Clay Burell's Library tagged rights → View Popular

Filter:
All
Annotated

19 May 09

Parents' Rights, Judges' Rules | Print Article | Newsweek.com

Jehovah's Witness child cancer case has several parallels to child ignorance via classroom teaching as abuse/violation of a child's rights.

Tie this to the interview with the San Clemente teacher recently in the news for calling creationism/ID "superstitious nonsense."

www.newsweek.com/...print - Preview

fundamentalism education rights ethics morality

For that Jehovah's Witness, of course, damning a child to eternal hellfire seems a lot more harmful then denying her a treatment to save her physical body. But while adult patients can refuse treatments on grounds of faith, the religious convictions of a child—or of their parents—are not generally an acceptable legal defense against withholding lifesaving treatment. "One of the arguments used is that this isn't the decision of the child. You can't really say the child has a religious interest, because the child is too young to formulate a significant religious interest, and therefore the parents are imposing religion on their child," says Carl E. Schneider, a professor of law and internal medicine at the University of Michigan. However, he also points out the inherent problems with this argument, since the constitution places the responsibility for the religious upbringing of children in the hands of their parents.
That being said, forcing treatment on a child who doesn't want it is its own kind of ethical dilemma. "There are some kids for whom it becomes in their mind a vicious assault every time they're treated," says Diekema. "At a certain age and height and weight, it starts to seem inappropriate to hold them down on a regular basis to do what needs to be done." Daniel Hauser has reportedly vowed to punch, kick or scratch anyone who attempts to treat him. Even if medical support staff members are successful at physically restraining Hauser so that they can administer the chemotherapy, the psychological toll may impede his progress. With longer-term treatments—fighting cancer can take years—it's harder to successfully apply aggressive therapies if the patient is unwilling, especially because a certain mental toughness is required.
At 13, Daniel is far from the age where he could be making his own medical decisions, though judges are likely to weigh the value of a child's input on a case-by-case basis, rather than using an arbitrary age cutoff. It's remarkable how quickly terminal cancer can mature a 12-year-old. (Legal adulthood is 18, and certain decision-making authority can be granted at 16, but the line is blurry when it comes to children's medical care.)
1 more annotations...
- In the Minnesota case, however, the law and ethics seem to line up. Both suggest that Hauser will be forced to undergo the treatment that could save his life, provided the cancer hasn't already spread too far.
  <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
  
  </script>