Should a child's parents have the right to choose what they feel is best for their child even if conventional wisdom balks at their choices? 13 year old Daniel Hauser and his family have exhausted the Minnesota courts with their plea to cease their son's chemotherapy and radiation cancer treatments in lieu of homeopathic medicine. The courts do not agree with Danny and the Hausers. Doctors and pathologists have given testimony with grim realities regarding Daniel's future without the continuation of the treatments. Medical science simply does not concur with the Hauser family. Vitamins do not cure lymphoma. Without chemo, Danny will die. His parents, in the face of all of this information, wish to discontinue his treatment. The courts, as of last Friday, have ordered Danny to resume treatment via scientific medicine.
I have mixed emotions in regards to this story. First of all, let me say without any sort of hesitation that I believe this family (the parents of Danny) to be nuts. If this were my child, I would be exhausting every medical avenue to give my child the best possible chance for survival. I do not believe that they are acting in their child's best interest. However, my opinions on their family's personal decisions does not take away the fact that they are his parents.
If a child is in danger, child social services and the legal system should step in. After all, the welfare of our children should be the most important consideration. They are just kids. Kids need advocates if their immediate family or caregivers do not put these values first. In this case, the lines are not exactly black and white. There is some definite grey area.
Are Danny's parents unfit to raise their child due to their religious beliefs regarding scientific medicine? Should the government step in and intervene when bureaucracies disagree with the family's position? Do we want to live in a state where courts can order that certain avenues must be taken, even if these avenues are against our wishes?
I believe in a limited government. I do not want an ideological bureaucrat to make decisions regarding the well being of myself or those I love. However, I also believe that in this instance, Danny needs these treatments to survive. This is the grey area. If I say, "Well, in this instance, YES!"... than am I involving the government in places where I they do not belong? Is this case an exception to the rule, that will become the standard? Will my family be impacted by the Hauser case in the future? How would I feel if I were the Hausers? The Hauser family seems to be a functioning entity. It is clear that they love their child. But is their religious viewpoints clouding their ability to choose what is best for their son?
Daniel and his mother have not been seen since Monday. Daniel's father believes that they are out of the country, or are en route to Mexico. He is pleading for their return. He is clearly upset by the court's decision, but is also concerned for his wife and son. Is Daniel's mother out of line running for the border with her son, when she feels that she is in serious jeopardy of losing him? What would I do if I were in her shoes? I do not know. I pray I am never in this situation. I pray that nobody has to endure the burden of choosing between what one wholly believes is what is best for their son or daughter and what is sanctioned by the legal system.
Although I whole-heartedly disagree with the Hauser viewpoint on conventional medicine. I do respect their rights to parent the way in which they choose. I also believe that the state has a responsibility to step in and intervene when a child's welfare is in question. Danny's well-being is in peril. Without court intervention and treatment, he will die. Do Danny's parents have the right to choose death for their son if the very fabric of their beliefs are shrouded in those principles? Or, do we wish to extend the governments reaching arms to save this child... but at what cost to our personal freedoms?
Would perhaps this decision affect parents who choose not to vaccinate their sons and daughters against government recommendation? At what point are a parent's choices trumped by government policies? The last thing I would wish for is government raised children. It does not take a village to raise a child. IT TAKES PARENTS. At what point are a parents wishes no longer valid in the eyes of those in power? This case is an important one for all Americans. The ability to freely choose for oneself is at stake. There is a family and a child involved in this one instance. On a larger scale we are all impacted by this case. To intervene or not to intervene, that is the million dollar question. On this one, I am at a total loss.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Gotta diagree KK. I think this youngster has gone through one round of chemo, if I understand properly. If this is the case, or perhaps if not, it is his sole right to deny medical treatment. No one, including his parents should have the legal right to force medical treatment on a terminal patient. This is the preface to a very slippery slope that ends with a Supreme Court case involving the government's right to decide how many children you can have or whether or not you're allowed to have a second daughter. I understand the parallels are grey, but applicable nonetheless. This little boy may be physcially exhausted and not prepared to spend his last few days on Earth clinging to a broken shell of existence. It's nobody's right when it comes to your body. I believe in that right in every circumstance and although I don't agree with it morally, I must vehemently supress any intervention into your personal life decisions from our gov't.
ReplyDelete