Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Minn. mom now has warrent for her arrest

They threatened to put her son in foster care if they didn't have the chemo done so mom and son fled and are in hiding. I hope they find them and put her away.


Asked by sammiesmom2000 at 11:30 AM on May. 20, 2009 in Politics & Current Events

Level 5 (87 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (39)
  • The parents took their child for the first chemo treatment, so they aren't against medical care. That is a lame excuse, IMO. If the child dies for lack of medical treatment, it's not any different than if he died from any other form of neglect.

    Answer by mancosmomma at 12:05 PM on May. 20, 2009

  • To me it all depends on his prognosis. Does he have to stay on chemo in order to live? I mean its quality not quantity. JMO

    Answer by Anonymous at 11:33 AM on May. 20, 2009

  • They said he has a 90% chance of survival with chemo, and a 5% chance of survival without it.

    Answer by 2-1CavWife at 11:35 AM on May. 20, 2009

  • More power to 'em!

    Answer by Anonymous at 11:36 AM on May. 20, 2009

  • this is so sad and all in the name of religion. As a Christian I believe in healing but I also believe God can use doctors as well. Yes some people do not respond to chemo but her son has a better chance in living longer than not.

    Answer by Shaneagle777 at 11:37 AM on May. 20, 2009

  • 90% chance to live!!! Then why would they not want their son to live?

    Answer by pnwmom at 11:40 AM on May. 20, 2009

  • Why doesn't the mom have the right to choose medical care for her child? We don't have that right anymore?

    Answer by ria7 at 11:45 AM on May. 20, 2009

  • The doctors also said it would only require 6 treatments. Not a lifetime or even a long time of treatment. Its is the most curable kind of cancer for kids. Someone in one of my groups made a great statement and I have to use it here. IF a parent said they could save their child by holding their child under water for 10 minutes in the name of religion would would step in wouldn't we. So why is this different. Its not an incurable cancer with experimental chemo. Its something that could easily cure him.

    Answer by MommyofTwins616 at 11:48 AM on May. 20, 2009

  • Personally, this is not the role of the government. Where do we draw the line? If it is ok to do this with a 90% chance, then why not 80% or 60% or 40%? Government needs to keep its nose out of people's religious choices and stop imposing these rulings on families.

    Answer by Anonymous at 11:52 AM on May. 20, 2009

  • The government is overstepping their bounds by forcing medical treatment on someone that doesn't want it. We all have a choice and we make the decisions for our children. If you decide to NOT vacinate your kids, how would you feel if the government threatened to take away your kids???

    Answer by sweet-a-kins at 11:57 AM on May. 20, 2009