Freedom of Religion vs. Death

The child is too young to decide for himself.

The state should be able to intervene. If the state can intervene due to a parent abusing a child, even if the abuse is based on a religious teaching, why shouldn’t it be able to intervene to do what the parent SHOULD do? This cancer is far more dangerous than beating a child. But just because one is an act of commission and the other is an act of omission it should have a different standard? I don’t think so.

At what age should he be able to decide for himself? That is a tough one. At 18 you can go to war, but you can’t drink until you are 21. I don’t know. I would say at least until he is 18 he should not be able to decide for himself. Perhaps a mature child who can manifest a clear understanding should be given the ability to consent but that would be a case by case basis, and certainly would not be applicable in this instance.

God says we are accountable for our decisions as of the age of eight. As this boy is older than 8 years old, he is capable of deciding for himself and his choices are his own. Whether he understands the consequences is irrelevant. I would do all in my power to try and convince this boy that chemo will save his life, but as I believe a woman (even a teenager) has a right to choose over what she does with her body, so does this boy. In the end, it is his choice.

If he were forced against his will into chemo, would he later be thankful to the doctors for prolonging his life? Most likely. Personally I don’t care one way or the other, but if I were to lean one way, it would be toward letting the boy decide over his life.

Let me clarify, this is not faith trumping rationality it is misguided faith trumping rationality. I believe even the most faithful member of the church won’t apply the age of accountability in this fashion. In other words, I’m not saying faithful people would make this mistake because of their faith, but those who misunderstand the principle of the age of accountability could allow their misguided faith to lead them to poor choices like this.

Dan, this is frankly one of the most frightening things I have ever read. I don’t want to repeat what Dexter has said, but I pray to god that you don’t have young children, and that’s why you have taken this stance. I have an eight year old and she is still struggling to read her 3rd grade primers. I can’t really even fathom how she would do reading a medical journal synopsis explaining the cancer that was eating her body to death. The fact is, an eight year old is absolutely incapable of understanding the gravity of a situation like this. Most eight year olds still have no grasp of death even as an abstract concept, let alone the reality of their own impending death. Additionally, virtually all eight year olds will act in the manner in which they have been encouraged by their parents, regardless of whether those actions are in their best interests or not. That’s pretty close to the legal definition of sound mind as far as the law is concerned. No way should we as a society allow any person to choose their own death who is incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions. Thankfully, we don’t.

This is a separate issue from that of whether the child’s parents should be able to decide. I unequivocally believe the state has the right and the responsibility to step in in this situation. The deciding factor for me on this issue is the fact that it is a minor who is unable to choose for him/herself. A parent absolutely has the right to choose how to raise his or her child, but parents would not be allowed to voluntarily kill their child in a religious sacrificial rite (not that this is tantamount, but it illustrates that there are limits on what we as a society allow parents to do with their children in the name of religion). Since we would all agree that the state has the right to step in in SOME situations, the question is simply where the boundaries are. And I’ll go Dexter one further – not only would a parent be liable for beating their child, they would be liable if they knowingly allowed someone else to abuse their child. The point is, the well being of a minor child absolutely trumps the rights of a parent to involve that child in whatever religious activities they want to.

Personally, if the child dies, I believe the mother should be charged with negligent homicide, at least.

Brjones:

I can see this mothers attorney arguing that there was nothing negligent at all about the Mother’s interactions. She met with the doctors, they diagnosed the condition, they sought level’s of therapy, and then ultimately decided on a religious solution. Since there is no guarantee that the doctors treatment would work, the parents may have a reasonable argument, particularly if they feel that the Chemo therapy will not help their child.

Secondly, before anyone is too hard on this family, let’s not forget that Mormonism’s holy family, Joseph Sr. and Lucy Mack, allowed their juvenile son to undergo an excruciating procedure without the aid of anathstetic, brandy. As far as I can recall that was in defiance of the good doctors counsel and subjected him to unfathomable pain.

I personally think these guy’s are nuts to not follow the best wisdom available, but what would the long term effects of such a decision. Should the State be given this much control? What about the polygamists in Texas (FLDS)? Isn’t this a similar sort of situation? Should the State be granted authority to take their childre?

I think I understand your point, Cowboy. Personally, I think you have to disregard the child’s opinion in this matter, because a) he is incapable of understanding the issues; and b) he is going to parrot whatever his parents have told him to say, in all likelihood.

