Comment: The golden rule in Opinion: Refusing Chemo isn't Child Abuse, it's Colleen Hauser's Right on Opposing Views

This content is inappropriate

Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content, so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.

Explanation:

(Opinion) Refusing Chemo isn't Child Abuse, it's Colleen Hauser's Right

By Suzanne Venker

You are seeing 14 Comments. See all 68 Comments on this Opinion.

Regarding Opinion

Refusing Chemo isn't Child Abuse, it's Colleen Hauser's Right

The golden rule

The golden rule, the basis of all morality, is part of our evolutionary history, and states that you should not do to other what you don't want done to yourself.

In my opinion there are 2 valid reasons you can refuse treatment:

1. You are terminally ill and treatment MAY only keep you alive a little longer but make you feel horrible during these very few extra days. Many cancer patients face this.

2. You are terminally ill and will die shortly anyway no matter what treatment they give you but the treatment will financially bankrupt your family. Unfortunately in our immoral healthcare system, many patients face this.

What is not acceptable is that you invoke any form of superstition to make that decision (and this includes any form of religion ). Religion should not be invoked to keep the brain dead alive (the Terry Schiavo case) or the let you die when a treatment exists that most likely can cure you.

If the Hauser family had stated that they financially could not afford to pay for this treatment then the discussion should be how society helps pay for this.

I don't know their financial situation but the mother invoked her superstition to deny a curable treatment for her son and this is immoral.

No imaginary sky daddy needed to see the immorality of this.

- gma May 26, 2009 12:37PM

Reply to this Recommend (3)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Can I refuse your opinion?
  
  What is not acceptable is you telling me what I can and cannot do with my own body and my children . You are not responsible for either. Stop pretending you and the overbearing government (" society ") you support are morally superior to my freedom and ability to parent.
  
  - Mateo76 May 27, 2009 12:03PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (1)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - No, you can't
    
    I'm sorry you feel that way, Mateo, but society has a legitimate interest in protecting children from abuse and neglect. Does a father have a right to smoke crack cocaine with his teenage son? Can a mother pimp our her 10 year old daughter? What about female circumcision , on the kitchen table, with a steak knife?
    
    Get real. I can't believe this is even up for debate.
    
    - AutismNewsBeat May 27, 2009 1:51PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (2)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Oh you did not just mention the "c" word
      
      If you can circumcise a boy why not a girl? Why the double-standard?
      
      Of course, it's a medically useless, barbaric procedure for both sexes, so that one should be outlawed.
      
      - bagpiper2005 May 27, 2009 2:00PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - C word
        
        Thank you for answering your own question ;-)
        
        - AutismNewsBeat May 27, 2009 4:44PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Think beyond your society-centric views for a second!
      
      " society has a legitimate interest in protecting children from abuse and neglect."
      
      Yes, it does have an interest. Just that the interest can be hijacked when the government sanctions violence to carry out that interest. Society also has a legitimate interest that I work as much as possible. It doesn't mean you have the right to force me to work.
      
      Ideally, government should only have the right to stop me from physically harming another human being. If a parent forces drug use , or forces sex acts, there is no question there is harm being done. Those things have nothing to do with raising a child. Withholding or providing medical treatment does, just as withholding or providing education , but it's not the same as physical abuse, and shouldn't be grouped with those. The responsibility of creating and caring for another human being affords some privileges that others have no right to take away.
      
      Look, this is a grey area, but we shouldn't try to involve the corrupt authorities any more than we have to. My ideal way to combat stupid parents is to take away their mandated lifeblood of government and faith-based assistance, and the ignorant, irrational, anti- science genes will naturally be removed from the gene pool. We will truly evolve without big brother making evolve his way. Private charity will assist those truly in need. If it doesn't, then think how that will be different than when you're 80 and you need a new kidney, and no one, not even the government, can or wants to give it to you.
      
      Imagine a world with no government (aka, no violence). In this denial of treatment situation, private groups could track down the parents and peacefully attempt to influence the family to accept treatment. That would be all they could do. Kinda like a drug intervention. Do you want the state in charge of those?
      
      - Mateo76 May 27, 2009 3:30PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (1)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - No question of harm?
        
        "If a parent forces drug use , or forces sex acts, there is no question there is harm being done."
        
        But there is a question of harm being done when life saving medical treatment is withheld by the parent? That sounds like a distinction without a difference. If one had to choose between having your child raped, or withholding cancer treatment, most people would choose life.
        
        - AutismNewsBeat May 27, 2009 4:51PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        No question of harm?
        
        Ok AutismNewsBeat. I am assuming you have not been exposed to cancer or its treatments. So for the record just because the doctors (GODS) tell you it is THE life saving treatment, does not make it SO. My son has the same cancer and the GODS told us the same thing. So we did the GODS chemo and radiation. Guess what? Didn't work, Cancer did not go away. Not CURED! Then the GODS say oops sorry we can call hospice. You do not know what you are talking about. Do research, ask questions, do not remain blind, and do not believe everything the GODS tell you!!!!
        
        - Cancer Mom May 28, 2009 12:25PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - O YES YOU CAN
      
      You sound like your from Afghanistan get with it.
      The government should do there job and let the people do theres.
      Here in the USA WE HAVE A CHOICE. And we can pick the treatments of our choice.For our self and childern.
      In this case I think the parent are making the wrong choice.But it is there choice.
      We cant let the state take our freedoms from the familes.YOU GO AHEAD AND LET THE STATE TAKE YOURS.LEAVE MY FREEDOMS ALONE.
      
      - zman May 28, 2009 9:38PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (2)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Can I refuse your opinion?
    
