Mother On the Lam For Right to Let Son Die

[DiamondDave]

Here we go again. Because abortion is legal RGS's little mind believes we should let living, breathing children die of neglect.

And here we go again.. a left wanting choice only when it suits them... choose to kill one innocent life, and force another to have a treatment

And the other funny thing.. looks like RGS stated he believed the boy should be treated

And in my opinion, the boy should be treated... and I believe his life should be protected like all innocent life should..

Now... it would be different, IMHO, if this were on the subject of prolonging a couple of months or whatever and the child did not want to go thru intensive and painful treatments for the chance at an extra 60 days... but this is a case that the prognosis for cure is indeed high

 

[Valerie]

RGS, doesn't it bother your conscience that this boy will most likely die now because his mother has made such a bad choice?

 

[Valerie]

Here we go again. Because abortion is legal RGS's little mind believes we should let living, breathing children die of neglect.

And here we go again.. a left wanting choice only when it suits them... choose to kill one innocent life, and force another to have a treatment

And the other funny thing.. looks like RGS stated he believed the boy should be treated

And in my opinion, the boy should be treated... and I believe his life should be protected like all innocent life should..

Now... it would be different, IMHO, if this were on the subject of prolonging a couple of months or whatever and the child did not want to go thru intensive and painful treatments for the chance at an extra 60 days... but this is a case that the prognosis for cure is indeed high

Alright so we all agree he should be treated, you just think women who are pro-choice are hypocritical for feeling this way? I disagree on that part, but I appreciate your respect for life.

 

[Newby]

What on earth are you talking about? Medical neglect is one of the standard things prevented by family courts all across the country. The parents have the right to decide for THEMSELVES to forego medical treatment... not for a child.

And if this were some person practicing Santaria and cutting marks into their child's body to "protect" him or her from illness, you'd be calling for the heathen's head

The wingnuts care more about two cells than they do about lilving children.

It's disgusting.

So much for medical privacy, 'its my body', and 'choice', huh??? Amazing.

 

[Ravi]

What on earth are you talking about? Medical neglect is one of the standard things prevented by family courts all across the country. The parents have the right to decide for THEMSELVES to forego medical treatment... not for a child.

And if this were some person practicing Santaria and cutting marks into their child's body to "protect" him or her from illness, you'd be calling for the heathen's head

The wingnuts care more about two cells than they do about lilving children.

It's disgusting.

So much for medical privacy, 'its my body', and 'choice', huh??? Amazing.

The living child in no one's body but his own.

 

[Newby]

Well said

The boy has an excellent chance of survival if treated and an excellent chance of death if he is not. The fact is it is a very treatable form of cancer. Why would you fight an abortion but not the slow death of a living child? Makes no sense. It's child neglect.

YOU have set the standard NOT US. YOU argue for choice unless it happens to upset your conscious. Either it is a religious matter of choice, PROTECTED by privacy and the 1st Amendment JUST AS Abortion is or admit you are just making moral choices like you accuse us of.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

a 13 year old boy with Cancer can not CHOSE to not have the treatment YOU want him to have.

It's the treatment his doctors want him to have because there is overwhelming demonstrable evidence that it is a matter of life and death for him. The boy is a minor who needs a responsible adult to be his guardian and protect him. This parent is guilty of neglect, IMO.

So Freedom of religion does not apply? Privacy does not apply? The rights of the Parents to DISAGRRE with the doctors and CHOSE AN ALTERNATE treatment does not apply?

Reread it, the Mother did not say he would not get treatement, she said they would use alternate means.

YOU are now claiming the Government has the sole say in treatment for anyone that the Doctors disagree with. In my opinion the Judge had no legal basis to make the Judgement he made.

I think the child should get the treatment, BUT LEGALLY under the Constitution that simply is not OUR place to demand it.

ANYONE that supports abortion has NO standing to oppose the Mother and the Boy's wishes. NONE.

 

[Newby]

Obviously not.

Just like Gays marrying and Jillian being opposed to CONSENTING ADULTS having Incestuous Relationships, you turds are all for choice unless it bothers YOUR conscious. Either we have religious freedom and choice or we do not. IF the Majority does not get to decide on Gays and abortion, guess what , YOU don't get to decide on medical treatment for minors on this issue.

You're all over the road.

What does adult consensual sex have to do with this?

I am for keeping the government out of our personal freedoms as far as possible, but a civil society needs to protect it's children.

