) Neumann , she had a fighting chance and for you to see her shut down little by little every day and not have the heart to help her is just mind blowing to me. When it comes to the point that the little 11 year old girl not being able to walk, talk, and pee’s on the coach, just rape’s my mind. I do not get the ignorance people have because that is all it is. Both these cases to me are unethical and the judge should have every right to knock some sense into these parents and get treatment for these kids even if you have to force it on them.
In both cases I find the decisions and the actions of the parents to not only be unethical, but ignorant. As a parent, it is our duty to protect, nurture, and provide for our children. We are supposed to be the logical reasoning for them; we are supposed to make decisions for them that will make their lives comfortable.
In the case of Daniel Hauser, the fact that the parents allowed for him to make the decision to no longer do treatments, and then provided the “reasoning” of religious beliefs in order to establish their son’s choice is irresponsible and absurd. Here you have the parents of a 13 year old child with a disease that has an astounding survival rate with treatment. Instead, they claim that their “religious beliefs” prevent them from accepting treatments. I find this entertaining since they let him have the treatment when first diagnosed – it wasn’t even a question then.
Daniel got sick from the initial treatments. He also, at the age of 5, lost an aunt that was going through chemo. As a parent it was his mother and father’s duty to comfort him and explain things to him. I find it pitiful that a judge had to tell these parents to do what is necessary to save their child's life.
The case of Kara Neumann is sad and heart-breaking. Human emotions aside, her parents should have gotten longer than 6 months.How, as a parent, do you watch your child in pain? How do you witness them take their last breath-and it’s you’re doing? They knew their daughter was sick, they saw that she was fading and in all actuality they did nothing. Kara didn’t have a disease that would have required her to go through painful or sickening treatments. She had a disease that, with proper care and treatment, she could have lived a normal, fulfilling life.
The constitutional right of religious freedom is one that is guaranteed to us but it is not unlimited. It does not give one the right to turn a blinds eye to what is rational. It does not allow for religion to be an excuse for not properly caring for your child. Providing either, Daniel Hauser or Kara Neumann, with proper care and treatment should have never been a matter that required a decision be made. There is never any question to what you should do to provide your child with a healthy life, or as in the case of Kara, saving their life. There has to be a separation in your religious/ moral beliefs and what is logical sometimes, especially when it has to do with saving your child’s life.
I feel that it is unethical not to treat any child or to deny your child treatment for any reason. When it come to a child that can’t make decisions that might harm him then it should always be for the treatment. The child does not have to choose the parents religion when he grows up so why should it be forced on him know and why should it take the chance of killing them because parent say it there religion. A religion your child may have not chosen kill him, could happen. I didn’t choose my parents beliefs. You should treat them as if they haven’t and can’t make a decision. If there is any chance of a child surviving you should as a parent choose to treat them. In the case of Daniel I feel the parents acted unethical. Daniel may have went through horrific pain and treatments but there was still a chance for his survival. He deserves the chance to grow up and I believe his parent should have chose to treat him so he had that chance. Same with Madeline they are our children and we are there parents. We are hereto protect them. Make sure they survive and live a long life. A parent should not be able to take there Child's life or health by refusing them treatment. They are risking there children’s lives and depending on what there treating there risking our children’s lives. God only has that right to take a life and he even healed the sick and we are to everything we can to live until he takes us home. Including get treatments.
Jessica Sundstrom
I believe in both cases the parents decisions are unethical. In both cases the parents have a medical option to help their child.
In Daniel Hauser's case he had cancer and had the choice of going through chemotherapy or or not. As a kid knowing you have cancer is scary and to add a treatment that will break you down is even scarier. So, the fact that he didn't want to go through it is common for kids. But i don't see how a parent can't see the benefits of this treatment. The parents saw him go through it once and decided it was too hard for him. I think they could have maybe looked at it more and maybe considered it for their dying son. But at the same time I do agree with them, when your kid is dying you can't stand to watch them suffer even more.
In Madeline Neuman's case her parents never attempted to heal her diabetes medically. What she had was severe but they refused to forgo medical aid. I personally believe prayer is an essential and something you have to do. But also when provided the medicine, the choice is obvious, give YOUR daughter what she needs to survive. I just have a hard time beleiving a parent could just sit back and watch when they could go out and save their little girl.
Evan McFarland
September 21, 2012 9:35 AM
t is definitely ethical to refuse care it is a person/patient/POA right to refuse care. Now if we ask if its morally correct then thats another question. What is not ETHICAL is to dishonor the right of a patient/POA/ their RIGHT to REFUSE..
I believe it’s unethical for parents to refuse life-saving medical treatment for their children regardless of their religious beliefs. In the case of Daniel Hauser, he was a 13 year old boy who suffered from Hodgkins lymphoma. This boy and his parents refused medical treatment for his disease because their religion didn’t believe in treatment. Therefore, this case is a very big issue because the court wants to force this kid to take treatment because if he does he could be saved. Yet, the Daniel Hauser is so against this and says that if anyone tries to treat him he will physically punch and kick them. The parents of Daniel Hauser are also on his side and have been trying to flee the United States so that the court can’t make Daniel take treatments. In my opinion I don’t understand how the parents can think like this regardless of what their religion says. How can a parent want their child to die, especially if they can be treated and be possible cured. I think it’s extremely ethical for the courts to take Daniel Hauser away from the parents because obviously the parents might have some mental issues. I also think its ethical for the court to force the treatment on him because he can be cured from this disease. He also isn’t of age and therefore he can’t make his own decisions and he is not of age.