    I am with you Mateo76. The government should not have the right to intervene in this the most personal of life matters. This mother is not seeking not to treat, just how to treat. Big difference!
    
    - Cancer Mom May 28, 2009 12:17PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- The Golden Rule?
  
  Have you ever had a child with cancer ? Apparently not. The costs do not matter. You would sell everything you have. Since when did it become immoral to choose for yourself. US doctors told my son with the same kind of cancer that he would be dead in a week. Of course that is after they did their chemo and radiation. Went to Mexico and he is still alive today 4 months later, not only that but the cancer is shrinking. If we had followed the God's of Medicine (US doctors) advise and called hospice my son would more than likely be dead. I think a little more research into the matter is justified. And Superstition, no its called GOD.
  
  - Cancer Mom May 28, 2009 12:14PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Reply
    
    1. Therapies get approved by the FDA through a sequence of trials: phase 1 is to rule out that new drug kills he patient, phase 2 is to collect evidence of effectiveness, and phase 3 is a double blind study over hundreds to thousands of patients to show that the drug is really effective and to understand possible side effects. Quackery does not survive this rigid process.
    
    2. As stated earlier, diseases are very complicated. Not all approved drugs work for all patients and sometimes, patients get better unexpectedly or die faster than predicted. That does not mean that a god keeps some patients alive longer and makes some others die sooner. You need to analyze a significantly large set of cases to make conclusions. Unfortunately, most people make conclusions from single events. A classical one is praying. If I pray for something and it happens, I thank whatever god I was praying to. If it does not happen, I either did not pray enough or my god is testing my faith in him/her/it or I do not deserve his/her/its favor yet. But people don't even consider the possibility that no one is listening to their prayers.
    
    3. Sorry to disappoint you but there is no shred of evidence for any of the gods that mankind has invented. Gods my be comforting but they don't exist (or at least are extremely extremely extremely improbable).
    
    - gma May 28, 2009 12:58PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (1)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - FDA
      
      You must work for them. You are misinformed to think that drugs are tested on thousands before a drug comes to market. Quackery does exist it is called the FDA! Listen, really listen to the warnings of all the possible side effects of the so called super tested drugs on the market and being pumped into our bodies by the GODS of medicine . Pull your head out of the sand man! I was were you are once, but boy when my eyes got opened I was amazed at what I saw. And ashamed that in modern medicine thier is so much greed, corruption, lying to the American people taking place. It is truly a tragic thing. There is no black and white, just as there are good, there is bad, but why is it that we do not have the right of choice? If you or I choose to take willow bark instead of aspirin from a bottle, is that wrong? Why will the insurance company not reimburse you for the willow bark but will for the aspirin? There is so much of a behind the scenes webbing here. Why if I choose to go to Germany or Mexico for a treatment by a medical doctor there (I am talking same treatment) that costs less than in the states, insurance will not pay for it, but will pay when it is done in the states and costs tens of thousands more? I am sorry it doesn't make sense to me. Should I not be able to choose to save my life time medical limits by finding a less expensive way to treat my condition? And if I choose to try infusions of Vit C and Leatril over toxic chemo drugs, should I not have that right? You talk about research, research proves chemo kills, what does the true unbiased research say about laetril and vit c infusions?
      
      - Cancer Mom May 28, 2009 1:59PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - Reply
        
        Dear Cancer Mom,
        
        I don't work for the FDA and the FDA does not control pricing. Pricing is set by the pharmaceutical companies. Countries with a national healthcare system can negotiate volume discount deals and get better prices. I agree that the US healthcare system sucks.
        
        The FDA, its European counterpart EMEA and the international ICH are only concerned with protecting the consumer: (1) is it safe?, (2) is it safe?, (3) is it safe?, (4) is the consumer getting a drug that has a statistical significant benefit (otherwise we pay a lot for little or no gain). The FDA, EMEA and ICH all have similar strict rules.
        
        Not all countries want to play by these rules and allow less safe drugs with less clear benefit to be sold in their country. Serious drug makers don't want to go that route because they have to redo all trials according to FDA, EMEA or ICH rules anyway to get approved in the US, Western Europe and countries that have accepted ICH rules.
        
        Since the FDA, EMEA and ICH process are normalized you can get approval in Europe under EMEA and then pretty automatically get approved in the US and any other ICH country.
        
        Insurance companies can only reimburse drugs that are legal to be sold in the US.
        
        Bottom line we have a broken healthcare system in the US that has nothing to do with the FDA and that can be very frustrating.
        
        One last comment: drugs for the terminally ill are tested on hundreds of people but drugs for healthy people are in some cases tested on several thousand people. It all depends on the target patient and what the drug really is and again this is no different under FDA, EMEA or ICH rules.
        
        Sometimes a patient can join a investigational new drug study program (Phase I, II or III) in which case the drug has not been approved by the FDA yet but is approved for use in a very controlled study.
        
        Here is how you find out about laetril and vit c infusions. (1) was it FDA approved for commercial use? If YES, the effectiveness and possible side effects must be available on the web (2) if NOT, the drug may still be in clinical trial somewhere (Phase I, II or III) or the clinical trials may have failed to adhere to safety standards and may only be marginally effective or totally ineffective.?
        
        If a drug fails the FDA, EMEA or ICH process, other countries that do not really care about protecting the consumer may approve it but then I would say that it is not worth the risk. You may hear about the 1 patient that got better but you won't hear about the hundreds or more that died.
        
        I agree that unless you digg in deep a lot of it does not make sense but remember that the FDA is not concerned about 1 patient but about 300 million potential patients.
        
        Hope this gave you some better insight.
        
        - gma May 28, 2009 9:03PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.