Parental Rights

This morning on our local ABC affiliate's website, there was a link to a story about Daniel Hauser and his decision to refuse chemotherapy for Hodgkin's lymphoma. Daniel Hauser is 13 years old.

I bet you think I'm going to rail on this kid's parents for abusing or neglecting their child. I'm not.

Why is it that the people of this country cannot choose non-medical treatment? Forget the fact that this is a 13 year old child who is scared. Forget about the fact that he is citing religious reasons for this decision. Forget about the fact that his parents are being painted as parents who step aside and let their child govern himself (I'm not sure this is the case, but whatever.) Forget about the fact that this 'religious leader' is probably a nut job, a crack pot, a quack-a-roni. Forget these things and look at the rights of the parents.

When does the government have the right to step in and make choices for the parents? At what point is this acceptable? If the parents of this child simply abhor the idea of six months of chemo and then radation for their child, why is it not okay for them to choose a different route? Is this actually neglect or is this a strange grey area?

These people believe that chemo and radiation will be far worse than the cancer itself. In all actuality it may not be, but it very well could be. Does the law have to force them to comply with the recommendations of Daniel's doctor?

I don't know the answers to these questions. They are just flying through my head right now.

UPDATE: A Minnesota judge ruled Friday that 13-year-old Daniel Hauser must get medical treatment for cancer.

Questions are still flying, just in case you were wondering.