Today on CNN Newsroom

The latest news and information from around the world. Also connect with CNN through social media. We want to hear from you.
May 22nd, 2009
08:40 AM ET

Who decides your medical treatment?

A 13-year-old Minnesota boy, Daniel Hauser, and his mother vow to resist chemotherapy for his cancer.  Last week, a judge ruled that Daniel's parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, were medically neglecting him. The court ordered the boy undergo a chest X-ray to assess his Hodgkins lymphoma.  His mother disappeared with her son and has missed their Tuesday court hearing.  Now, there is a felony warrant out for her arrest. 

Does this amount to law enforcement and the courts mandating medical treatment? Does the government have the right to do so? Leave us a comment.


Filed under: Nicole Lapin • Tony Harris • Website
soundoff (109 Responses)
  1. marsh

    government shouldnt decide what kind treatment your kid should get unless their a disagreement between parents.. if governmet does what eles will they decide for us!!!!

    May 22, 2009 at 9:03 am |
  2. Seiyefa Egein

    Isn't suicide supposed to be a crime? If you decide to avert treatment against something that'll potentially kill you, then the law should enforce treatment.

    May 22, 2009 at 9:03 am |
  3. Michael Williams

    I believe the courts have the duty to step in where guardians/parents of children cannot make appropriate and educated decisions about their children's health. It is one thing to subject themselves to inappropriate care, but children – especially younger ones – have the obligation and right to have appropriate treatment.

    I hope they find this women and arrest her for her stupidity.

    May 22, 2009 at 9:14 am |
  4. Joseph Cooper

    My Mom died of Cancer in 1993 and she participated in the chemo treatment and to see her go through what should went through only to die in the end was very heart breaking. I honestly feel the mother carried the child in her womb for 9 months and cared for the child until now with probably 0 concerns for the outside. She has earned the right to pray and decide what is best for her child.

    May 22, 2009 at 10:20 am |
  5. Franky

    I gotta say, I am so saddened what the mom did, was probably the last thing on my mind. And I think she ran right after I gave my personal conviction about the matter, I heard right away but I just didn't know what to think.

    That is so disappointing...

    May 22, 2009 at 10:55 am |
  6. Deb

    Withholding medical treatment that has an excellent chance of saving a life is tantamount to murder.

    May 22, 2009 at 11:16 am |
  7. Fred Conklin

    Of course it does. But the courts have had that power from the beginning. It isn't like the Senate and Terry Schiavo – there was due process in this case

    May 22, 2009 at 11:17 am |
  8. mario g

    the parents should have a chance to explain why they do not want their kid to get chemo.

    May 22, 2009 at 11:20 am |
  9. tina dimarco

    chemotherapy is poison tha often kills faster than cancer. a mother has a right to choose what is best especily when it comes to injecting dangerous chemicals/drugs into her son. if it is against her beliefs she has that right. NO COURT SHOULD FORCE THIS THAT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. cancer is caused by all the processed foods, chemicals, stress, and all other sins of the father/society.
    leave the family alone.

    May 22, 2009 at 11:21 am |
  10. Angela Hughes

    I feel that if a child is old enough to take babysitting classes at the age of 13, and take care of a young child, and make decisions on how to take care of that child while the parents are out. Then i feel that a 13 year old young man can make his own choice on weather he wants to go threw all that pain and discomfort of cancer treatment or decide that he wants to enjoy what is left of his life, and then except it when it is his time to go. The law say's at 13 you are old enough to care for someone child, and the law says that you can go in court and tell the judge that you want to live with one of your parents if they get divorced, then let this young man make his own choice about his life and leave him alone. No one can tell you when you are going to die, not even a DR. Only GOD can do that.

    May 22, 2009 at 11:23 am |
  11. Steve Greene

    This past year I taught a Jewish ethics class to 7th grade students and we studies a scenario similar to this one. Our story (based on a true situation) concerned a 13 year old who decided that he was tired of the treatments and side effects of his disease and both he and his mother decided to discontinue treatment.
    My students had a healthy debate, each side trying to bolster its position with the students' knowledge of Jewish law and tradition.
    Most were surprised to find that the very tradition they quoted to support the medical staff and court's standing to continue treatment, actually gave the young man and his mother, the right to choose to discontinue his medical treatment and finish his life with his chosen quality and dignity. Not too bad for 12 & 13-year-olds!

    May 22, 2009 at 11:23 am |
  12. Jim

    Has a healthcare worker for more then 29 years, I feel it is imperative that a child received the proper treatment when in comes to saving his or her life. I feel that parents who would even consider an alternative measure that is unproven is guilty on child abuse. Now with that said I am only talking about life and death situations, not preventitive treatments.

    May 22, 2009 at 11:23 am |
  13. Diplomatic Relations

    In the Publication "Your Medical Rights" it covers state by state the indivituals rights and on page 38 of this publication is the rights of Children. It provides information which covers all states and the right of the parents and the child to choose the method of treatment they wish to undergo for their condition. In no way does a court legally have the right to override these rights. However, I believe that the choice of treatment must be recognised as an aproved modality for the condition. This does not include prayer, shamens etc.

    Again, it is provided that the family and the patient have the right to deny a particular method of treatment for another aproved one.

    May 22, 2009 at 11:23 am |
  14. tina dimarco

    marrianne williams your are stupid, and anyone who thinks we should be forced to trust the health care for profit system is too.

    May 22, 2009 at 11:24 am |
  15. LisaJo Borchers

    The Mom has the right to decided treatment for her son. They tried the Chemo–and made another decision. There is a body of research that says that Chemo causes more problems than it is worth. This child and his mother decide–Many people choose Chemo–and that's fine, but it should not be required. I believe that this sort of a decision is the new trend. There will be more and more people choosing an alternative treatment– and there are many. There is a chemo industry that wants to go on treating people even when there are better therapies available. The government should not intervene in this case. This is not a neglectful family. They sought traditional treatment- and then made another choice. Leave them alone.

    May 22, 2009 at 11:24 am |
  16. Ginny from Marietta, GA

    I think the govenment and medical sector need to get out of the public's personal lives. Yes, I think a parent has a right to choose what treatment tbey want for their child. This boy is 13yrs old and understands what is happening. I know of two people (one on her death bed) older than him that survived cancer using alternative treatments. That was over 40 years ago and they are still alive.

    May 22, 2009 at 11:25 am |
  17. Sharon

    As a healthcare professional, this becomes a question of ethics. On the one hand we know and believe that this young man should have chemo therapy to "perhaps" heal his leukemia. On the other, this young man and his family have very strong beliefs that there are alternative treatments to his illness.