Only when they're outside the womb, right? Amazing. How anyone can have two such conflicting views at the same time is incomprehensible. How you can advocate that the government has no business being in anyone's medical care to support your advocasy of abortion and then turn around and say the opposite in this case is amazing.

 

[Newby]

What on earth are you talking about? Medical neglect is one of the standard things prevented by family courts all across the country. The parents have the right to decide for THEMSELVES to forego medical treatment... not for a child.

And if this were some person practicing Santaria and cutting marks into their child's body to "protect" him or her from illness, you'd be calling for the heathen's head

The wingnuts care more about two cells than they do about lilving children.

It's disgusting.

So much for medical privacy, 'its my body', and 'choice', huh??? Amazing.

The living child in no one's body but his own.

All he has to do is use your abortion argument, pretty simple. But, I understand why you're having trouble.

 

[Valerie]

The boy has an excellent chance of survival if treated and an excellent chance of death if he is not. The fact is it is a very treatable form of cancer. Why would you fight an abortion but not the slow death of a living child? Makes no sense. It's child neglect.

YOU have set the standard NOT US. YOU argue for choice unless it happens to upset your conscious. Either it is a religious matter of choice, PROTECTED by privacy and the 1st Amendment JUST AS Abortion is or admit you are just making moral choices like you accuse us of.

You think parents have the right to choose to let their living children die, but not the right to choose to abort the fetus? See how twisted that logic can be? Most people can see the obvious differences here, but taking stabs at women is much easier to do than THINK about it.

 

[Newby]

YOU have set the standard NOT US. YOU argue for choice unless it happens to upset your conscious. Either it is a religious matter of choice, PROTECTED by privacy and the 1st Amendment JUST AS Abortion is or admit you are just making moral choices like you accuse us of.

You think parents have the right to choose to let their living children die, but not the right to choose to abort the fetus? Most people can see the obvious differences here, but taking stabs at women is much easier to do than THINK about it.

His parents are choosing alternative treatment, and they're doing what they think is best just like a 13 year old girl deciding to kill her baby. But as someone who advocates what you do about government intervention into private medical issues about what people do with their own body as a means of defending abortion, you have no grounds on which to argue here. You don't get to pick and choose who gets to be treated fairly under the laws that you advocate, that's not how the game works.

I wouldn't 'choose' the option that they have personally.

After all, it's all about choice, isn't it? That's all that matters.

 

[rr1]

Where's the boy's dad in all this?

 

[Valerie]

You think parents have the right to choose to let their living children die, but not the right to choose to abort the fetus? Most people can see the obvious differences here, but taking stabs at women is much easier to do than THINK about it.

His parents are choosing alternative treatment, and they're doing what they think is best just like a 13 year old girl deciding to kill her baby. But as someone who advocates what you do about government intervention into private medical issues about what people do with their own body as a means of defending abortion, you have no grounds on which to argue here. You don't get to pick and choose who gets to be treated fairly under the laws that you advocate, that's not how the game works.

I wouldn't 'choose' the option that they have personally.

After all, it's all about choice, isn't it? That's all that matters.

As I said, I disagree that there are no grounds for that argument and so does the court.

The 13 year old girl who becomes pregnant is not dying. I think the law should require that a parent or adult guardian should be informed and it is a private medical decision whether or not to abort the pregnancy, not the government.

This 13 year old boy is going to die from lack of treatment, so essentially his mother's choice is a walking abortion of his life. The private medical decision has become a public legal affair because a civilized society has an obligation to protect this already alive child from THAT choice.

 

[auditor0007]

The government should not dictate what, if any, medical treatment a person should go through. This is supposed to be a free society, where a person has the freedom to choose what's best themselves. I've known too many people that have undergone chemotherapy and frankly the cure is often worse than the disease. Everyone I know that had undergone extensive treatment has passed away after years of what I feel is medical abuse.

In most cases I would agree. I watched my wife go through chemo and radiation for ten months. It was not easy. However, there are two things to consider. First of all, is this thirteen year old boy capable of making a rational decision concerning his treatment, and does he understand that without it, he has a greater than 95% chance of dying. In other words, his life is almost over. On the other hand, if he goes through with the chemo, he has a 90% chance of survival, and it is likely he will live a long and productive life. Hodgkins and non-Hodgkins Lymphoma are two of the few cancers where treatment has been proven to be highly effective and normally leads to long term survivability.

The point is that this boys doctors stated they would be open to forgoing the chemo if they believed the boy was terminal. They do not believe that however, as they feel he should survive this with good results. So what this mother is doing is writing the death sentence of her own child. Does that make her unfit as a parent? As much as I believe in parent's rights, I do think she is wacko and unfit, at least when it comes to making medical decisions.

