Tuesday Teeny Poll
By Glinda
Last week, eighty-three percent of you said that a sixty-six year old woman was too old to have a baby. Only thirteen percent tried to give her the benefit of the doubt, and only three percent said it was perfectly fine. As a thirty-eight year old who is daunted by the fact that she will have her own newborn in November, I’m seriously wondering if a woman in her late sixties has the energy to keep up with a toddler, much less be able to deal with any health issues that arise. But heck, maybe she’ll just hire a nanny.
Since yesterday was a holiday, but I still had a burning question I wanted to ask you, I decided to break the rules and do a poll today.
The news just came out that 13-year old Danny Hauser and his mother Colleen have returned to Minnesota and will face a new court hearing as to whether Danny will continue a regimen of chemotherapy as determined by the judge in the case. Danny underwent one round of chemo, and then stopped, citing religious reasons. Danny’s cancer, Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, is highly treatable with chemo and his chances of survival are quite good if he continues the therapy, and very low if he does not. Danny and his parents do not wish to continue the chemo and want to pursue alternative therapies instead.
May 26th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
As tragic as this case may seem to the outsider, the only interest to society outside of his family is that of judicial precedent. His life is his to decide if he wants to take the risk of alternative treatment, and his family’s to grieve if those treatments do not work. However, if “for his sake” the courts decide he MUST undergo chemo, a precedent has been set that normal, loving, non-neglectful parents do not have the right to decide with their child (in this case young man, as he is 13 and old enough to start thinking about what life and death means) what medical treatment is best. Maybe it’s a worst-case scenario, but I could see a decision like this take away the Jehovah’s Witnesses rights to refuse blood transfusions, or (more controversially) the right of parents of minor girls to choose not to give their daughters the HPV vaccine. I’m sure there will be those out there who disagree with me, so I’ll just say that this is just my non-expert opinion and I very much hope that Danny survives (and I wonder how the combo of chemo with an unwilling patient would affect the body…).
May 26th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
“His life is his to decide” is not so, when he is yet under age.
As I’ve had, and recovered from, Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, I can give you the odds here with some degree of certainty. With medical intervention, his odds of surviving five years clear are in the 98% range. With alternative therapy instead, his odds drop low enough that even I, a VERY interested patient and professional researcher, couldn’t find any statistics.
Basically, it’s a certainty that he’ll live if he does this treatment and that he’ll die if he doesn’t.
As he is a minor, it’s up to those responsible for him to make the decision. Now, what if his parents beat him? And he still loved them, as kids do? And he didn’t want to get taken away by the government, but would rather stay with people who want to do things that will kill him.
Because he would, in fact, rather stay with people who want to do things that will kill him, rather than go with the government’s authority and live.
Life is a prerequisite for everything else, and medical treatment is not a consumer decision where I come from: it’s a fundamental human right.
May 26th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
How do they know that the supreme being didn’t send the inspiration for the cure to the MD’s and it is a sin to not use the tools that s/he sent? If someone wants to get literal, the bible advocates incest (Noah and his daughters), polygamy (everyone in the old testament) and stoning for various “moral” infractions. While one has to admire their faith, it’s limitations should not be imposed on children. When the child is an adult then it their right to follow a belief system as long as it does no harm and does not abuse the innocent.
May 26th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
And raincoaster…you are awesome 🙂
May 26th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
To be quite literal, Jennie, the Bible NEVER advocates incest, it reports it (just like many many instances of sin in the Bible that are not condoned, simply reported). The instance you are probably thinking of is Lot and his daughters, and what they did was very clearly prohibited in the laws of Leviticus. Not to mention that there were Old Testament characters who were NOT polygamous… Isaac, Boaz, Hosea, and others.
Also, reading the article, it is not Christian beliefs that led this family to their decisions — it was Native American beliefs. I am now wondering if that changes anyone’s viewpoint?
