Judge rules family can't refuse chemo for boy

[Darthphere]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_he_me/us_med_forced_chemo

By AMY FORLITI, Associated Press Writer Amy Forliti, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 26 mins ago

MINNEAPOLIS – A Minnesota judge ruled Friday that a 13-year-old cancer patient must be evaluated by a doctor to determine if the boy would benefit from restarting chemotherapy over his parents' objections.

In a 58-page ruling, Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg found that Daniel Hauser has been "medically neglected" by his parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, and was in need of child protection services.

While he allowed Daniel to stay with his parents, the judge gave the Hausers until Tuesday to get an updated chest X-ray for their son and select an oncologist.

If the evaluation shows the cancer had advanced to a point where chemotherapy and radiation would no longer help, the judge said, he would not order the boy to undergo treatment.

The judge wrote that Daniel has only a "rudimentary understanding at best of the risks and benefits of chemotherapy. ... he does not believe he is ill currently. The fact is that he is very ill currently."

Daniel's court-appointed attorney, Philip Elbert, called the decision unfortunate.

"I feel it's a blow to families," he said. "It marginalizes the decisions that parents face every day in regard to their children's medical care. It really affirms the role that big government is better at making our decisions for us."

Elbert said he hadn't spoken to his client yet. The phone line at the Hauser home in Sleepy Eye in southwestern Minnesota had a busy signal Friday. The parents' attorney had no immediate comment but planned to issue a statement.

Daniel was diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma and stopped chemotherapy in February after a single treatment. He and his parents opted instead for "alternative medicines" based on their religious beliefs.

Child protection workers accused Daniel's parents of medical neglect; but in court, his mother insisted the boy wouldn't submit to chemotherapy for religious reasons and she said she wouldn't comply if the court orders it.

Doctors have said Daniel's cancer had up to a 90 percent chance of being cured with chemotherapy and radiation. Without those treatments, doctors said his chances of survival are 5 percent.

Daniel's parents have been supporting what they say is their son's decision to treat the disease with nutritional supplements and other alternative treatments favored by the Nemenhah Band.

The Missouri-based religious group believes in natural healing methods advocated by some American Indians.

After the first chemotherapy treatment, the family said they wanted a second opinion, said Dr. Bruce Bostrom, a pediatric oncologist who recommended Daniel undergo chemotherapy and radiation.

They later informed him that Daniel would not undergo any more chemotherapy. Bostrom said Daniel's tumor shrunk after the first chemotherapy session, but X-rays show it has grown since he stopped the chemotherapy.

"My son is not in any medical danger at this point," Colleen Hauser testified at a court hearing last week. She also testified that Daniel is a medicine man and elder in the Nemenhah Band.

The family's attorney, Calvin Johnson, said Daniel made the decision himself to refuse chemotherapy, but Brown County said he did not have an understanding of what it meant to be a medicine man or an elder.

Court filings also indicated Daniel has a learning disability and can't read.

The Hausers have eight children. Colleen Hauser told the New Ulm Journal newspaper that the family's Catholicism and adherence to the Nemenhah Band are not in conflict, and that she has used natural remedies to treat illness.

Nemenhah was founded in the 1990s by Philip Cloudpiler Landis, who said Thursday he once served four months in prison in Idaho for fraud related to advocating natural remedies.

Landis said he founded the faith after facing his diagnosis of a cancer similar to Daniel Hauser. He said he treated it with diet choices, visits to a sweat lodge and other natural remedies.

Interesting situation here. I don't know how I feel about government stepping in on situations like these. This is almost like the Schiavo case a few years back except that in this case the boy is alive, alert and conscious. What do you guys think? Should a 13 year old boy be forced to have chemo?

 

[Figs]

Hard to say.

I don't agree with the government stepping in to tell us how to parent our children but at the same time if the doctors examine the boy and find that he can make it through chemo and possibly survive in the end that would obviously be good.