    Who is to say which treatment is effective when a large amount of studies show that treatment is based on beliefs which stems from the mind. The will to live and heal is incredibly inter-related and if that is this young mans belief then what give the courts the right to force this young man into chemo therapy that is so toxic to the body.

    I do believe in medicine and chemo however, instead of mandating a course of treatment for this young man, I believe that the medical doctors and the judge should sit down with this young man and give him all of his options. His parents should not be present and he alone should make the decision as to his course of treatment.

    May 22, 2009 at 11:26 am |
  18. Wanda in Montana

    No, the government should not force this kid to have chemotherapy over his parents' religious beliefs. But I would go just one step further:

    Not only should the government NOT force religious people to benefit from medical science, these people should not be allowed ANY benefits from science, ever.

    Have your babies naturally without anesthesia or interference when problems arise. Pray for everything to turn out okay. As more religious women die in childbirth perhaps the human race will go back to progressing intellectually instead of the devolution we've been experiencing.

    Prayer vs. science. Nothing would prove the theory of evolution and Darwin's survival of the fittest rationale better than when religious people see just how effective prayer alone really is.

    While you're at it, pray for service members who have lost limbs to regrow them. God can do anything, right? Why not regenerate arms and legs? Nothing should be impossible.

    May 22, 2009 at 11:26 am |
  19. Barb

    I am really bothered by the idea that the courts can force a particular type of medical treatment on an individual even, or perhaps especially, if the person is a minor. I would not want chemo forced on me. I think it is highly toxic to the body long term, not to mention the horrific short term side effects. I think that if parents were refusing to seek treatment at all, that might constitute neglect. But...if they are seeking a legitimate alternative treatment then I do not think the courts should interfere. There is plenty of research out there to validate the mother's fear of chemotherapy and radiation.

    May 22, 2009 at 11:29 am |
  20. LittleSis

    What a crazy world we live in. I am not saying if I am for or against abortion and only using this to illustrate my point....

    Mothers are allowed to have abortions killing their unborn babies but yet parents can not choose what they feel is the best treatment for their children's physical or emotional problems.

    I am against real abusive but I am also against the state controlling parents and forcing parents to raise their children the way the state feels is best. The parents did not give their child cancer and should be allowed how to treat it. There is no 100 percent guarantee that a child will live with Chemo. I am NOT against drugs for physical problems but I am against forcing parents to go against their conscience.

    I almost died as a child with something I was born with and would had died if medical doctors had did it the way they wanted to. If I had died because of the delay in my treatment then I know my mother would had been blamed but it was her decision to make and it turned out to be the right one. Doctors are not always right. Parents are not always right but since the doctor's aren't either, let parents decide.

    I was separated from my mother when I was 13 years old and no it was not the state taking me, it was my mother's choice but I am telling you that separation did me far MORE harm than the severe sickness did that I had, period, and that is what is getting left out of the picture so many times when people think they are doing what is best for the child/children and that is the lifelong scars and damage it can cause to kids that are forced to be separated from their parents.

    LEAVE FAMILIES ALONE UNLESS IT IS REAL ABUSIVE not just a matter of decisions that are difficult as it is for parents to make.

    If parents make the wrong choice they will have to live with it the rest of their life but they are the ones that loved their children, not the state.

    And all the dangerous drugging to children with drugs not even approved to be safely used in children, why isn't that addressed more? Dr. Baughman, Board Certified Neurologist Pediatric Neurologist for many years, very well known and has even testified before congress. There should be many interviews by the media with this intelligent doctor with both parents and the state listening to him, not just the doctors the state wants to listen to that side with them!

    May 22, 2009 at 11:30 am |
  21. Alice Crane

    Our children are still our children, as are our spouses and our parents. We should still be able to make our own family decisions regarding our health care without government interference.

    I know of no other nation that decides it is their right to dictate our personal choices in how we live as does America.

    We have to start behaving as adults and not looking to the government to take care of every problem we encounter in our daily lives. To not our government as a battering ram to force our own beliefs on other citizens. And the government needs to act responsibly and allow us the freedom our constitution guarantees us.

    May 22, 2009 at 11:37 am |
  22. Greg Williams

    Joe Cooper, I know how you feel, my landlord's aunt passed away recently from cancer and to see the pain FROM chemo and her final passing aren't something anyone should have to go through.
    What I do find odd is this. "Our" government on one side gets their undies in a bunch and will often put religion and faith ahead of counrty and constitution. Here is a family wanting to follow their faith and the government gets involved.
    But that's nothing new in our country. The recent Congressional Research Services' Report on medical marijuana is authored by Mark Eddy a specialist in crime policy.
    It appears that law enforcement in one way or another make medical decisions for us. Next time somebody robbs a bank, call the doctor.

    May 22, 2009 at 11:39 am |
  23. T Linnell

    The presumunous of our courts is outrageous. Our children can opt for medication and surgical proceedures, namely birth control and abortions without any medical background knowledge or parental knowledge. The parents obviously don't have the right anymore, only the liablity behind the wheel. On the other hand, neither do the courts, because the courts don't monitor these meds or proceedures, either. Furthermore, our children, as young as age 10 are adults, otherwise they couldn't be tried as adults. The mixed messages the courts are sending are rediculous, lack forethought and caring, and, therefore, the courts need to back off due to gross negligence on their inconsistant 'rulings'.

    May 22, 2009 at 11:40 am |
  24. Alice Crane

    Our children are still our children, as are our spouses and our parents. We should still be able to make our own family decisions regarding our health care without government interference.

    I know of no other nation that decides it is their right to dictate our personal choices in how we live as does America.

    We have to start behaving as adults and not looking to the government to take care of every problem we encounter in our daily lives. To not use our government as a battering ram to force our own beliefs on other citizens. And the government needs to act responsibly and allow us the freedom our constitution guarantees us.

    May 22, 2009 at 11:41 am |
  25. Nikki

    I don't think that they have the right to make a parent accept medical treatment. It is the citizens rights. now they want to arrest the mother. I think they have done enough damage already. Leave people alone, it is their choice. Radiation is poison, they real study should be all of the chemical that they put in food that creates cancers. Every medicine that Western Doctors uses has a side effect.

    May 22, 2009 at 11:46 am |
  26. evelyn

    Definitely let the parents make the choice for childs treatment. Afterall, in comparison the law says it is legal to kill your child while child is growing in mom's uterus. This family is not in favor of killing their child, they are choosing medical care...just not the one a law agrees with.

    May 22, 2009 at 11:46 am |
  27. John Showalter

    Tough question... or is it? I'm on chemo, because I made the decision based on all the information I could gather. It was a tough choice for me, because this is hell on earth. I almost decided to let nature take it's course. The point? This is MY DECISION, not some control freak governement official's decision. Personally, I am getting real tired of government interference/infringement on my rights to make my own choices. Let the family make their own decisions.

