Colleen and Daniel Hauser have returned home after fleeing Minnesota to escape the court’s decision to force Daniel into chemotherapy to treat his Hodgkins Lymphoma.
The Daniel Hauser who is illiterate and homeschooled.
The Daniel Hauser who is in some sort of religious cult.
The Journal has a rather brief description of what this case is about.
The case pits parents’ rights and religious beliefs versus the state’s right to protect children.
Anita of Ovolina struggles with this basic conflict in her thoughts about the case.
In this case the parents’ rights will be violated. The state’s interest in the well being of Daniel Hauser, in preserving his life, trumps the parents’ freedom of choice.
When the state is forced to act as a parent, nobody wins and our liberties suffer. But sometimes, it’s the only choice.
I only hope that even in a case like this, we remember to tread lightly and with regret whenever we take someone’s freedom away.
And of course there are always those who would encourage Daniel to run and never come back.
But is it about parental rights vs. state’s rights? (Or the state’s interest. . .I’m not sure the state exactly has rights.) Or is it about the child and who can best protect his rights?
I do not see these kinds of discussions when children are endangered in other ways. A parent has the right and the responsibility to feed their children, but not the right to not feed them at all. A parent has the right to monitor a child’s relationships for their own good, but not to lock them in a closet and hide them from the world. A parent has the right to discipline a child, but not to beat them. A parent has the right to oversee the health care of their children, but not to deny all treatment.
An adult has the right to refuse medical treatment, but does a child of thirteen who has been unable to demonstrate an understanding of what that refusal would mean?
Others see a different issue than one of basic rights: one of religion.
I have to say something that is heartfelt, and is also meant to offend. I do not absolve you mealy-mouthed moderates, I do not regard your beliefs as harmless. If Colleen Hauser or Leilani Neumann were in your church, you’d tell them to get medical care, but you’d also validate their belief in prayers. You would provide the soothing background muzak that says prayer is good, prayer is virtuous, prayer will connect you to the great lord who can do anything, prayer will give you solace in your time of worry. You would not raise your voice to say that prayer is useless, prayer is self-defeating, that while prayer might make you feel better while your child is suffering, that is no virtue. You pray yourselves. You think it is a noble and generous act for your representatives to prowl the corridors of hospitals, preying on the desperation of the sick. You abase yourselves before false hopes, and sacrifice human dignity on an altar built from the bones of the dead. You would spread the poison, piously excusing yourselves because you only want to administer sub-lethal doses.
The specific views in this case weren’t exactly inspired by Christianity, but I guess they considered themselves Catholic as well. And I doubt Shamar sees much difference between one “sky faerie” and another.
And I don’t see much difference between shoving all believers into this narrow box and throwing all atheists in with other notable atheists such as Lenin and Pol Pot.
Besides, how much did religion really have to do with it? The family submitted to chemotherapy and rejected it only after experiencing its side effects. Perhaps religion was something to hide behind. Perhaps it was something they were driven to in their search for an alternative.
But I suppose the question remains: Is Daniel, a thirteen year old with disabilities related to a difficult delivery, capable of making this decision himself?
This is one of those really tough ones…parents hold the ultimate responsiblity for the care of their children. However, I also believe we as parents should find the best medical care for our children. I am not sure anyone who has not seen their child go through cancer treatments is likely unable to relate to the side effects and should not be judging the parents. That being said I think for the 13 year old he is indeed still a child, however should have some say in his own treatment plan. Medicine can and does save lives. This case does not have any easy answers
I think the “hiding behind religion” component is worth considering in so many tough cases these days. Or to be less pejorative, at least “religion as policy and legal reasoning.”
The toughest cases are the ones that make it to the Supreme Court, and this morning as we plunge into another tough confirmation battle, it seems religion is ever more central in our reasoning.
If Sonia Sotomayor is indeed the president’s pick, we may soon be debating whether six Catholics can judge the toughest cases more wisely for a diverse America than five, whether female Catholicism will add important dimensions to judging those tough cases (dare I call it empathy?)
Something that helps me in tough cases is thinking through a game of “moral musical chairs” — say we do champion a 13-year-old’s right to make his (or her) own decisions. So if Daniel as a 13-year-old wanted the treatment but his parents wanted prayer instead, should they legally be able (under our parental rights principle?) to prevent his chemo? What if they want to impose the treatment and he devoutly believes he should decline all intervention? Cn they force either choice on him, or can he appeal to a court of law for medical-choice emanicipation (in both cases or only in one but not the other?)