As to the facts of this particular case, the child at issue has Hodgkins Lymphoma, which has a 90% recovery rate with chemotherapy treatment, and a 5% recovery rate without it. I agree wholeheartedly that the facts of the case should be considered individually, and state intervention should be avoided if at all possible. But in this case we’re not just talking about the doctors thinking one thing is best and the parents thinking another is best. The bottom line is, if he gets chemo he’ll almost assuredly live and if he doesn’t he’ll almost assuredly die. This is a very extreme case. The parents want to continue on a course that is going to lead to death for their child, as a virtual matter of fact. That’s very distinguishable from your scenario above, Cowboy, I think. Let’s also remember that he wasn’t just diagnosed today. The diagnosis was made in January and the mother has been giving the child her natural remedies for almost 5 months, and the child just had a follow-up visit that showed the tumor has grown and spread. I think the facts of this case absolutely warrant the state saying, “these parents have been given ample opportunity to help their child using alternate methods, and those methods have been PROVEN ineffective. At this point we are not going to stand by and let them watch their child die.”

BrJones:

You’ve caught me, I haven’t been following this issue at all. To be honest, I was speaking rather generally because I am not at all aware of the situation here. Your explanation in #12 does make a stronger case for State intervention. I guess what would make some of the difference to me is whether the parent’s religiously object to the chemo therapy in such a way that they believe that their son could go to hell if he recieves it, or if they find it morally and/or spiritually reprehensible. If that is the case then I have a hard time with it, not because of this issue, but because of the long term implications. In other words I favor the individuals rights at the expense of stupid decisions, in order to preserve said rights. On the other hand, if we lived in another time and place and my name was Solomon, you better believe I’d be ordering the chemo therapy.

Jehovas Witnesses generally oppose blood transfusions, which I think has been the subject of this type of debate on more than one occassion.

I believe it is the parents right to choose what is best for their child. I agree that the parents should provide authorities with a health plan, showing that they are doing something, but it is not for the courts to decide which treatment is “best”.

This is a slippery slope. I personally choose ANYTHING over chemo/radiation. Thank goodness I am a grown up.

Within certain limitations part of religious freedom is the ability to pursue a course in mortality that we feel offers the eternal rewards. The State has no right to interfere in that process, except in extreme cases where the chosen course will adversely impact the rights of another. Obviously if we feel God requires us to commit murder in order to get to heaven, the State has an obligation to interfere, but situations such as these are rare. This is an important right, and should not be undermined just because some of us feel that we have more enlightenment than another. I suppose an argument could be made that the parents religion is adversely affecting the rights of their child, but again this is a tough one because where do we draw the line regarding a parents right to raise their children in manner they feel is best. In a simple world I would agree with you, but we don’t live in a simple world, rather it is highly pluralistic – I believe that maintaining these boundaries, even when it’s not what we would prefer to do, is the only thing that keeps those right’s and privliges in check.

Medical treatment by force is not really treatment anymore, it’s a form of torture. The good of the treatment would be more than offset by the harm of the use of force. Sort of like how Satan’s plan, though it saved every one, would not have been right. I think rather than force this with the arm of the state, I would try persuasion and reason, if I were this family’s doctor. If that failed, I’d probably resign as their doctor over it, stating my reason that the chances of a good outcome were low with the course they’d chosen. I’d do that in the hopes that it would change the parents’ minds. In the end, though, we have to have the humility to admit we don’t know everything, and don’t have stewardship over other people’s lives. We have to just hope and pray for things to turn out right.

If I were this boy I would scream, fight, run away, do anything at all to avoid getting a treatment I was convinced would do me harm. There’s no good to be done by administering chemotherapy to an unwilling victim. It’s just too invasive, too horrible. It would be like rape.

“Medical treatment by force is not really treatment anymore, it’s a form of torture. The good of the treatment would be more than offset by the harm of the use of force.”

There is a delicate balance between personal freedoms and having to use force when the patient is unable to fully understand the consequences. I see it often in my job with dementia patients. Some will refuse to take their essential meds. We can’t force them to take them, so gentle persuasion usually eventually works, even if it takes a few tries. We have some patients who refuse to bathe — and I mean they would NEVER EVER take a bath unless we force them to. Sounds kind of mean, doesn’t it? But we have a responsibility to make sure there are at least minimum hygiene standards, for the sake of the patient and for the sake of the other patients. You could say that it’s mental “torture” for these patients to have a bath. Maybe it is. But do we have a choice? Would it be better for him to waste away in his filth and develop additional illnesses because of lack of hygiene?