    May 22, 2009 at 11:47 am |
  28. Joseph Hilliman

    I believe the government has a responsibility to protect Daniel. At 13, he is not capable of making health care decisions for himself. His mom should be prosecuted for her actions. They only ordered an x-ray.

    As far as adults, the government should not have the right to mandate health care for adults.

    May 22, 2009 at 11:48 am |
  29. Mike

    The State has no right to meddle with it's citizens choices in life. The Government has decided that they know know best and we just need to get in line and give up our personal liberties. It's all about the persuit of happiness. It's a crime that we have to flee our country to legally receive treatment that Big Brother and the AMA do not approve of.

    May 22, 2009 at 11:48 am |
  30. Bad Experience Gurl

    Oh COME ON!!!! So, governement loves the kids with cancer more than the parents???? I really don't think that government should have the right to choose the treatment and that parents know best. I have had a bad experience, and i have learned that chemotheraphy and raditation does nothing more than use up the body and kill the cancer patient. Government should not be able to choose the treamtent and in the long run probably kill the CNACER PATIENT!!!

    May 22, 2009 at 11:53 am |
  31. Rob

    So the government will mandate our heatlcare treatment, the people pay for the treatment and the big healthcare industry makes all the money. What's wrong with that picture?? People in the country have a right to make up their own minds up on what kind of medical treatment they recieve.

    May 22, 2009 at 11:53 am |
  32. Annabelle Fiore

    I believe the government should step in if the parents are neglecting treatment for their children. What kind of parent would refuse treatment for their child? I sure wouldn't, its the last think on my mind.

    This is a very sad situation.

    May 22, 2009 at 11:53 am |
  33. A. Felice

    I find it interesting that the whole country thinks they have a right to make medical decisions for this boy.

    Everyday there are people who are denied medical treatment that they need because they don't have insurance or they can't afford it. Where is the outrage for that situation?

    May 22, 2009 at 11:54 am |
  34. Bad Experience Gurl

    Oh COME ON!!!! So, governement loves the kids with cancer more than the parents???? I really don't think that government should have the right to choose the treatment and that parents know best. I have had a bad experience, and i have learned that chemotheraphy and raditation does nothing more than use up the body and kill the cancer patient. Government should not be able to choose the treamtent and in the long run probably kill the CANCER PATIENT!!!

    May 22, 2009 at 11:54 am |
  35. Michael in Los Angeles

    How is this case any different than an agency intervention in a child abuse case? Those that dont want the government involved in this child's health care decisions dont care that the parents may be putting the child in danger of losing his life? To me, its the governments OBLIGATION to intervene when parents are abusing their children and this is certainly abuse.

    May 22, 2009 at 11:54 am |
  36. Remya

    The medical treatment should be decided by the person who knows best about the subject...in this case doctors!! I mean, the way it sounds, isnt this anti-life? In a country where pro-choice is considered murder by most, shouldn't what this woman is doing be considered murder as well...without treatment the child will die...and I personally know people who recovered completely once treated with chemo for Hodgkins...for goodness sake, treat your child or you will have no one to blame but yourself when its too late!!

    May 22, 2009 at 11:54 am |
  37. Maureen

    The boy's mother is very courageous and is protecting her son.
    We should all have the right to make these decisions, since cancer
    therapy is not an exact or divine science. She is well informed and
    has the faith to following her own guidance.

    May 22, 2009 at 11:54 am |
  38. Chris

    The Government has no place in family decisions. It is a violation of there constitutional rights, under the right to privacy and right to practice any religion without government intervention. But then again our government has already decided the american people cannot effectively make there own decisions i.e. Nationalized Banking. The government needs to keep its nose out of OUR business

    May 22, 2009 at 11:54 am |
  39. Sara

    Like Marsh said, the government should not decide what kind of treatment a person receives for a disease unless parents are disagreeing on what is best for their child. Also, does anyone care how Daniel Hauser feels? Although he may only be 13, he is the one that has been going through the chemo and its side effects. If he is in agreement with his parents in seeking alternative methods of treatment, there should be no debate on what to do and the government should not be forcing medical care and treatment that is not wanted by the patient and his parents. However, if he wanted to continue treatment and his parents refused, I would not oppose the government becoming involved.

    May 22, 2009 at 11:55 am |
  40. john

    Where is the outrage and indignation when a woman with treatable breast cancer is refused treatment because she can't afford it. Where are the headlines when people succumb to treatable diseases because they are too poor or too sick to advocate for themselves!

    Sure it's a crime what this mother is doing to her son. Just as it's a crime when our affluent society allows people to die from treatable -albeit expensive – conditions.

    I weep for both.

    May 22, 2009 at 11:55 am |
  41. Jerry Diltz

    It is in the constitution that the government is to respect the seperation of church and state. Since their are many religions and non-believers, it is the government's responsibilty to make decisions that are scientifically proven to be best for the survival of the child in question. If the parents are wrong the child dies. Tried and proven medical practices show the best possibilities of this childs survival.

    May 22, 2009 at 11:55 am |
  42. Claudia E. Floyd

    Since when do regular civilians have a doctor's degree? I think it is a very good idea that parents inform themselves about the illness that their children suffer but this google search will not give them the knowlwdge of a group of people who study so many years the science and have a whole system to support them.

    I think this parents are being selfish by only thinking on how they won't like to see their kid suffering chimo and they are denying him a chance to beat this cancer.

    If I was a parent I would try every single thing in order to save my babay.

    May 22, 2009 at 11:55 am |
  43. Cheryl P

    I have not heard anything about Medical insurance. Does this family carry medical insurance for their family and if so why would they do that if they have no plans of using the insurance to help their family in case of medical emergencies. My opinion is that if the parents were looking at the option of death or possibly being cured with a 80 to 90% survival rate, they would use their insurance.

    May 22, 2009 at 11:56 am |
  44. Jerry Walters

    This is insane! If religion were criminalized, as it should be, this child wouldn’t be facing death from a treatable illness because of his mother’s superstitious religious beliefs. How is this any different than any other form of child abuse? It appears that you can commit any crime against humanity you want provided you call it religion.

    Jerry, TN

    May 22, 2009 at 11:56 am |
  45. Don in Toledo

    The government already does determine your childs medical treatment. Try to enroll your child in school if they don't have certain immunizations. This doesn't even take a court order. It's either you get your kid the shots or we'll see ya later.