Raincoaster — ok, so as a minor he is not allowed to make the decision to live or die? What if he was on a ventilator with no hope of recovery and wanted the plug to be pulled, and his parents didn’t agree? I won’t argue what the law is, but still… it seems that the boy’s opinion should count for something. I am somewhat confused by what you meant in your last sentence — it appears to be saying that medical treatment is not a decision we get to make, that we should be forced to get whatever the experts think is best?? I doubt that is what you are saying — what I meant to say in my comment is that our rights in medicine should be to receive the treatment that WE want to receive… no one should be forced into treatments that they don’t want. That is a terribly frightening thought to me.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
Sorry for the double post, but I just reread the article — it appears to have updated from this afternoon and the parents have agreed to let him have chemo. Best of both worlds. 🙂
May 27th, 2009 at 1:08 am
As a minor, no, he’s not allowed to make those decisions. This is why we protect our children: so they don’t kill themselves prematurely.
It makes no difference from what cultural tradition their beliefs come; if their beliefs kill children we could save, we should save those children. We do not have the right to brainwash them; they can maintain till their (elderly, it is to be hoped) dying day that the Big Government was terribly wrong to treat them. But we have the responsibility to save the lives of children whose lives can be saved, yes.
May 27th, 2009 at 9:14 am
In general, the government needs to keep out of parenting decisions, but parents do not have the right to let their children die. I don’t care if it violates their “religious” beliefs to get chemo.
I heard on the radio that the family is Catholic (I am Catholic and although Ouija boards might be against our religion, chemo is not) and they want to pursue some “alternative” methods. Given that the kid has had only one round of chemo, that is was working, and that Hodgkins is highly treatable, going straight to the highly-successful and well-documented, well-researched Native American ex-con cancer treatment methods seems a little premature.
A woman in northern Wisconsin was convicted recently of letting her daughter die of diabetes as she prayed over her for healing. Rightfully so. Parents should be the authority, but as a parent, you are not allowed to starve your child, to sexually abuse your child, to keep your child out of school (and I totally disagree with the law that allows the Amish to stop schooling at 8th grade on the grounds of religious freedom), etc. The parent has rights, but so does the child, and the right to life trumps the parents’ right to be stupid.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Classfactorum — this may be straying from the topic a bit, but you’ve got me wondering… what do you think of private schools, parochial schools, and homeschooling?
And this whole thing also makes me wonder about what this same group would say about abortion laws, because there we make the government stay out of a parent’s right to kill their offspring (whether you want to define it as a child or not at that point, it’s still a biological descendant of the parents, but at an earlier stage of development than Danny).
May 27th, 2009 at 11:24 am
I agree. What if a parent’s religious beliefs were to completely eschew any and all medical treatment, and their child gets in an accident, and the parents refuse to bring him or her to the hospital? They would be charged with neglect. I try to respect other peoples’ religious beliefs as much as possible, but have a very hard time mustering up empathy for any religious screed that would deny a lifesaving medical treatment to a minor.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
I hope no one thinks I’m just being a troll with all my comments — this issue really fascinates me and I’m torn on it — La Petite Acadienne, your perspective is quite compelling.
I was discussing this with a friend today, however, and he brought up the fact that in many jurisdictions, if a 13 year old committed first-degree murder, he would be able to be tried as an adult. Also, he is only one year away from the lowest age of sexual consent in many US states. He can be held responsible as an adult for creating or taking the life of another, but cannot make the decision for his own life? Again, I’m not arguing what the law is, just pointing out the many inconsistencies this case brings to light. Plus pondering this is a lot more mentally challenging than what I’m doing at work today. 🙂
May 27th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
KESW, I am more than fine with non-public schools and with homeschooling, but I think the kids need to pass the same tests the public school kids pass. That is, if you want to have a high-school diploma, you need to meet a certain standard.