 

[Majic Walrus]

I'm pretty torn here too. In this situation I think that the 13 year old boy is old enough to be able to make his own determination after being well informed. If not, unfortunately, the parents should have the legal religious freedom to determine treatments that do not conflict with their religious values HOWEVER..

Isn't it strange that they allowed the first round of chemo and it didn't hurt their religious sensibilities but all of the sudden it does now?

 

[Figs]

I'm pretty torn here too. In this situation I think that the 13 year old boy is old enough to be able to make his own determination after being well informed. If not, unfortunately, the parents should have the legal religious freedom to determine treatments that do not conflict with their religious values HOWEVER..

Isn't it strange that they allowed the first round of chemo and it didn't hurt their religious sensibilities but all of the sudden it does now?

Sad as it may be to say, I wonder if it has to do with them not being able to afford the medical bills since I'm sure chemo is super expensive.

That's just a major guess though.

 

[Darthphere]

Sad as it may be to say, I wonder if it has to do with them not being able to afford the medical bills since I'm sure chemo is super expensive.

That's just a major guess though.

I don't know, but if that's the reason then yeah, the government needs to step in because you not having money is not a good enough reason. Sell your house, rob a bank anything.

 

[chaseter]

Yes this is a good thing. The parents sound like idiots and they are saving a life.

 

[Bim]

Difficult situation. One would hope that no one interferes in this type of decisions that should be made by the patient and the family. Then again one would love to do all possible and fight until the end to try and beat the cancer, but that's a personal choice as to how far one's willing to go.

Isn't it strange that they allowed the first round of chemo and it didn't hurt their religious sensibilities but all of the sudden it does now?
Hmm well maybe they're more concerned about the quality of the rest of his life? maybe they saw what the first round did to him and they all decided that wasnt the way they wanted to go, who knows.

Tough call either way, but it's sad to read people cant decide how they want to live the remainder of their lives. I know if it was me and i had reached a similar decision, and the goverment forced me to get treatment, i would be upset.

 

[Darthphere]

Difficult situation. One would hope that no one interferes in this type of decisions that should be made by the patient and the family. Then again one would love to do all possible and fight until the end to try and beat the cancer, but that's a personal choice as to how far one's willing to go.

Isn't it strange that they allowed the first round of chemo and it didn't hurt their religious sensibilities but all of the sudden it does now?
Hmm well maybe they're more concerned about the quality of the rest of his life? maybe they saw what the first round did to him and they all decided that wasnt the way they wanted to go, who knows.

Tough call either way, but it's sad to read people cant decide how they want to live the remainder of their lives. I know if it was me and i had reached a similar decision, and the goverment forced me to get treatment, i would be upset.

My dad had chemo and the side effects suck. It really does seem like he's dying. The funny thing is the day of and next day, there are no side effects it hits after that. That being said, after he finished his chemo my dad was pretty much back to normal, of course a little weaker, a little more tired but alive and bugging the **** out of me.

 

[Gilpesh]

Once I read the words, "alternative medicine" and "medicine man". I don't feel sorry for the parents.

 

[BestGirl]

Hard to say.

I don't agree with the government stepping in to tell us how to parent our children but at the same time if the doctors examine the boy and find that he can make it through chemo and possibly survive in the end that would obviously be good.

The government takes children away from abusive parents all the time. By refusing their kid treatment the parents are condemning their son to a 95% chance he will die a slow and painful death, which sounds pretty abusive to me. With treatment, there's a 90% chance he'll live. This one's a no-brainer.

I'm pretty torn here too. In this situation I think that the 13 year old boy is old enough to be able to make his own determination after being well informed. If not, unfortunately, the parents should have the legal religious freedom to determine treatments that do not conflict with their religious values HOWEVER..

I don't think any 13-year-old is really qualified to make this sort of choice. Most likely his parents told him that alternative treatments would work and he bought it.