    May 22, 2009 at 11:57 am |
  46. Dr. Morgan

    I have to weigh in on this question... emphatically No to government oversight and choice of how you are to be treated. Medical Treatment of Cancer is no more effective than Natural methods of treatment... who knows best those that have died of Medically forced treatments or Natural Methods... under both, many die either way. medically or naturally as long as thery are being treated... that is all that counts... after all it is only God that Heals no matter the treatment... under the medical umbrella... the Treatment was a success but the patient died... under the natural method the natural method was a success but the patient died... you have a right to choose your method of treatment.

    May 22, 2009 at 11:57 am |
  47. Dianna C.

    The government has no right to tell parents what treatments should be given. The child and his parents have made this decision together and it should be respected. We the people are able & intelligent enough to make our own decisions and do not need them made for us. Government has to much influence in our lives as it is. We don't need more government.

    May 22, 2009 at 11:57 am |
  48. Justin Beaumont

    I believe that if this childs insurance didn't cover the chemo that "THE GOVERMENT" would not even take a second look at this child. The decision should be up to the parents. The goverment should leave this family alone they are going through enough already.

    May 22, 2009 at 11:57 am |
  49. Susan

    I have been through chemotherapy myself, as this young man already has also, and no one, especially not the government, should have the right to tell someone they have to go through that if they don't want to. He and his parents should have the sole right to make that decision, as they are the ones that will have to deal wih the consequences.

    May 22, 2009 at 11:57 am |
  50. Debbie

    If the government is charging this boys mom with a felony because she is taking him from getting treatment, why is it that insurance companies that deny to cover treatments are not also charged with a crime?
    What about those with no insurance who are denied care because of lack of funds to pay for care by doctors and hospitals? Is that not a crime as well?

    May 22, 2009 at 11:57 am |
  51. Steve Bowles

    You guys are killing me. This is child neglect at the highest level. People go to jail every day for child neglect. And, it's not "the government" controlling anyone's life. It's the judicial branch mandating what the enforcement arm is charged to do. That's why we have the seperation of powers in this country. Sheezo....!!!

    May 22, 2009 at 11:57 am |
  52. matt

    i feel if a childs life is is in severe danger the parents need to step up to the plate. If they dont the government should have the right to prosecute those parents and make them suffer like the child is!

    May 22, 2009 at 11:58 am |
  53. M ODonnell

    This is child abuse plain and simple. No different than a parent denying food, shelter or an education. In all those situations the state or child welfare agencies would defend and protect the child's best interest. What is different about this mother hindering proper medical care for her minor child

    May 22, 2009 at 11:58 am |
  54. Richard Ancel

    The religious right certainly had no problem with the Government mandating treatment of Terry Schiavo, who was brain dead, against the specific wishes of her husband. The U.S. Congress even enacted a law, signed by President Bush, if I remember correctly, mandating same. Now right wing extremists say that the government, through the courts in this case, have no right to try to save the life of a child? Give me a break. I'm not particularly religious, but if I were, I would thank God for giving medical science the knowledge that might save the life of my critically ill child. There is nothing I wouldn't do to try to save my child's life were I in this situation. The parents are abusers in this instance. They can refuse treatment for themselves, but not for a child whose life might be saved by today's science.

    May 22, 2009 at 11:58 am |
  55. william saling

    If the government/law enforcement is going to mandate treatments/screenings then they should have to pay the costs associated. Also what constitutional law has the mother broken.

    May 22, 2009 at 11:58 am |
  56. Alison

    Although I realize that Chemo has helped many people, it has also killed a lot too. It is extremely toxic to the body, kills cells and can result in a horrible death. If the mother has sought the advise of a naturopath and is following natural healing remedies, then her and her son should have the right to do so. Government should not have the right to tell anyone which is the "right" method of treatment.

    May 22, 2009 at 11:59 am |
  57. Miguel Ortiz

    I got to say that this medical systems looks like communism. Doctors are not sure if this chemo thing will work. They say it is 95 % chance but are they really sure about it. What about if he dies, like thousand of people have tried. All you got to do is make an estimate of how many people use chemo and survive and how many not.

    Let the family decide not court.

    May 22, 2009 at 11:59 am |
  58. Steve Bowles

    And, it's child neglect born of ignorance.

    May 22, 2009 at 11:59 am |
  59. Bob Dentan

    Not only is the Socialist government trying to force a mother to give her kid the chemo that has a 90% chance of saving his (otherwise lost) life, they're trying to prosecute another mother who smothered her kid (twice, actually) and buried him in a sandpile on a playground so that he wouldn't have to grow up unloved as she had done. What's the difference? When I was a kid, Massachusetts still had a law on the books protecting the right of a father to kill his son. Those were the good old days, weren't they?

    May 22, 2009 at 11:59 am |
  60. damor pinto

    i gotta say, that the government have alright to take the matter in hand...he is just i kids that don't understand live and is trap in is parent's make believe world this is why we know the government care!

    May 22, 2009 at 11:59 am |
  61. Chris Smithson

    Where was the government when this child was conceived? Where will it be when he passes on? This mother has the right to choose the type of treatment her child gets; I would hardly chalk this up to child neglect. When my child has a cold, should I wait for the government to decide whether I give him tylenol or robitussin?

    May 22, 2009 at 11:59 am |
  62. jim

    i dont think the gov should have any think to do with it i think it should be up to daniel may be hes the one that dosent want t o go thould it

    May 22, 2009 at 12:00 pm |
  63. Mary Roberts

    I really don't understand why the government (state or federal) has ANY say so in the well-being of any child whose parents are actively making strides to keep them in good health.

    We may not agree with their methods, but there are times when they work. Just because a method, such as chemo, has been proven to work, doesn't mean it's the ONLY method.

    If this mother has decided to withhold her son from chemo, and is trying other methods of treatment, I don't see what the problem is. But because the courts have ordered what they deem to be most appropriate for this child's life-a child whom they don't live with or know on a personal basis-this is automatically what is "right." I disagree.

    If the mother was forcing her child not to undergo chemo, I can see where a problem may lie; however, the young man has said himself that he does not wish to receive treatments.

    I just believe that it's about a family's wishes and the decisions they make, as a family. The government should not have a say in this case.

    May 22, 2009 at 12:00 pm |
  64. Yvonne Dowd

    My question is, how successful is chemo treatment especially in children (what is the percentage of success)? It looks like these parents love their child, and don't appear to be misguided. Since the child has no power in this situation, their needs to be an opposing view, but not necessarily a mandate. The religious beliefs of the partens should not be imposed on the minor child, but only to themselves..

    May 22, 2009 at 12:00 pm |
  65. Jay

    I have worked on a cancer unit for five years and know second-hand what people go through during treatment. Unfortunately, I've seen more than a few individuals die, not only from the cancer itself, but from complications associated with treatment. I believe the boy should be allowed to weigh both options of chemotherapy or natural remedies and decide for himself. The court representatives and doctors aren't going to be the ones to feel the effect.