 

[Valerie]

Where's the boy's dad in all this?

Colleen Hauser and her son, Daniel, who has Hodgkin's lymphoma, apparently left their southern Minnesota home sometime after a doctor's appointment and court-ordered X-ray on Monday showed his tumor had grown.

Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg, who had ruled last week that Daniel's parents were medically neglecting him, issued an arrest warrant Tuesday for Colleen Hauser and ruled her in contempt of court. Rodenberg also ordered that Daniel be placed in foster care and immediately evaluated by a cancer specialist for treatment.

The boy's father, Anthony Hauser, testified he didn't know where his wife and son were but had made no attempt to find them. He testified he last saw his son Monday morning, and he saw his wife only briefly that evening when she said she was leaving "for a time."

As of Wednesday morning, the mother and son still had not been found, said Carl Rolloff, a sheriff's dispatcher.

Officials distributed the arrest warrant nationwide. Brown County Sheriff Rich Hoffman said Tuesday that investigators were following some leads locally, but declined to elaborate.

"It's absolutely crazy. It's very disappointing," James Olson, the attorney representing Brown County Family Services. "We're trying to do what's right for this young man."

The Associated Press: Arrest ordered for mom of boy, 13, resisting chemo

 

[Newby]

You think parents have the right to choose to let their living children die, but not the right to choose to abort the fetus? Most people can see the obvious differences here, but taking stabs at women is much easier to do than THINK about it.

His parents are choosing alternative treatment, and they're doing what they think is best just like a 13 year old girl deciding to kill her baby. But as someone who advocates what you do about government intervention into private medical issues about what people do with their own body as a means of defending abortion, you have no grounds on which to argue here. You don't get to pick and choose who gets to be treated fairly under the laws that you advocate, that's not how the game works.

I wouldn't 'choose' the option that they have personally.

After all, it's all about choice, isn't it? That's all that matters.

As I said, I disagree that there are no grounds for that argument and so does the court.

The 13 year old girl who becomes pregnant is not dying. I think the law should require that a parent or adult guardian should be informed and it is a private medical decision whether or not to abort the pregnancy, not the government.

This 13 year old boy is going to die from lack of treatment, so essentially his mother's choice is a walking abortion of his life. The private medical decision has become a public legal affair because a civilized society has an obligation to protect this already alive child from THAT choice.

You're right, only the life that is inside of her will be dying, so she's making the choice for someone else's life, not her own. Sorry, but you have no argument.

 

[Ravi]

So much for medical privacy, 'its my body', and 'choice', huh??? Amazing.

The living child in no one's body but his own.

All he has to do is use your abortion argument, pretty simple. But, I understand why you're having trouble.

My bad, I didn't realize he was pregnant.

 

[Ravi]

YOU have set the standard NOT US. YOU argue for choice unless it happens to upset your conscious. Either it is a religious matter of choice, PROTECTED by privacy and the 1st Amendment JUST AS Abortion is or admit you are just making moral choices like you accuse us of.

You think parents have the right to choose to let their living children die, but not the right to choose to abort the fetus? See how twisted that logic can be? Most people can see the obvious differences here, but taking stabs at women is much easier to do than THINK about it.

Of course, Val...you know as well as I that the wingnuts only care about potential life...or pretend to care about it.

 

[jillian]

What on earth are you talking about? Medical neglect is one of the standard things prevented by family courts all across the country. The parents have the right to decide for THEMSELVES to forego medical treatment... not for a child.

And if this were some person practicing Santaria and cutting marks into their child's body to "protect" him or her from illness, you'd be calling for the heathen's head

The wingnuts care more about two cells than they do about lilving children.

It's disgusting.

Ohh I get it, A mother has the right to murder a fetus cause well it aint born yet but not the right to CHOSE her son's medical treatment that HE also wants.

I agree he should be treated but YOU have no leg to stand on on this issue.

Well said

only if one can't discern the difference between a parent being required to CARE for their child and not neglecting said child... and my right to my body.

I guess medical treatment is only required if the brain has turned to liquid like Terry Schiavo, eh?

Skewed values... sorry.

 

[auditor0007]

Remind us again how a 13 year old Pregnant Girl can CHOSE to ABORT but a 13 year old boy with Cancer can not CHOSE to not have the treatment YOU want him to have.

Well, I oppose the 13 year old pregnant girl being permitted to choose abortion, and I also oppose the 13 year old boy being able to choose suicide over sound medical treatment that will save his life.