I hate the old, "This treatment conflicts with my religious beliefs" argument, so I'm not real respectful of it. It sounds like a a legal loophole for parents to abuse, kill, or neglect their kids.

Yes this is a good thing. The parents sound like idiots and they are saving a life.

Thank you.

Difficult situation. One would hope that no one interferes in this type of decisions that should be made by the patient and the family. Then again one would love to do all possible and fight until the end to try and beat the cancer, but that's a personal choice as to how far one's willing to go.

Tough call either way, but it's sad to read people cant decide how they want to live the remainder of their lives. I know if it was me and i had reached a similar decision, and the goverment forced me to get treatment, i would be upset.

The patient in this case is a minor and I suspect the decision is less his and more his parents'. If he were 18+ and refused treatment I doubt any of this would be an issue.

 

[Prison Mike]

I'm all for the government stepping in for this current situation. I feel sorry for the boy, actually. He doesn't know what he wants. He's just doing what his parents tell him. Stupid parents...

 

[Majic Walrus]

Sad as it may be to say, I wonder if it has to do with them not being able to afford the medical bills since I'm sure chemo is super expensive.

That's just a major guess though.

Then why act like they don't want it and why not start asking for help?

Yes this is a good thing. The parents sound like idiots and they are saving a life.

So if the government decided that it would save lives if people didn't go out of their homes after 2:00 AM you'd be all for that?

When you start sacrificing liberties to save lives you do a bigger disservice than service. Sure one boy lives, but at the cost of religious freedoms?

The government takes children away from abusive parents all the time. By refusing their kid treatment the parents are condemning their son to a 95% chance he will die a slow and painful death, which sounds pretty abusive to me. With treatment, there's a 90% chance he'll live. This one's a no-brainer.

What about the thousands of parents who refuse their children blood transfusions for religious reasons? Are we only allowed religious freedoms when science agrees with them?

I don't think any 13-year-old is really qualified to make this sort of choice. Most likely his parents told him that alternative treatments would work and he bought it.

So? Someone told his parents that his the alternative treatments would work and they bought it. At the age of 13 I think a child is well capable of being able to determine whether or not he buys into a religion. You give him less credit than he's due.

I hate the old, "This treatment conflicts with my religious beliefs" argument, so I'm not real respectful of it. It sounds like a a legal loophole for parents to abuse, kill, or neglect their kids.

I'm a devout agnostic atheist and I'm a staunch critic of mainstream and organized religions... However... I'm afforded the freedom not to have superstitious beliefs than they should be allowed the same amount of freedoms.

If you start to pick and choose which parts of a religion is allowed and which parts are okay and letting science become law then you're working your way into destroying religion altogether.

The patient in this case is a minor and I suspect the decision is less his and more his parents'. If he were 18+ and refused treatment I doubt any of this would be an issue.

Exactly! There's no reason that a 13 year old would not be mature enough to make a decision like this.

 

[Majic Walrus]

I'm all for the government stepping in for this current situation. I feel sorry for the boy, actually. He doesn't know what he wants. He's just doing what his parents tell him. Stupid parents...

How do you know whether he knows what he wants?

Especially anymore than an 18 year old or 19 year old or a 48 year old for that matter. We're raised by are parents and if religion is a part of that it will always be a determining factor in your life. Who is to say that he wouldn't make the exact same choice at the age of 18?

 

[BestGirl]

So if the government decided that it would save lives if people didn't go out of their homes after 2:00 AM you'd be all for that?

When you start sacrificing liberties to save lives you do a bigger disservice than service. Sure one boy lives, but at the cost of religious freedoms?

There isn't a 95% chance that someone will die when they go out after 2 AM. Enforcing some kind of curfew would probably be too expensive given the relatively small number of people who actually get killed or hurt after that time of night. Besides, the majority of people who go out late at night are adults. If they want to take their lives into their own hands I say let them. My views change when there are kids involved.

What about the thousands of parents who refuse their children blood transfusions for religious reasons? Are we only allowed religious freedoms when science agrees with them?