What about the next time then, when it’s a pregnant 13-year-old girl seeking an abortion against her parents’ beliefs OR seeking to avoid the abortion her parents believe best for her health and future? Or wanting to go get married against their beliefs and consent, or wishing NOT to be forced to marry?
In general, parents direct these kinds of decisions because no one loves that child like that parent. While we all make mistakes, most of us would give our lives if we had to make our children safe.
I think that is why these cases are difficult. It isn’t like the family who can’t seem to make their case enough of a priority to show up to court dates, team meetings, therapy and even visitation with their own children. It is easy to classify them as abusers.
It is more difficult when the parent clearly believes they are doing the best for their children and yet the decision still puts the child’s life in danger.
And of course there are always cases like these, where freedom of speech has been taken to an unhealthy extreme.
Oh man, wish you hadn’t given THAT link! [shudder]
So we could call this not just hiding behind religion to hurt your own kids, but maybe hiding behind politics as religion to hurt your own kids, or behind hate as religion?
“The lawyer for CFS told court Monday this case has nothing to do with infringing on free speech or expression. He said it’s about ‘longstanding family dysfunction’ . . .” No kidding.
I absolutely agree with you there. It is a hiding place and a justification.
Here in America, we used “Manifest Destiny” to rationalize what we did to the Native Americans as we moved from “sea to shining sea.” The British in Australia didn’t have that religious worldview to rationalize their treatment of the Aboriginals in Australia. So they murdered them in the name of science, viewed them as a lesser species and hid behind evolutionary theory to justify taking the land for their own purposes.
People are capable of all sots of evil, but for some reason, we like to explain it, justify it and remove ourselves from the effects by latching on to and twisting whatever worldview.
Dana, thank you. You have just reminded me that I am NOT crazy for remembering being taught in Aus. public school that Aborigines are less evolved than “us,” and that they are genuine Stone Age people.
I think medical people like to hide behind science. They track “outcomes.” How do they KNOW, however, that this young man won’t be one of the five percent who don’t get better? Or even that there is truly a five percent rate of non-recovery when chemo is applied? (Maybe freckled people have a 30% death rate and they weren’t looking for that… poor kid.)
This is one of many, many reasons I don’t go to the doctor unless I think I’m gonna die. I don’t want my “outcome” tracked. Who do these people think they are that they have the right to do that? I can’t even demand absolute privacy over my own records.
Here’s what I’m getting ’round to… they shouldn’t even HAVE scientific information about these outcomes. I don’t remember trading my privacy or my children’s in for greater medical safety, but I guess it happened along the line somewhere.
Trouble is, it’s not possible to reconcile such concern that the public’s “science” should butt out of all private family medical information and rightful choices, with any religion-based reasoning about public health and safety such as Sarah Palin’s, for example, which calls on pentecostal religious rationales for public policy in everything from political campaign decisions to war and peace, energy policy, fruit fly research and contraception for sexually active teens.
In an ideal world, this wouldn’t be an issue. :p
At 13, he is a child. While he might be able to offer thoughts, opinions and feelings about the matter, ultimately, his parents need to decide.
But what bothers me is: 1.) allopathic medicine equals good and responsible; 2.) natural medicine equals irresponsible and sure death. That just isn’t so. While I will be the first to acknowledge that there are MANY quacks out there pushing “natural medicine”, I would also love a tally of licensed medical doctors who are incompetent and still in practice along with their patient mortality rates. There isn’t much difference, except that one is licensed and the other isn’t so one is “ok” and the other isn’t. {’nother rant for ‘nother day.}
Although cancer can be cured naturally, that doesn’t mean it can be cured naturally in every cancer patient. The thing is, allopathic treatments aren’t a guaranteed cure either. The 85% number they are throwing around is far from 100%, especially when you consider what he might have to live through and then die anyhow. Ultimately, either way they go, it’s a crap shoot.
If he has seem some legitimate natural health practitioners who have helped his parents responsibly lay out a specific course of natural treatment, preferably ones that have been studied, and follow the plan, then the state should back off. If they are being irrational, saying no and only giving him a few vitamins, then yes, something more should be done.
JJ, are you saying it’s better for everyone to have my personal info so they can make scientific decisions about these things rather than let the voters decide based on what you’d think is religious and/or stupid reasoning?
NOT making fun of you… just trying to flesh out your argument in my brain. Trading my info is ok for science? Science rates higher than our personal privacy?
I just keep going back to square one and thinking that science is the new religion. I have to admit some of the things I’ve seen in churches have been silly, but I also have to tell you the medical people really don’t know * about a lot of things. Just talk to any mom of an autistic over the age of 18 and she’ll tell ya.