The Faithful Dissent,

But there’s a vast difference between having dementia and being a cogent 13 year old boy. I have to hearken back to religion, but remember, Joseph Smith was 14 when God and Jesus appeared to him to talk to him about some highly important things that surely he knew not the significance of at the tender age of 14.

Yes, there are many differences between dementia patients and children. My point, though, is that both of them don’t always know what’s for their own good. In the case of the former, it’s because of a brain-wasting illness. In the case of the latter, it’s immaturity.

I agree that doctors don’t always know what’s best and that patients should have the right to refuse a treatment or get a second opinion, etc. But in the case of this boy, it seems like a no-brainer. No chemo = death. It’s not like we’re talking about a rare illness that no one really knows what the best course of action is. Everyone knows what will happen if he doesn’t get chemo and there aren’t any rational medical alternatives, IMO.

I understand the distinction between adult and minor child, but when the state starts dictating exactly what kind of medical treatment MUST be used . . . Honestly, I’m torn on this one.

It’s not as if Daniel has a cancer that is poorly understood and offers only a 10% survival rate with chemotherapy or a 9% survival rate with radiation therapy and the court is choosing which therapy the family must choose. Hodgkins lymphoma is a well understand and treatable cancer and chemotherapy with radiation therapy is the standard for treatment. No oncologist Daniel as seen (and he has seen three, including the Mayo Clinic) has recommended any different therapy.

Faithful Dissent,

My point, though, is that both of them don’t always know what’s for their own good.

It can be easily argued that millions if not billions of adults do not know what’s good for them either, but it is not up to the state to decide that.

I think that one could make the argument that even if Daniel Hauser were 18, or older, his disabilities are such that he would need a guardian permanently assigned. If he survives his cancer it will be interesting to see if he is ever able to live independently.

This is not a philosophical debate. It’s a life-and-death struggle for a very real family. Nevertheless, there are some good principles here:
#22-Free agency (ahem…Moral agency) dictates that “forcing” the boy to be saved is very similar to a technique Satan advocates.

#32– “millions if not billions of adults do not know what’s good for them either, but it is not up to the state to decide that.”

So really, this is a religious issue AND a political one. Being raised a “McConkie Mormon,” my belief is that parents should be solely responsible in this decision (and the consequences) and government should butt out of private affairs.

That said, if I had to draw a line with child abuse/neglect and when the State should be able to move in, I find a broad gray area that makes it very difficult.

I find it interesting that some draw the line at the abuse/neglect of a child, but not the killing of a child, which is exactly what this woman is doing indirectly. There’s not even a question as to if this boy will die without treatment, but when. And if her actions are what leads to his death, then I’d say she may be guilty of manslaughter (I’m not a lawyer though, so I don’t know).

Frankly I am baffled by the number of people who seem to feel that parents have the absolute right to do whatever they want with and to their children in the name of religion, and that the state is somehow the evil interloper in this situation. And I think the continual evocation of how this situation is similar to satan’s plan is unbelievably fallacious reasoning. By that rationale, any limitations placed on a parent are evil and inappropriate. I asked the question before to those who seem to side with the parents on this issue, and I’d really like an answer. If you think this is an overstepping of the state’s bounds, then I am very curious to know in what circumstances you would support the state intervening in the interests of a child. It seems that some people feel that if the parents feel that this is in the child’s best spiritual interest, then this should be the end of the discussion. Well what if a parent is genuinely, 100% convinced that the only way their child can be saved is to sacrifice their life? Would anyone here argue that the state should sit by and allow that? Ultimately I fail to see how this is different. The child will live with chemo and he will die without it. That is virtually certain. So the argument here is not about differing opinions on the most effective treatment. The issue is whether a parent should be allowed to let their child die for religious reasons. I don’t see how this is one iota different than whether a parent should be allowed to kill their child for religious reasons (although I understand the acts are different). I think the only consistent position for some of the posters here is that when it comes to religion, the state has no right to ever supersede a parent’s judgment. I find that staggering. If there is some nuance I’m missing, again I would be interested in hearing it.

One thing I want to point out is the assumption that alternative treatments won’t work. While I am sympathetic to the state, I believe in traditional medicine, and I agree with the court’s conclusion, it is important to remember that doctors are not omniscient, and can be wrong.

In the Parker Jensen case, the parents were told repeatedly that they were killing their child by refusing traditional chemotherapy. Well, Parker is a healthy 18 year old, so it appears the doctors were wrong in their analysis. I think that parents should have the right to make decisions about medical treatment for their child, and I’m really uncomfortable with a statue essentially outlawing “alternative medicine.”