I'm not in favor of refusing blood transfusions, either. I'm all in favor of religious freedom but not when kids can be killed or hurt. Can I murder my kids if I said my religion told me to do so?

So? Someone told his parents that his the alternative treatments would work and they bought it. At the age of 13 I think a child is well capable of being able to determine whether or not he buys into a religion. You give him less credit than he's due.

His parents don't sound very bright, and like it or not they've convinced their son to follow a course that offers a 95% chance he'll die. I'm not convinced he's aware of this, just because I can't see many 13-year-olds voluntarily opting to die for religious reasons. You're right I'm not giving him much credit. I really don't think 13-year-olds are capable of making this kind of decision. Notice we don't allow 13-year-olds to drink, have sex, get married, drop out of school, join the military, etc. Once he turns 18 and wants to make this choice for himself, I say let him.

I'm a devout agnostic atheist and I'm a staunch critic of mainstream and organized religions... However... I'm afforded the freedom not to have superstitious beliefs than they should be allowed the same amount of freedoms.

If you start to pick and choose which parts of a religion is allowed and which parts are okay and letting science become law then you're working your way into destroying religion altogether.

I'm in favor of people having superstitious beliefs, but not when these beliefs can harm someone else, especially a kid (even if it's their own kid). Lots of religions allow or have allowed for things that aren't legal, like spousal abuse, forced marriages, polygamy, human sacrifice, and the like. We don't legalize these behaviors just because they're someone's religious beliefs. It's always a struggle for the state to decide what qualifies as legitimately held beliefs and what doesn't. In this case, I would prefer it if the state came down on the side of what is medically best for the boy.



Exactly! There's no reason that a 13 year old would not be mature enough to make a decision like this.[/QUOTE]

 

[Majic Walrus]

There isn't a 95% chance that someone will die when they go out after 2 AM. Enforcing some kind of curfew would probably be too expensive given the relatively small number of people who actually get killed or hurt after that time of night. Besides, the majority of people who go out late at night are adults. If they want to take their lives into their own hands I say let them. My views change when there are kids involved.

I'm never ever in favor of sacrificing my freedoms or liberties based on whether or not someone else says it's for my own good. Hell that kind of blatant and blind faith is just as stupid as faith that your son is going to be healed by animal spirits or whatever.

I'm not in favor of refusing blood transfusions, either. I'm all in favor of religious freedom but not when kids can be killed or hurt. Can I murder my kids if I said my religion told me to do so?

No you can't kill your kids. Your religion is superseded by law in the event of a clear crime. Refusing medical treatment isn't a crime though. It's a choice.

His parents don't sound very bright, and like it or not they've convinced their son to follow a course that offers a 95% chance he'll die. I'm not convinced he's aware of this, just because I can't see many 13-year-olds voluntarily opting to die for religious reasons. You're right I'm not giving him much credit. I really don't think 13-year-olds are capable of making this kind of decision. Notice we don't allow 13-year-olds to drink, have sex, get married, drop out of school, join the military, etc. Once he turns 18 and wants to make this choice for himself, I say let him.

Firstly your opinion of his parents intelligence doesn't mean jack ****. Second of all if a 13 year old commits pre-meditated murder can he tried as an adult can he not? Why should he not be able to make a choice for himself?

I would bet you hard cash that if he "decided" that his parents were keeping him in an oppressive religious home you would be all over him "escaping" right?

So it's okay for someone to decide to leave a religion when they're 13 but they can't decide to be part of one?

I'm in favor of people having superstitious beliefs, but not when these beliefs can harm someone else, especially a kid (even if it's their own kid). Lots of religions allow or have allowed for things that aren't legal, like spousal abuse, forced marriages, polygamy, human sacrifice, and the like. We don't legalize these behaviors just because they're someone's religious beliefs. It's always a struggle for the state to decide what qualifies as legitimately held beliefs and what doesn't. In this case, I would prefer it if the state came down on the side of what is medically best for the boy.