OH…
And I have to tell you, it took us until G was NINE for him to get diagnosed. Looking back, it’s painfully obvious which ones are autistic. WHY do we feel we have to suffer at the hands of these professionals?
I have a non-verbal autistic child I don’t want to bring to the specialist. I don’t want his “outcome” tracked, thanks. I refuse to get a label for him because I don’t want him watched under Child Find.
It’s just chilling, I tell ya!
If I were that mom, I wouldn’t have let it get to court. I’d make this appointment and go but oops, have to reschedule that next one. Doggone but my car broke this morning… then make the next rescheduled appointment. Play that game on and on and go minimum number of times. :]
To both Janel and Mrs. C — I’m not saying anything about the end result, which is right and wrong. All I’m saying is that nothing can be right if you grab hold of it first as your answer, and then make up the reasoning to fit by working backward, instead of working through the process of inquiry with a curious and truly undecided mind.
To do otherwise is exactly the wrong that all the politicians are today cautioning against in SCOTUS deciding cases.
I don’t know that it has so much to do with the fact that some information is collected but how. There are frequent studies in which the participants consent to be treated and allow their information to be collected. And for all they know, they are being treated with a placebo.
I can’t say I’d be happy if there were no studies and no information available for doctors to determine how to treat me or my children. Particularly when making a difficult decision about whether or not to consent to treatment as severe as chemo or some radical surgery, I’d like to know statistically how likely success is, what is likely to happen if treatment is denied and how I compare with other patients who have been through the treatment or refused it.
What’s the question? Whether parental or religious rights trump saving the life of a boy? One, by all accounts, incapable of making his own decisions.
I hope not. I hope the court has its head on straight and appoints a guardian and gets this boy the treatment any one of us would want. No matter what his bizarre parents say or what he says.
As for tracking of scientific information. Really? We shouldn’t collect data and use science to help ourselves? What is the point of deliberately refusing to advance?
Nance
Janel, I think that is part of the problem. Following some self-help course from a guy who gives you a certificate saying you’re a medicine man after giving him $250 (not to mention the fact that he is wanted in two states for fraud)is not solid information about the possible risks and benefits of any particular course of action.
Maybe that is why I’m feeling more sympathy for the state in this issue than in Abraham Cherrix’ case. He seemed more informed about what was going on in his treatment.
Nance, some are saying that is what the issue is, but I disagree. And at the moment it looks like the best course of action is being followed. Charges against the parents are being dropped, they are able to visit their son while he’s in the hospital…and he’s in the hospital.
I hope he gets the treatment he needs and recovers and brings the good news that science and medicine are actually good things to his seven, I think it’s seven, siblings.
Nance
Omigosh, I didn’t even know he had siblings! Gotta go educate myself further . . .
Meanwhile, here’s a thoughtfully provocative take on this case and how it fits into other legal liberty issues, from Reason Magazine:
I’ll just say FWIW I’d be in the hospital getting the boy chemotherapy. I just get a bit nervous that the medical establishment and the courts seem to be in cahoots together to decide what’s best for a minor child.
Nance, I am against “collecting data” on myself or my children without my consent. I don’t see where science is more important than the rights of the patient to privacy. JMO
Mrs. C — isn’t that what all those forms are that we sign whenever the kids go to the doctor? Of course information gathering is, or should be, done with consent. But I clearly understand that the state and medical researchers have an interest in following how many kids are immunized, for instance. Why would it be helpful to keep those numbers a secret?
Nance
My daughter suffers from a chronic illness which calls for some pretty strong medications. I remember sitting in the office listening to the list of side effects and when the nurse got to “If your daughter totally flips out and you end up in the emergency room with her threatening suicide, under no circumstances are they to stop the medication. It will only make it worse.” is when everything became very real to me.
The medicine seemed as bad as the disease and many people do turn it down for themselves or their children, seeking alternative therapies. The big difference, however, is that the steroid medicine does not cure. We did decide to take the advice of her doctor alongside some dietary changes.
And ironically, her moods evened out under the meds, I think because she felt better.
This also left me thinking about how we treat the disabled and best look out for their interests. I’ve read varying reports on exactly what Daniel’s learning disability entails.
His being 13 makes it a little easier, but what if he were older? Would we still usurp his will for his own good because he is illiterate?
This is ridiculous! His parents are doing well into blinding him, thinking medicine is poison. I hope he realizes that many medications have side effects, but they will make one feel better in the long run… Then the parents say the reason he is getting better is because of stupid salt water and tea leaves, rather than chemo (which medical experts say is helping him)