In the other case of a 11 year old girl that died from untreated diabetes. The family of this girl believed that she wasn’t really sick because they were praying for the girl to get better. This case relates to that of Daniel Hauser because the parents and family of this girl didn’t believe in doctors as well. The father stated that “If he went to doctor, I’m putting the doctor before God.” This case was to unethical because the family of this girl basically killed her. When she was dying they did nothing but pray for her. They didn’t call for help or nothing. This girl died with so much suffering. In my opinion, this young girl didn’t deserve to die the way she did. Several articles stated how she died. The parents of Madeline believed that they have done nothing criminal not getting medical help for her child. I personally, completely disagree with them. It was completely ethical for the parents to be charged with second degree homicide. They let their daughter die in front of them and did absolutely nothing to try and save her. What kinds of parents do this to their kids? Parents are just being ignorant and selfish.
Stephanie Galaviz
It is without a doubt unethical to refuse treatment on behalf of ones own child. I don't have kids, so I cant really put myself in the position of a parent. So my belief on this may sway one way or the other if I did have a child; I honestly couldn't say. But as of right now, I cannot conceive of a situation in which I, as a parent, would refuse my child potentially lifesaving treatment. Parents should do anything within their power to protect their child. I think that in such situations, hospitals can override such a parents' decision with an ethics committee or something, cant they? If a child is diabetic and stands the chance of dying and the parents do decline treatment that can without a doubt save their child's life, it would be abusive and negligent not to elect treatment. Diabetes is not an untreatable terminal condition. It is highly treatable and manageable. One can live a normal productive life for decades with the disease, and robbing a child of that opportunity is absolutely criminal.
With that said, if a child is suffering of a debilitating illness that absolutely will take their life, and to elect treatment would only prolong a child's suffering or pain, that would also a parent's decision. It would be a decision that nobody would be prepared to make. Quality over quantity. If all an individual is doing is surviving; eating, breathing, and eliminating through a tube, what kind of life is that? The only decision I can make as of right now is not whether a child should live or die, but what I would want for myself. If the only thing I am doing is hanging on by a thread, that would not be the kind of life I would want, and I would want to just let go. But a child? That is difficult. I guess that if it is something treatable, or if there is even a large grey area where we just don't know what will happen, treatment should never be declined in the case of children. But if the child truly is dying and there is no chance of recovery or even survival, it may be best not to prolong the inevitable. But then again, in medicine, everything that is done, every treatment, every procedure, is a stall... In such a case as Daniel Hauser: With an "85% chance of surviving and perhaps even greater than 90%," declining treatment is not an ethical option. In my opinion, it all depends on the prognosis of the patient. A child's body has a miraculous capacity of healing and recovery; hemispherectomies are done on children and the child survives because the remaining portion of the brain has not developed yet and it adopts the functions of the missing part of the brain. If this same procedure were performed on an adult, it would not be met with success, the patient would die more often than not. Not only is it the parents responsibility, but if they fail to do so it is also a doctors responsibility to do much the same; care for their patients and consider every reasonable option.
I think that it can be both ethical and unethical to refuse life saving treatment to a minor.
In Daniel's case, I find it ethical. The child did not want the treatment, and while a child does not always know what's best for them, chemotherapy is not as simple a choice as eating vegetables. Daniel had already seen his aunt go through Chemo at age 5, and didn't want to have to deal with what she'd gone through. I find that his parents honoring his decision was ethical.
In the case of Madeline, I feel the choice was unethical. While serious, diabetes is nowhere as serious as Daniel's case, and the medicine is not compromising to the body as Chemo is. Her parents should have given their daughter treatment for her diabetes instead of putting it in the hands of religion.
I believe that it is 100% unethical for parents to refuse potentially life-saving medical treatment for their minor child.
For example, in the case of Daniel Hausner, while it is understandable that he was traumatized from witnessing this aunt suffer from chemo, which caused him to refuse enduring it himself, he was not of age to make such decision. It is natural for children to refuse any type of medical treatment out of fear, but if a parent is caring and loving, enough they will do whatever it takes to save their child. Especially with his case, that with treatment, he had a 90% chance of survival. As stated before, any caring parent would see past their child's temporary fear and do what is life saving for them. Just as my parents would say to me growing up " you may not agree with me now, but I am doing this because I love you, and you will thank me later" and they were right!
In the case of Madeline (Kara) Neumann, I cannot even wrap my mind as to why a parent would do this to their child. Allowing her to die from Diabetes, a disease that is completely controllable with medication. I too also believe that prayer helps, but it does not compare to science and medicine, prayer is just an added bonus that helps people hold on to a spiritual belief that helps them stay strong. If prayer was enough, there would be no incurable diseases such as HIV, Cancer, and in this case Diabetes. It was a truly selfish act for the parents of this girl to allow her to be untreated from this common disease.
I think it is unethical to refuse medical life saving treatment for a young child. Children deserve to live long healthy lives. If it was me, I would put everything aside for my child. I think it is very selfish to put your religon infront of your child's life. Children are our future and we need to protect that.
Ashley Nechanicky
I think that it is completely unethical for parents to refuse medical care for their children when it is necessary for them to live a long and healthy life. I think that it is completely selfish of the parents as well. A young child is incapable of making their own decisions and it is up to the parent to know what is best for their children. Parents can’t always know exactly what is best for their children. However, when it comes to health they should automatically know the answer to that and the answer is doing anything and everything possible to ensure their health and safety.
Post a Comment