    May 22, 2009 at 12:00 pm |
  66. Kristen

    From recent experiences with people close to me who have went through chemo and didn't make it, I can understand why they don't want him to undergo it. I don't believe that it should be the courts decision to intervene, the boy is old enough to make his own decisions. They trial 14 year olds as adults so why would they want to step in and make a decision for this boy? I feel our judicial system is confused on their duties and they abuse their authority. Overall the boy and his family should be able to decide for themselves what is the best decision for them. I don't feel that the mother is wrong because if anyone tired to force my child to do something they didn't want to do, then I'm going to step in and do whatever I can to protect my child and respect their wishes!

    May 22, 2009 at 12:01 pm |
  67. Sherryle

    I have to agree with his mom. I am going through Chemo myself. I would not wish this treatment on anyone. It makes you very sick, you cannot eat or drink without vomiting. You are bed ridden most of the time. You loose your hair, your immunities go down. The Chemo brings down you immune system so much t hat you cannot fight off infection. Remember Chemo is a poison that is being administered into your body. It kills of good cells as well as the bad cells. Also, there is no guarantee after you go through all of this torture that the cancer will actually be gone. It is much better to try other methods and at least know you can live a productive life and hope for the best.

    May 22, 2009 at 12:01 pm |
  68. K Adams

    I am a lawyer and cancer survivor. The law is simple and correct in this case: you have the right to make unwise medical decisions for yourself, but you do not have the right to make them for your minor children. The child is not always mature enough to make life and death decisions and is also subject to the parents' influence. The court can and should intervene, no matter what the child says. The court's job is to do what it can to make sure the child attains adulthood and the right to make unwise decisions for him- or herself.

    May 22, 2009 at 12:01 pm |
  69. Chris

    every one on here saying that the government has to step is does not believe in our Constitution or any of the freedoms granted to us THE PEOPLE. Why dont you people just give the government all your money and live in your parents(the government) house. have them tell you what to do, what to eat, and what treatment to get. Don't impose your way of life on others.

    May 22, 2009 at 12:01 pm |
  70. Dave

    Although I do not agree with the mothers choice I feel the real issue is misconduct of the police force. They have crossed the line by making the mother and son fugitives. Now instead of being at home with the ones they love, these two are now the center of a witch hunt that is based on thier beliefs. Creating a hostile undertone for that religious belief. If i may quote one of our rights as citizens of the U.S.A. " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "
    And now an agency that is suppose to uphold these rights has decided that they do not have to adhere to that princple.

    May 22, 2009 at 12:03 pm |
  71. Don in Toledo

    Let us get together and back this mother. If her son dies it will be very sad but she should have the right to make the decision on what medical treatment he does or doesn't receive.I'm tired of our medical system being run by these "I'm Gonna Make You Live Forever" fanatics.

    May 22, 2009 at 12:03 pm |
  72. Theresa Brown

    I find this very interesting. What about the government and law enforcement fighting FOR people who are DENIED treatment for their cancers and other life-threatening illness by insurance companies?
    What if these folks don't have any insurance? Who would help them pay for the care the government and law enforcement is demanding the boy have? Who would keep them from losing what little they have over this? Maybe that's why they're into alternative care. More and more Americans are going to alternative care because of the expense of our current health care system and its discriminate policies. Can you imagine how fearful this mother is that she's being hunted over her decision for her child, whether we agree with it or not??!!

    May 22, 2009 at 12:04 pm |
  73. JERRY POTEET

    OUR GOVERNMENT WILL NOT LIFT A FINGER TO STOP INSURANCE COMPANIES FROM DENYING TREATMENT EVEN FOR GRAVE SITUATIONS. ONLY GOD KNOWS HOW MANY HAVE DIED FROM INSURANCE COMPANIES PUTTING THEIR INTEREST FIRST. BUT LET PARENTS MAKE A DECISION FOR THEIR CHILD WITH THE INPUT OF THE CHILD AND BIG GOVERNMENT STEPS IN TO ACT LIKE A HERO. BIG "G" , LEAVE THESE PARENTS ALONE AND TURN YOUR INTEREST TO WHERE YOU CAN REALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

    May 22, 2009 at 12:04 pm |
  74. Shonny Nelson

    If the courts are going to decide to force people to take medical treatment, then the deciding judge and testifying doctors in favor, should be made to spend at least 24 with the patient. If one is going to play God, then they should be required to wipe chemo induced vomit from the mouth of that 13yr old boy.

    May 22, 2009 at 12:05 pm |
  75. Marc Shulman

    Parents have full authority over their minor children until they reach the age of majority. The government should not interfere. Conversely, this also places full legal responsibility on them for their children's well-being and safety. They should be help liable for the neglect.

    May 22, 2009 at 12:06 pm |
  76. Wes

    I think the government has enough thing to get involved in, like help with crime in schools and neighborhoods.

    And let parents make decisions on to take care of their families.

    Please Government/ Stay focus

    May 22, 2009 at 12:06 pm |
  77. Rose

    No one has the right to decide treatment for the individual or a child, especially when there are alternative forms of treatment which has proven to be successful. Perhaps not in the US but overseas. Chemotherapy has been proven for years to destroy the immune system. On the contrary, the immune system should be reinforced to assist the body in fighting the disease. Such treatments are available in Germany and other countries.

    May 22, 2009 at 12:07 pm |
  78. Jerry Walters

    I don't expect this to be broadcast but if CNN is interested in more stories like Danny's, go to this website.

    http://whatstheharm.net/

    This site documents people who have died as a result of religious stupidity.

    May 22, 2009 at 12:09 pm |
  79. Dr. Margaret Hughes

    This mother has every right to choose the type of medical treatment she believes is best for her son. The United States will likely never recognize other effective medical models, some of which have been around for thousands of years, such as eastern and native Indian medicines. The reason is clear: doing so would pick the pockets of the western medical establishment. The US also will never acknowledge the effectiveness of these naturalist treatments for the same reason. Can you imagine the money loss if Americans finally use the brains God gave them and discover that they can grow most of the curative medicines for their illnesses. There is even a natural chemotherapy used in some more advanced western nations, but since it wasn't produced by our pharmaceutical companies, they won't tell you about it and probably wouldn't allow this mom to even use that. Talk about breaching our Constitutional rights to privacy, and let's not even talk about our mythological liberty.