Okay, I understand, your slippery slope argument about religious freedoms notwithstanding. Let's flip the coin though. Imagine that you're forced into accepting spiritual healing from a faith healer every time you go to the doctor.

Are you pissed about that and do you think it's goddamn ridiculous and wouldn't you rather have someone qualified do your healing? That's exactly what these people have decided to do. They've chosen to have their "expert" take over. So what if we think that their "expert" doesn't exist?

 

[Ghostvirus]

Saying yes to one thing. Is to say yes to all things... that is all.

 

[Addendum]

The only thing is, their "expert" has failed to do any healing. The medical records show that with the chemo, the tumor shrunk. Hence that means it was working.

Then, the parents refuse the chemo and settle for quack medicine. And the tumor increases in size, even though they have "faith" that this stuff will work.

Score one for evidence over faith.

 

[BestGirl]

I'm never ever in favor of sacrificing my freedoms or liberties based on whether or not someone else says it's for my own good. Hell that kind of blatant and blind faith is just as stupid as faith that your son is going to be healed by animal spirits or whatever.

I'm largely in agreement with this.

No you can't kill your kids. Your religion is superseded by law in the event of a clear crime. Refusing medical treatment isn't a crime though. It's a choice.

Refusing medical care to a sick child who will probably die without the care ought to be a crime. Refusing one's own medical care doesn't bother me.

Firstly your opinion of his parents intelligence doesn't mean jack ****.

Indeed it doesn't. That was more of a throwaway comment. I probably should've included a smiley. I suppose it does confuse me that you're so upset over this though. Surely there are more sympathetic cases out there of religious people being treated badly by the state.

Second of all if a 13 year old commits pre-meditated murder can he tried as an adult can he not? Why should he not be able to make a choice for himself?

I'm not really in favor of trying 13-year-olds as adults in crimes. At the very least, I think it's a dubious practice. At any rate, with this exception, we generally don't let minors make decisions regarding life and death.

I still believe that he did not really make this choice by himself, nor did he have all the information he needs to make this kind of a choice at his disposal. I really doubt he's aware that he's only got a 5% chance of living if he proceeds down the road his parents made for him.

I would bet you hard cash that if he "decided" that his parents were keeping him in an oppressive religious home you would be all over him "escaping" right?

So it's okay for someone to decide to leave a religion when they're 13 but they can't decide to be part of one?

It depends on what you mean by "oppressive". If he'll die or be severely physically or psychologically harmed by staying there then yes, I'd be in favor of him leaving. Otherwise, I'd tell him to just tough it out for another five years and then he'll be done.

Okay, I understand, your slippery slope argument about religious freedoms notwithstanding. Let's flip the coin though. Imagine that you're forced into accepting spiritual healing from a faith healer every time you go to the doctor.

Are you pissed about that and do you think it's goddamn ridiculous and wouldn't you rather have someone qualified do your healing? That's exactly what these people have decided to do. They've chosen to have their "expert" take over. So what if we think that their "expert" doesn't exist?

I wouldn't like that decision because faith healers haven't been scientifically proven to cure much of anything. If the day came that science proved their techniques, however, I'd welcome their presence in a hospital. Anything to recover from an illness.

Again, if the "expert" they hired were simply looking after one of the parents I wouldn't care, but this is a kid w're talking about. You don't get to do anything you like to your kids just because your religion says you can.

 

[Majic Walrus]

The only thing is, their "expert" has failed to do any healing. The medical records show that with the chemo, the tumor shrunk. Hence that means it was working.

Then, the parents refuse the chemo and settle for quack medicine. And the tumor increases in size, even though they have "faith" that this stuff will work.

Score one for evidence over faith.

I'm in agreement that their decision isn't the one I'd make, or that most people would make. I feel like they're doing something that is basically stupid however... They would argue that if the boy isn't being healed it's you know... the great spirit/god/shiva/allah/et al. 's will and that's the way it should be.

