Judge John Rodenburg - Escalate, Baby

Wednesday, May 20, 2009
My new hero, Judge John Rodenburg, has issued an arrest warrant for flaming nutbar Colleen Hauser, who clearly has lost touch with reality-as-we-know-it.

After being ordered by Judge Rodenburg to allow Daniel to undergo chemotherapy for his cancer, Ms. Hauser took off with Daniel, and is now being sought by the police.

This is so sad. Daniel will most likely die without this treatment, since his mother is treating him with supplements, herbs and ionized water. Because everyone knows "ionized water" keeps cancer on the run.

How does a parent become so delusional that she'll let her child die to prove her beliefs? I don't get it.

But if Daniel dies, I think his mother should be charged with murder.

11 comments:

neurondoc said...

Ditto. (foam, foam, foam)

Steve Buchheit said...

See, I'd rack this up more as a religious nutbar case.

Anne C. said...

Definitely a religious nutbar.

(And love that word, "nutbar.")

Wendy said...

Oh, I'm there with ya!!

I'm thinking First Degree murder, which I believe is pre-meditated.

Jim Wright said...

From what I've read, it's not a religious thing.

The kid has already survived one round of chemo, went into remission, and then suffered a relapse. The parents were so traumatized by the first round of chemo that they "couldn't bear to watch their child suffer again."

So they sought "alternatives."

Yeah.

Prolonged death is preferable to making the kid go through chemo again.

As a parent I can certainly understand the parents' desire to spare their child pain. I cannot however, understand parents who would rather their child die than face pain. Thousands of children have faced this, there is counseling and support groups and things that can be done to help the kid get through it. Roots and bark and magic water aren't it though.

But ultimately, this isn't about the child's pain, this is about two parents who don't have the moral courage to see it through. This is about their pain, and guilt, and cowardice.

This woman and her complicit husband should be charged with manslaughter at the very least, should the kid die.

HowTo said...

First may I start out by saying to the poster. Thank you. Thank you for confirming that George Orwell was able to tell the future :P

Choice. What does i mean to you?
Obviously different then what the dictionary says, here is the url if you're too dumb to look i up "http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/choice".

It is not only the parent, which has he right to make decisions for the child, ie. my child will not drink alcohol at age 9, ie. my child will not smoke crack with Gerald Ford. But the fact that the child himself, as a person, sober, in plain and honest thought, indicated and confirmed that he did not wish to continue chemo.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION, IF YOU THINK SO YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE SUBJECT... so please, see a Buddhist or something if your so worried.

So, the idea of choice only goes as far as you're personal "safety-zone"? Not surprising. You can see no further than your nose.

Marriage, a choice between any sex. But when a child chooses to go without chemo, there is a sudden need to MAKE him do so? It simply makes no sense. I am neither Rep or Dem, and I find things like this interesting to watch.

Congratulations though on buying into this political scheme. You people are nothing but pawns in their game. It's... really kinda sad.

Bring on the noise! I love reading people's responses to my words, it shows how much effect they have had.

HowTo said...

Oh please don't hurt mine feelers you big smart people.
I might Cry. lmao

Janiece Murphy said...

Howto, you obviously believe your remarks are "provocative," and expect the response to be a flame war of some type. Sorry to disappoint, but that's not how things are done here. If you have a reasonable point to make, and that point can be made with logically defensible arguments, you're more than welcome to join the discussion.

If you can't, you're comments will be deleted and you'll need to find somewhere else to play.

Within your commentary, you do make one valid point, and that is the right of the child to have some say in their care. In this particular case, the deciding Judge determined that Daniel was incapable of making an informed choice regarding his care. You obviously disagree with this finding, but have presented no evidence to support your point other than snark.

While I'm obviously fond of the snark myself, if you intend to be taken seriously here, you'll simply have to do better than your current efforts. Which are feeble at best.

Jim Wright said...

Bring on the noise! I love reading people's responses to my words, it shows how much effect they have had.Bet this guy is a lot of fun at parties.

You know, if he actually got invited to parties.

And Janiece, why are you so uncomfortable with religion? You should see a Buddhist or something

Jeri said...

I especially enjoy an intelligent troll, literate, with excellent spelling, grammar, style AND SUBSTANCE to his/her drive-by contribution.

What?

Carol Elaine said...

Ooh, Janiece, How To got your number all right. Zing!

Except, well, not.

Snore. Because the snark is so bad it doesn't even reach "feeble attempt" levels.

And yes, this mother should be tried for endangering her son's life. Because that is exactly what she is doing. I think manslaughter would be the appropriate charge, should the poor boy die. Which, unfortunately, seems very likely.