    May 22, 2009 at 12:13 pm |
  80. patrick k

    if the government can dictate medical treatment to their children why doesn't the government make it a felony for parents who smoke cigarettes in a house of children.. it seems they could save more lives that way... i do agree with the goverments position regarding this child

    May 22, 2009 at 12:13 pm |
  81. DoctorWho

    If the courts are allowed to order people to get certain medical treatments as in this case then WELCOME to COMMUNIST AMERICA! Ruled by the inept and incompetent and obviously uneductated judges that could not get a job in the real world as an attorney. Most Judges are failures in their law practice and become civil servants to have cushy gov job. Enough of that we already know how dumb most of these decisions are! Cancer is currently ruled by pharmaceutical co. and foundations rasing money for a cure that they guarantee will never be found especially since it's a multi BILLION dollar business and has already been established by the total brain washing of the public with the Marchs for Cancer and then giving the money to pharmaceuticals co. Do you think this is a good thing. YES it's great if you work in pharmaceuticals as you get funding and a really good salary and MONEY is being given to you. WHY would you ever want to find a cure if you're on the gravy train of FREE funding. In fact whenever there are NATURAL CURES pharmaceutical co immediately TAKE THE FREE FUNDING MONEY and buy out the cures and bury them AND if they can't bury them they then take the same FREE MONEY and try to discredit the new findings. Any new possible Cancer cures are shut down by pharmaceuticals as it would jeopardize their FREE FUNDING FORM THE PUBLIC fund raisers. Chemotherapy has a less than 2% survival rate ANY sane person would and should SAY NO to a 98% failure rate. if the Judge thinks 2% survival rate is good then he should get chemotherapy for himself right away.

    May 22, 2009 at 12:14 pm |
  82. William

    I do not think the Government should be able to tell this family what to decide. I'm not saying that this is the right choice for the boy though. What I can say is the Government never steps in on Amish laws, which should be reformed. They do not get their kids vaccinated. They do not pay road taxes and many people have died in accidents that they are responsible for. Because they refuse to put lights on, slow moving vehicle signs etc. They won a presedence case from the U.S. Supreme court back in the late 70's. That let's them do as they please. Many of children have died from not getting treatment, falling off of plows and discs at the age of 4-7. You won't hear anything about it though, even in the local media. Currently I think there are 70,000 Amish. Now if they have the right anyone else does as well!

    May 22, 2009 at 12:15 pm |
  83. robert rankin

    Millions of mothers all over America are choosing what's best for their children's health every day. Whether it 's choosing treatment from a doctor, or feeding them nutrient deficient fast food on a regular basis creating a generation of obese children in epidemic numbers, it is a choice. If this Mother has decided that chemo is not what's best for her child then that is her right. If you really want big government to say how to control your children's health, then lobby for the closure of fast food chains, quit feeding them this junk and numerous other trash food items.
    Your fat kid sitting at the computer right now is perhaps more of a health ticking time bomb then the boy from Minnesota!

    May 22, 2009 at 12:16 pm |
  84. Jussinta

    The Government continues to get involved in matters that are of no business to them . Weather or not we agree with these parents is our right and it's there right to proceed the way they feel is BEST for THEIR son. The government should concentrate on finding a cure for swine flu, creating better health care, and jobs... etc., not a personal family affair. When does it end? Do they take away your choose to have a religion or not someday too? To be a vegetarian or not ? Let's try to stop the government from becoming our guardians, it is evident by the state of our economy and our world that they would be horrible at it!

    May 22, 2009 at 12:18 pm |
  85. Jill

    A tough call. I would rather die in my mother's arms than chance most of what western med. has to offer unless I'd been hit by a truck, and even then it is tough to call. How many people die of medical error and even failure of medical personel to properly wash? We all die, but how many of us get to chose how? I wish both mother and son the best, live or die.

    May 22, 2009 at 12:19 pm |
  86. Julie Miller Harding

    I am sure that this child's mother understands that willingly shortening her son's life, is just as "non-religious," as trying to refuse chemotherapy for him. Many people in this world, go through the trials and trivulations of chemotherapy. There are people in this world who are suffering much more than her son. Yet, willingly and knowingly hiding him from the treatment he needs to stay alive...is....well, disgusting. Unless she can prove that he is safely recovering without the chemo, then the government has every right in the world to protect this child from death. And all of you naturalists who believe that this is wrong, do you honestly believe that I would stop taking my anticonvulsants everyday, only to die from status epilepticus? Open your eyes and see reality. If a child can be taken from their parent for a singly bruise upon their body, then what do you suppose that Child Protective Services is seeing of this? This is beginning to cross the line of more than just neglect.

    May 22, 2009 at 12:19 pm |
  87. earl

    I think that the mother should see how fair the cancer is. if the ex ray should show that the cancer spread to fair and the d.r. says that chemo want help i think the parents should have the right to say no to the treatment . the mother is the one that has the baby not the courts . as for me i would of seen how fair along the cancer is and then go from there,
    I can not say that the mother made the right chose or not and no one else can say the same thing .
    all we can say is what we would do.

    May 22, 2009 at 12:19 pm |
  88. Sheri Horn-Strasner

    Children are children & not capable of making decisions as serious & potentially life threatning as this particular one is. What so many people fail to realize is that not every parent is either willing or capable of many decisions that are in the best interest of the child ,therefore the courts or govermental agencies are forced to protect our children. Personally, It is interesting to me that people complain so much of how much involement the government interefers with their lives until something happens that effects them directly & the goverment is the first door they knock on begging for help.I just pray for some rational thinking & less party ideaology in order to make real progress towards making our country a better place.

    May 22, 2009 at 12:20 pm |
  89. Kathy

    "Liberty and Justice For All" means that everyone has freedom of choice. It is so sad that this a judge felt the need to step in and make a law that now criminalizes this mother. She's not a criminal. For everyone who believes that she should be forced to bring her son back for poisoning...please try to remember that there are other therapies to explore, that have been shown to be effective against cancer and other diseases. It would be good for all of us to remember that America is a constitutional republic...not a democracy. That means that the majority still can't take away the rights of the minority in this country. Leave her alone. If you approve of this judge's behavior, then may they come and violate your liberty next!!!

    May 22, 2009 at 12:21 pm |
  90. Ben Stewart

    Government is elected and empowered by the majority in a democracy. This particular story is an example of the actions of an extreme minority of people.

    I would certainly not sacrifice the liberties and rights of myself or my countrymen to give the government the extent of power it needs to violate the familial hierarchy to save the .005% of people that would prefer death over medical treatment.

    That mentality is... foreign in nature, though clearly getting more popular here at home. It's definitely freaking me out...