Refusing medical care to a sick child who will probably die without the care ought to be a crime. Refusing one's own medical care doesn't bother me.

What about a 17 year old? 16? The line between adult and child in these types of situations is far to thin to accurately effect a law into existence. Furthermore I've refused some kinds of medical care for my own child and sought care elsewhere. Granted I sought care from actual doctors and not medicine men but the problem is that too few doctors will wholly agree and the parents will always be able to find a doctor that will allow them to refuse care legally.

Indeed it doesn't. That was more of a throwaway comment. I probably should've included a smiley. I suppose it does confuse me that you're so upset over this though. Surely there are more sympathetic cases out there of religious people being treated badly by the state.

Probably. But none are going to make such a splash. I really could give two ****s if someone's ability to pray in school is infringed on by a teacher or if a teacher bashes religion in class. Those are "small potatoes". This is the kind of situation that makes laws and changes things.

The worst kinds of people need the most defense.

I'm not really in favor of trying 13-year-olds as adults in crimes. At the very least, I think it's a dubious practice. At any rate, with this exception, we generally don't let minors make decisions regarding life and death.

I still believe that he did not really make this choice by himself, nor did he have all the information he needs to make this kind of a choice at his disposal. I really doubt he's aware that he's only got a 5% chance of living if he proceeds down the road his parents made for him.

But you're basing all of your evidence and facts on what medical science says. He has been taught to disagree with medical science. He doesn't believe that he only has a 5% chance of living, we believe that.

Furthermore there's nothing to indicate that he wouldn't make the same decision at a later date.

It depends on what you mean by "oppressive". If he'll die or be severely physically or psychologically harmed by staying there then yes, I'd be in favor of him leaving. Otherwise, I'd tell him to just tough it out for another five years and then he'll be done.

Well then according to you he is currently a part of a physically harming religion that is allowing him to die. So you'd be okay with him making YOUR choice but not making his PARENT'S choice. That is the double standard.

I wouldn't like that decision because faith healers haven't been scientifically proven to cure much of anything. If the day came that science proved their techniques, however, I'd welcome their presence in a hospital. Anything to recover from an illness.

But you have to look at this from their perspective. They BELIEVE that their methods of healing will work. They also believe that science WON'T work.

Again, if the "expert" they hired were simply looking after one of the parents I wouldn't care, but this is a kid w're talking about. You don't get to do anything you like to your kids just because your religion says you can.

Really? So you don't get to raise your children the way you see fit or the way your religion tells you to? I don't get to raise my kids as atheists or as Muslims or as Buddhist?

If we're really saying that parents shouldn't be able to raise their kids based on religion then we should say that parents shouldn't be able to raise their kids based on anything contrary to popular belief and popular culture. Why don't we just let the state raise the kids for us?

Slippery slopes go both ways.

 

[katie_girl09]

Yes this is a good thing. The parents sound like idiots and they are saving a life.

Not necessarily.
Take it from someone who witnessed cancer treatment of a loved one: It can sometimes even end up making things worse and more painful for the person.
I'm really not sure the government has the right to step in. But I guess I'm kinda torn.

 

[ComicChick]

So? Someone told his parents that his the alternative treatments would work and they bought it. At the age of 13 I think a child is well capable of being able to determine whether or not he buys into a religion. You give him less credit than he's due.

he has a learning disability and is unable to read. if this went to court you can prolly bet on the fact that he was interviewed or whatever they do to deem a person competent. it appears as though they did not find him competent enough to understand the brevity of the situation

 

[The Battousai]

I'm in agreement that their decision isn't the one I'd make, or that most people would make. I feel like they're doing something that is basically stupid however... They would argue that if the boy isn't being healed it's you know... the great spirit/god/shiva/allah/et al. 's will and that's the way it should be.