If the evidence shows the alternative medicine is not working, then I am for the state stepping in, but I have a real hard time saying the treatment should be forced against the parents wishes, nor do I believe a parent should be prosecuted for following their conscience.

I agree with brjones.

MH also makes a good point about alternative medicine. I don’t mean to knock alternative medicine. In some cases, I think it can be very beneficial and, sometimes, a patient’s last hope. However, since this particular case appears to have a prescribed cure that is almost certain (around 90%), then it seems absurd to not proceed with the treatment.

brjones,

#40,

then I am very curious to know in what circumstances you would support the state intervening in the interests of a child.

Child abuse.

Look, if you are incapable of convincing this mother and her 13 year old son of the benefits of this treatment, then the sin of the death of the son be upon the son and the mother. It’s their choice. But I think I understand better where conservative Mormons (and other religious conservatives) come from with their stance on how the state should not allow abortion.

There’s gotta be a point where state intervention should be prohibited. I just think back to my father abusing me as a child. Would it have helped me to have the state intervene? (they never did) I don’t think so. I may have felt he deserved prison back then, but now with time past, I don’t feel that way, and him being charged with a crime would have had a serious negative effect upon our healing relationship.

Now, I really don’t know the details of this case beyond the passing account in the news, and I really don’t care to know the details. I’m indifferent. If the kid dies because he chose not to accept modern medicine, then I say that’s his choice. I feel more troubled if the state forced the kid out of his parents’ control. Essentially, if the state did this, they would sever that relationship for him, causing a very negative effect on that family. That just troubles me greatly. Sure, the kid might survive, but look at the damage done to that family!

Let’s look back at Elian Gonzales. Remember him? yeah, the guy that gave George W. Freaking Bush the White House! I sided with those who believed that Elian should have stayed with his next closest kin, his father. That’s what the father is for. He is family. Social, religious conservatives (ironically the guys who supposedly defend “families”) felt it was better Elian was here in America away from his closest family than with his natural father. I never understood how a group of people who claimed they support families would support the separation of a child from his father solely because that father came from a country we didn’t like!

So essentially, my argument, and the side I align myself with, is that the family is the greater unit than the state. And if the family decides it is in their best interest that the kid not get chemo, then so be it.

Unlike TheFaithfulDissident, I do mean to openly knock “alternative” therapies. As I stated above, if anyone can show that “alternative” therapy works better than placebo, particularly against cancer but I’m open to other diseases as well, I’m happy to listen and read the study, but anecdotes don’t constitute proof.

Clearly there is a fundamental difference of opinion among some of the posters. While I respect your opinion, Dan, I will rest easier tonight knowing that in this country, if someone abuses their child or means to let them rot to death when life-saving medical treatments are available, the government will break their door down, tear their child from their negligent arms and throw them in prison with the other criminals. I can at least understand this kid’s parents’ actions, since they are pretty clearly deluded. It bothers me much more that seemingly reasonable people on the outside are so willing to in so many words say “too bad about that kid, but if it’s their rights today it could be my rights tomorrow.” This child is not a test case – he’s a human being who has no concept of the politics that are being played with his life. I, for one, am glad that the state will act first to make sure the child is safe. His rights, including his right to life, are INFINITELY more important than those of his parents. At this point the only right his mother should be concerned about is the right to remain silent.

It’s an interesting issue, and one I haven’t necessarily spent a lot of time considering. My first inclination is that I don’t really have a huge problem with it. I can say, however, that my big problem with the present issue is not that someone is going to die as the result of a conscious choice. My problem is that it’s an adult choosing to end the life of a minor child, and I believe unequivocally that the state has the right and a duty to step in and act in that situation. A person acting to end their own life or the life of an adult family member who has made an informed and reasoned choice to do so is a different ballgame altogether. For that matter, if the child were of sound mind and it could be demonstrated that the child understood the situation sufficiently and made a reasoned choice to end their life and communicated that to his or her parents, that is also a different situation. That is clearly not the case here. I really feel that in this instance the parents are making a choice to effectively end their child’s life, and the child is incapable of understanding what is going on. That is unacceptable.

I also find it interesting (genuinely, this is not a cheap shot) that one of conservatives’ big rallying cries regarding the many forms of abortion is the “devaluing of human life,” but in an instance where they see parental, and more particularly, religious rights impinged, they’re suddenly no friend to the person whose life is endangered. Obviously I think it’s a hypocritical stance, but even more than that, I honestly think it’s an interesting topic – the tension between the passionate protection of life, sometimes at all costs, on one hand, and the position taht it’s too bad that a child has to die, but parental rights are untouchable. Any thoughts?