    May 22, 2009 at 12:22 pm |
  91. Kathleen Scott

    Having worked in the pediatric oncology field for 14 years, I have seen both sides of this. The conventional treatment for this boy's disease will likely save his life, but he has had one round of chemo and has said he does not want any more. He is 13, and old enough to have a say in his treatment. The courts should stay out of it. Would the judge order the care givers to restrain Daniel and force the chemo on him?
    THAT would be child abuse. If he and his family refuse standard treatment and seek alternative medicine, their decision should be respected, as long as they have been well informed by their doctors and understand the consequences of their actions. Sadly, Daniel will probably not survive his disease, but it is their decision. Leave them alone.

    May 22, 2009 at 12:22 pm |
  92. T Linnell

    If children at age 12 can opt for abortion and take a life w/o parental consent, including taking medicine like birth control, (which could kill my girls due to genetic bloodclot issues) and children at 10 can be tried as adults for murder, then the courts have no business saying this child of 13 can’t opt out of chemo due to it being a life saving proceedure. The courts have implied his right in many other cases. Hats off to the mom, although it’s wrong to hold parents liable for a car accident caused by a 16 year old if we are to go by what the courts say. The courts need to back off by letting these children be children and give the parents back their rights to go along with these huge responsiblities. It’s obvious the courts won’t take the responsibility for their actions.

    May 22, 2009 at 12:24 pm |
  93. Jim Vandeventer

    We need to gather information on the success of homeopathic remedies for cancer. My Mom was diagnosed in November 2003. My uncle and I immediately got her on a combination of Essiac tea, shark cartilage, dubarko root, digestive enzymes, and a few others. Within a couple of months we saw improvements, and within about 3 years, the cancer had virtually disappeared. The doctors were amazed. then they sent her to M. D. Anderson in Houston for experimental chemo...at which time they made her stop all homeopathic remedies so as not to "skew" their results. They had total disregard for her, they just wandted to use her as a guinea pig for their trials. She immediately started getting worse, and in April of 2008, she died. I know beyound a showdow of a doubt that if they would have let her continue the homeopathic remedies, she would still be alive.

    May 22, 2009 at 12:27 pm |
  94. joy.

    I feel the child needs health care.but ,I'm not the parent listing to the doctor,I also feel the gorverment ought to mine there own bussiness when they haven't payed for some of my medical care.they in thee past I was turned down on surgurys ,because medicaid woulldn't pay for them,also just reasonley medicaid woulldn't pay for me some cough syrup with codine and mediaid won't pay for any cough syrup.so how lame is our goverment ?

    May 22, 2009 at 12:34 pm |
  95. Trace

    As a parent, I believe that when the government steps in and tries to regulate medical care for my child, it violates my rights as a parent to make decisions for my child as well as my childs rights to be free from pain and suffering. While chemotherapy may help this child in the short term, there's nothing to stay it will prevent a possible reoccurence or perhaps metastasization into another form. At what point does this "intervention" stop? If I child is being hurt by a parent, I am all for someone stepping in and advocating for that child, but it is obvious that this child has loving caring parents who have only what they believe is his best interest in mind. There are so many abused and neglected children in the US being harmed daily, I feel that the courts time and interests would be much better served following up on those cases and leaving these parents and this child in peace. My religious convictions would cause me to reject many of the treatments available in modern medicine for myself and my children, and no one should be able to override those decisions. Leave this family alone and allow him to come home and be surrounded those who love him at this time. That would be the best medicine for him right now.

    May 22, 2009 at 12:36 pm |
  96. Jonathan Carr

    I believe that when you have a situation where the judge has stated that he feels one of the factors in this 14 year old childs beliefs regarding treatment are the result of his exceedingly limited capacity to read, (I am guessing he is quote unquote homeschooled by these crazy parents) and the undoubtedly undue influence of his misinformed and possibly disturbed mother (who I feel sorry for). It is encumbent upon our society to see that the child is given the opportunity to become an adult and acheive the intelectual perspective (however stunted by his insane upbringing) of an adult at which time he can make this sort of decision for himself with the intellectual capacities of an adult (again however limited).
    I have an even more important point which I would like to ask you Tony to consider in the Editing of your show, Too often in ways both large and small the all important foundation of journalistic integrity and absence of bias seems to have fallen to the wayside in the name of scrambling to retain viewers in the face of the evolving forms of new media information and news sources. Journalistic integrity and the unbiased presentation of the truth is the only single thing which seperates you and your colleagues from enterntainers, and unfortunately It seems that there is rarely a story on your channel where I don't see some form of failure to mantian this commitment to unbiased truth. In the segment regarding this story the following is the example of this which I saw. It is only a small one and I applaud you for that:

    In the piece you were reviewing other peoples comments on this page and you used an excerpt from an individual who stated that he felt the government did not have the right to do so BECAUSE both parents are in agreement that the child should not be treated, but he would feel differently if otherwise (the latter was stated I believe but certainly implied). You yourself (I believe, and I know for a fact your collegues) have reported numerous times that the FATHER HAS CHANGED HIS MIND REGARDING TREATMENT. In running this comment without making reference to this fact you are presenting a partial truth. It would seem small, and perhaps only lazy, but even this small example has large ramifications: If I did know the truth, and had only seen that segment I would be left with the belief that both parents remained steadfastly against treatment. This throws the entire story into chaos as I would immediately wonder why the father was not in custody, any other children being put in state care (horrible) etc. One small ommition leaves the entire reality skewed.

    Then I take this and I apply it to the way that your network has glommed on to every Republican congressional complaint that has been voiced since the taking of the whitehouse by Obama. How can you and any of your collegues possibly justify the repeated republican sided coverage of the Pelosi CIA question, without raising the issue of the vast litany of offenses legal and otherwise commited by the republican held whitehouse for the previous 8 years.

    Over the Weekend John Bohenner himself called for the FBI to look into the CIA Pelosi issue. He was given free reign to make all sort of absurd statments of this nature while the "interviwer" simply sat by like an impotent sack. If ever a Republican calls for legal action in this fashion the only correct response as an unbiased journalist is to hold them to the same standard they have just onveyed and state–if the Pelossi scandal is so important that you feel the FBI should be involved certainly you would then agree that legal proceedings should be begun regarding the actions of the Bush Whitehouse in regards to the reasoning behind the Iraq war, the use of torture (and the list goes on and on).

    Believe me my views are not at all an expression of the sentiments of an extremist liberal. I am very much a centrist, but I thought you'd like to know that the reason every intelligent person I know has given me for no longer watching television news is something like the following, "I can't stand to watch it any more because its not journalism, the difference between the way they treat the Obama Whitehouse in their endless search for scandal and only scandal and how they treated the Bush Whitehouse when the man couldn't make it through a speech without inventing 5 words destroying the grammatical structure of the language and more often than not lying in some capacity is simply disgusting. They don't care about truth they care about ratings."
    We all know the Bush Whitehouse used information access as a weapon against Journalists, removing them from the briefing room, etcetera based on the nature of their stories. But the fact that you allowed yourselves to be cowed by that for eight years, and then rebound in this non-Journalistic scandal mongering and complete relinqueshment of your journalistic (a general you there not you Tony) ethics is not only appaling it's just sad.