That said, my very liberal husband and I have had many a spirited discussion on vouchers for private school. More spirited than I would like. I now refer him to paragraph 42, section A17 when he wants to argue about the subject, as my opinion has not changed, despite his apparently persuasive argument.
La Petite, I don’t necessarily respect other religious beliefs, but I respect the right to have them. But you don’t get immunity from the law. Suppose you claimed you were an Aztec and human sacrifice was part of your religion. Sorry. That’s just not going to fly! The law trumps your religious practice in this country.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
This may or may not change anyone’s opinions on the subject, but one of the articles I read on this family mentioned that the boy has some type of learning disability that may be preventing him from understanding the full implications of this life-or-death decision. That fact, coupled with a child’s natural (till a certain age ahem ahem) inclination to follow their parent’s beliefs, may explain why the kid himself is acting the way he is. Regardless of his mental status, anyone who is not legally able to make their own decisions (sign a legally binding contract, for example) needs a guardian who will act in their best interests.
Also, I read the dad’s argument was something like “you have the chemo and then sometimes you have to go back for more” – now my Mom is currently undergoing chemo and I know these things are hardly comparable, but no one complains about having to take another Advil if their headache doesn’t go away after the first dose. Sometimes you have to take more than one dose of medecine, even really crappy medecine with lots of side effects, for you to get the benefit you are hoping for.
May 28th, 2009 at 4:23 am
He’ll most likely have several months of biweekly chemo, unless that is one of the cancers responsive to Erbitux, which was not available when I was sick. Chemo is not a silver bullet; it’s a process.
The laws that dictate treatment in this case are (if you think about it) the same laws which are designed to protect the children of abusive parents or simply fatally stupid ones. They are entitled to be stupid. They are even entitled to be evil. But they are not entitled to let those feelings, tendencies or beliefs cause harm to a child, most particularly their own.
I for one think this is one of the best discussions we’ve had on this site recently. All thoughtful comments are welcome, whatever the viewpoint.
May 28th, 2009 at 9:31 am
raincoaster is right on in her comments here.
And I feel the need to clear one thing up. The religious group the Hauser’s are following is not recognized by most Native Americans. It is in fact a New Age group that requires significant financial contribution to be a member of. Most Native Americans that I’ve found, call this “religious” leader a plastic shaman (a charlatan or fraud). And it is my understanding that the Hauser’s found this group online after Danny submitted to his first round of chemo. To me, based on these few facts, this isn’t about religious freedom, it’s about protecting a minor.
May 28th, 2009 at 11:00 am
“this isn’t about religious freedom, it’s about protecting a minor.”
Andrea, I agree, but the parents, or at least the mother, seemed to be couching it in religious terms. Even if it were about religion, though, I still wouldn’t agree that they would get to opt out of the chemo under the current circumstances. (And I watched my father go through chemo for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma 12 years ago, so I know how awful it is.)
Incidentally, the mother who prayed as her diabetic daughter died and was convicted of reckless homicide is still saying, “the verdict shows how much more work needs to be done in her fight for religious freedom.” (http://www.fdlreporter.com/article/20090526/FON0101/90526079/1289&located=RSS), which just makes me want to drive up north and punch this lady out.
Her religion would have her let her daughter DIE? I am as get the gov’t out of my life as they come, but one person is not allowed to harm or cause the death of another in the name of religion or for any other reason. And yes — start flames now — that includes abortion and assisted suicide.
May 28th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Class — love your last sentence there. That’s honestly my biggest concern with this issue, is how many people are going to be up in arms that Danny should receive chemo treatments because the law shouldn’t let his parents let him die, but turn around still argue that the government cannot tell mothers (with or without the input of fathers, which boggles my mind) not to abort their children unless the mother’s life is in jeopardy.
Of course, I still maintain that we must be extremely careful in how these laws and judicial actions are worded and limited so that they won’t be pushed into realms of truly invading family privacy, but I do respect the idea that the government should be in the business of protecting lives.