The backwards logic always gives me a good laugh



Always good for a laugh:

Spoiler

"I've often thought people treat God rather rudely, don't you? Asking trillions and trillions of prayers every day. Asking and pleading and begging for favors. 'Do this', 'gimme that', 'I need a new car', 'I want a better job'. And most of this praying takes place on Sunday -- His day off. It's not nice. And it's no way to treat a friend.

But people do pray, and they pray for a lot of different things, you know, your sister needs an operation on her crotch, your brother was arrested for defecating in a mall. But most of all, you'd really like to **** that hot little redhead down at the convenience store. You know, the one with the eyepatch and the clubfoot? Can you pray for that? I think you'd have to. And I say, fine. Pray for anything you want. Pray for anything, but what about the Divine Plan?

Remember that? The Divine Plan. Long time ago, God made a Divine Plan. Gave it a lot of thought, decided it was a good plan, put it into practice. And for billions and billions of years, the Divine Plan has been doing just fine. Now, you come along, and pray for something. Well suppose the thing you want isn't in God's Divine Plan? What do you want Him to do? Change His plan? Just for you? Doesn't it seem a little arrogant? It's a Divine Plan. What's the use of being God if every run-down shmuck with a two-dollar prayerbook can come along and **** up Your Plan?

And here's something else, another problem you might have: Suppose your prayers aren't answered. What do you say? "Well, it's God's will." "Thy Will Be Done." Fine, but if it's God's will, and He's going to do what He wants to anyway, why the **** bother praying in the first place? Seems like a big waste of time to me! Couldn't you just skip the praying part and go right to His Will? It's all very confusing..."

- George Carlin

 

[StrainedEyes]

Christian Scientists are so beyond the realm of my understanding.

 

[Hotwire]

How can you follow the advice on natural remedies of someone who was put in prison for DEFRAUDING people with natural remedies!!!

 

[Majic Walrus]

he has a learning disability and is unable to read. if this went to court you can prolly bet on the fact that he was interviewed or whatever they do to deem a person competent. it appears as though they did not find him competent enough to understand the brevity of the situation

It actually did go to court...and the judge did make that decision. I just disagree with it.

The backwards logic always gives me a good laugh



Always good for a laugh:

Spoiler

"I've often thought people treat God rather rudely, don't you? Asking trillions and trillions of prayers every day. Asking and pleading and begging for favors. 'Do this', 'gimme that', 'I need a new car', 'I want a better job'. And most of this praying takes place on Sunday -- His day off. It's not nice. And it's no way to treat a friend.

But people do pray, and they pray for a lot of different things, you know, your sister needs an operation on her crotch, your brother was arrested for defecating in a mall. But most of all, you'd really like to **** that hot little redhead down at the convenience store. You know, the one with the eyepatch and the clubfoot? Can you pray for that? I think you'd have to. And I say, fine. Pray for anything you want. Pray for anything, but what about the Divine Plan?

Remember that? The Divine Plan. Long time ago, God made a Divine Plan. Gave it a lot of thought, decided it was a good plan, put it into practice. And for billions and billions of years, the Divine Plan has been doing just fine. Now, you come along, and pray for something. Well suppose the thing you want isn't in God's Divine Plan? What do you want Him to do? Change His plan? Just for you? Doesn't it seem a little arrogant? It's a Divine Plan. What's the use of being God if every run-down shmuck with a two-dollar prayerbook can come along and **** up Your Plan?

And here's something else, another problem you might have: Suppose your prayers aren't answered. What do you say? "Well, it's God's will." "Thy Will Be Done." Fine, but if it's God's will, and He's going to do what He wants to anyway, why the **** bother praying in the first place? Seems like a big waste of time to me! Couldn't you just skip the praying part and go right to His Will? It's all very confusing..."

- George Carlin

I love George Carlin.

Christian Scientists are so beyond the realm of my understanding.

Where has anyone said that Christians were involved in this particular scenario? The family is using this : http://www.nemenhah.org/internal/about_us.html as their reasoning.