    So in short, how about along with your totally obvious master plan to be the first journalist at CNN covering all the New Media/Web 2.0 bases (FB Twit, etc) how about pulling the covers on some of your collegues. I guarentee if you are the first to start holding your fellows accountable, your viewership will sky rocket much faster than making sure your the first man on the next Twitter (and I make my living by preparing and transitioning companies from web 2.0 to what will be Web 3.0/the semantic web, so lets just say I know of which I speak)

    I know this is long but I hope you read it. You could be the one to make the difference.... your fellows will follow when they see how we, the intelligent viewers, who are also the succesful demo/the Alpha Users/and the top consumers.

    All the best from the Alpha User/trend setting demographic
    Jonathan Carr
    Venice Beach CA USA

    May 22, 2009 at 12:37 pm |
  97. Marilyn

    The medical profession does not have a monopoly of healing. Parents have the right guarenteed by the constitution to choose the health care of their choice. There are alternative methods in the treatment of the human body. The decision of who to treat people should be made by patient and doctor of their choice.

    May 22, 2009 at 12:40 pm |
  98. Nick Roswall

    This is not the time to be practicing Third World/Bush Medicine treatment on your Child. It is incumbent on responsible parents to seek the best medical treatment for their child/children. When that is not the case, the government has the right to prescribe the appropriate cure for that ailing child.
    Daniel's death, if they do not seek the treatment that has a ninety
    nine percent success rate over one that has about a five percent success rate should/ would haunt them for the rest of their lives.

    And these parents would probably have to answer to Gross Child neglect in the courts and no doubt lose Custody of all their other children. People from all walks of life and different corners of the world
    come to the U.S.A for enhanced medical treatments, given their rates of success and here you have US CITIZENS neglecting at the cost of losing their son's life Treatment that would prolong it.
    This is unfathomable. These Parents had better come to their Senses,
    and soon.
    Another sad thought here is, the HYPOCRITES that feel that the parents are doing the right thing by becoming fugitives would no doubt at the very FIRST opportunity seek the procedure that would give their CHILD a full live, if the SHOE WAS ON THEIR FOOT.
    Nick

    May 22, 2009 at 12:42 pm |
  99. Shonny Nelson

    How many of you know, that chemo will burn your hand if some spill on it?

    May 22, 2009 at 12:46 pm |
  100. QuantumRa

    INFORMED :
    FDA Law : Only a DRUG can cure cancer ... by law a diet can not cure cancer... I am on a plant based diet FIGHTING lymphoma also http://www.Ravediet.com ...If the Court PAYS for TREATMENT then they can ORDER IT !!!

    Cancer institutes are looking for a cure FOR cancer and diabetic rates ...When the cure is a http://www.ravediet.com aka a plant based diet ... Breast cancer rates are the HIGHEST in meat eating countries ....

    Breast cancer OWN study found that a plant based diet eliminated 100% chance of breast cancer coming back ... This should be on every USA stamp not "Finding a cure..."

    May 22, 2009 at 12:56 pm |
  101. Peter

    INFORMED :
    If the courts pay for all the treatment they can order the treatment... also cancer institutes are looking for the cure for cancer and ignoring the CAUSE ...Breast Cancer and diabetic rates are the HIGHEST in meat eating countries FACT ... the lower meat consumption a nation has DIRECTLY relates to a lower cancer rate ...

    Breast Cancers own study found a plant based diet eliminate, by 100% any chance of Breast cancer returning ... FIGHT THE CAUSE then we wont need CHEMO CURE ...

    FDA Law : States only a drug can cure cancer ... by law nothing diet ,G-d or whatever can cure cancer... I am on a 100% plant based diet fighting lymphoma also if I am cured of CLL I could not legally say so ... because I was not cured using a expensive CHEMO DRUG ... and "Opened for FBI arrest for stating diet cured me" ... that is a FACT

    May 22, 2009 at 1:14 pm |
  102. Annie

    I will trust the mother's decision before I would trust or allow the "government" to enforce some treatment–that will most likely only prolong the pain, agony, and visual and physical decay of the child. Isn't this just ludicrous, that we are going to think the government can best decide on a child's care. Leave this family alone and stop your pompous, righteous gloating.

    May 22, 2009 at 1:21 pm |
  103. laurie caglayan

    I think this family should be left alone at this sensitive time in their life, this is their child, they should not be made to do any thing against their wil concerning their child, what kind of country do we live in, lets face it, this child is not the real concern of the medical feild. the medical field and other people who love and care for children should put their time and energy to better use, like parcial term abotion, what about those children? im not sure where money comes into play here but my guess is with this pore family, who should be left alone.

    May 22, 2009 at 1:39 pm |
  104. John K

    I don't understand this woman – I had the same cancer back in the 1980s. My mother, a catholic, never tried to prevent me from getting treated.

    May 22, 2009 at 2:33 pm |
  105. Justin

    This story has been huge in the Local News in Wausau Wisconsin. http://www.waow.com/Global/story.asp?S=10408908&nav=menu1360_2

    Mother who prayed for her daughter, rather than seeking medical help for her sickness.

    May 22, 2009 at 2:59 pm |
  106. Debbie

    If the government is ordering this treatment, is the government going to pay all the costs as well? If this boy does finally undergo the treatment, this family should never see one medical bill.

    May 22, 2009 at 4:26 pm |
  107. Renonia

    The nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor is a good choice. It balances out diversity on the Supreme Court. It makes our country stronger and proves that we are one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

    May 26, 2009 at 11:26 am |
  108. Diplomatic Relations

    It is a hard call in a situation like this. However, I feel the decision to use a treatment which is not considered "conventional" such as "Alternative" has a certain amount of credit, many of the Alternative methods have been tested and researched and proven to be a helpful as the ones being used in conventional care.
    It remains the choice of the patient and the parents and the physician. This is NOT for the Government of the courts to decide. If anyone feels that a dcision based on the status of the patient and want to just do nothing is murder, so be it, I do not happen to agree. We, as humans, have the RIGHT to die and this is the law in America. I would back off in forcing a person to take treatment that I would not want for myself.

    October 2, 2009 at 12:18 pm |
  109. Trust F. Obe

    IT IS WRONG.... to say the verdict Is Wrong.

    October 8, 2012 at 10:41 am |

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.