While I admit there are similarities, situations such as the Shiavo case are vastly different from those such as the present case. The main difference is that in the case of a brain-dead adult, you’re talking about whether to prolong their life as a brain-dead person. That is a far different consideration than whether to prolong the life of someone who, by all indications, has a long and fruitful and normal life ahead of them. I think the state’s interest in cases such as Terry Shiavo is much more general, and more of a “sanctity of life” consideration, whereas in a case such as the Minnesota one, the issue is actually the life of the individual involved. Obviously there was some debate about whether Terry Shiavo could actually feel pain or had any awareness, but the point remains. In that sense, deciding for an adult who is in a coma, brain dead or otherwise unable to make that determination for him or herself is completely different from saving a child’s life from cancer. As I’ve said before, in the latter instance, I believe the state is right to take swift and stern action to save the child’s life. Another difference in the Shiavo case and the present case is that time was not really a critical factor in the Shiavo case. She had been brain dead for years and her condition was not going to change while the courts and the families battled it out. In the present case, there is literally no time to waste. This also cuts in favor of the action taken by the court.

Thanks for the clarifications, Mormon Heretic. I don’t think I indicated that I was opposed to euthanasia, in fact I think I said I tended not to have a problem with it. Your distinction of the Shiavo case is valid, but my main point still remains, which is, when dealing with a minor child, the considerations are much, much different. Additionally, whether Terry Shiavo was brain dead or not, no one was talking about snuffing out a full, normal life. Not that her life is less valuable, but it obviously changes the urgency of the debate to some degree. I’m glad Ms. Sebire was able to find a state that allowed her to die with dignity.

Let me just clarify that I’m not favoring the rights of the state over the rights of parents. I’m favoring the rights of a minor child over the rights of that child’s parents. When a parent is putting a child in danger, the only person who can come to that child’s aid and fight for his or her rights is often the state. So in this case, I feel like the state is fighting for that Minnesota boy’s rights, even though he doesn’t realize it. I think it is appropriate. I don’t have similar feelings about other right to die issues. And for the record, even aside from the disgusting politics involved, I STRONGLY supported the right of Shiavo’s husband to remove her feeding tube. Obviously the issue of whether her husband or her family should have been calling the shots is another matter, but the point is, I opposed the government getting involved to keep her alive on the basis of “sanctity of life.”

I’m sure you’re right, although honestly I think we’d be hard pressed to find anyone who openly accepted that that is what they were doing. What I mean is, I think most people who favor more state intervention as opposed to less, probably view the state as a proxy for some unrepresented or underrepresented person or group. I don’t think many people would see themselves as favoring the expansion of state power for the state’s sake. I realize that I’m undercutting my own argument here, a little bit, and I’m ok with that. I understand that every time you allow the state to trump the rights of the individual, you are chipping away a little more of that bundle of rights that we possess in a free society. I realize that there are many people who basically feel that this should never happen in any society, regardless of the circumstances. I obviously don’t feel that way. I’m not one who is a big proponent of the state sticking its nose in anywhere there is a group or person who can’t do for themselves. However, as I’ve stated, I think when a minor child’s parents cease to act in his or her best interest, who else is there but the state that can act to protect that child? I have no problem taking the position that the state should not hesitate to act in that situation.

I cannot believe the things I am reading in these comments.

Does anyone here feel that the state should not intervene if a parent is known to be physically beating their child to such an extent that the child’s chance of dying in the next few years is 90% or more?

Anyone?

Then how can you feel that the state should not step in when the parent’s avoidance of medical treatment means that the child’s chance of dying in the next few years is 90% or more?

I don’t care about their religion, I don’t care about the parent’s rights, I don’t care about the potential power that state could gain from this instance.

If you want the state to step in and protect children from incest, abuse, murder, etc., which, we all do, right?

Then how can you say the state should not step in here?

This is not even a debatable issue. Unless you want to turn a blind eye to incest and child abuse as well, how can you say the parents’ deserve to decide?

Dexter, where does it say the child has a 90% chance of death? I saw a 90% chance of cure, but it sounds to me like you’re misquoting statistics.

Looks like the parents came around.

It’s nice to see a good conclusion to all this. It would have been a bad choice for the government to sever the connections between the members of the family. And of course it would have been a bad choice for the son to die.