By Jamie Neben
Maybe you remember the news coverage a few weeks back surrounding 13-year-old Daniel Hauser, the Minnesota boy with cancer who fled the state with his mother to avoid chemotherapy. The family cited religious beliefs for their opposition. After a warrant was issued for the mother’s arrest, they returned home and agreed to continue his treatment. His condition is apparently improving, although whether it’s due to the radiation or the other alternative treatment he’s receiving is up for debate. What seems clear is that Daniel is upset that he is being ordered to continue with it.
I believe we should respect an adult’s decision if he or she wants to refuse life-saving treatment on religious grounds, or for any other reason. Not that we have to like it, but it’s their life. I don’t think most people have a problem with living wills, and even assisted-suicide is gaining wider approval in terminal cases. On a daily basis, many families sadly deal with hard decisions when loved ones are on life support. Sometimes it even winds up in court (e.g. Terri Schiavo). But what happens when we’re talking about a minor—-who is himself resistant, as it turns out? Should parents be forced to pursue all medical options in order to save a child? I’m making the assumption here that they believe their own beliefs will work.
What do you think?
The Daniel Hauser story raised all sorts of questions that didn’t get asked. The media played it like it was an episode of a television show, a new Fugitive, if you will. It was reported for its drama, not its importance.
Where, for example, are the stories of parents who want to, but can’t, get proper medical treatment for their kids because they don’t have the money or the insurance for the treatment? Where were the anti-abortion zealots who state their goal as one of “saving babies”? Daniel is a full-fledged human being and is, to them apparently, not worth their attention. Where are the stories about corporate activity that causes illness, such as the devastation being wrought by mountaintop blasting in West Virginia? Why is there no investigation of why, seemingly out of nowhere, all sorts of healthy foods like spinach and tomatoes, became deadly? Nothing like this got asked. Indeed, the media barely even got into the issue of the family’s religion. It was all about the drama.
If this story stands for anything, it’s about the sorry state of what we call the mainstream media.
I think i’ve seen this somewhere before…but it’s not bad at all
So we ask a lot of questions but who will take a stab at taking a clear position?
I do have a lot of respect for a person who states that they may not have a solid stance on an issue but is willing to give a stance based on the information they have or can recall. At least the discussion can start where time can be used to gather more information and gain more of a positive stance. I also have a lot of respect for someone who states that they have a solid position based on the information they know, but is willing to discuss anything that someone else may think the person has not fully realized.
For example. I have a strong stance on water-boarding and if I feel it should be considered torture.
Under “my” definition I would not call it torture. Not in the way many are categorizing it. “My” definition of torture would be something that has a lasting effect on someone. Something that we would never do to any of our soldiers, even for training.
Now, hold your horses!!! I can also respect and agree with an honored soldier of ours, who believes water-boarding is torture. I can also realize that (technically) he is right.
(The thing is that) I differentiate between something that is of a lasting damage, from one of being very uncomfortable for temporary period of time.
I also believe there is a difference between signing an agreement with a country that follows the agreement and a terrorist organization that does not follow the rules of war and did not signed any agreement with us.
I understand the call for the United States to rise above the standards of many nations and people, I do! But if I know that a nation is breaking the rules of engagement and is trying to drop a nuclear bomb on the United States, I will not rule out defending ourselves fully, even of a like kind.
What I am saying is that I believe it is important why/how a person comes to their conclusions. I believe everyone should try there best to understand the other point of views. It is all right to change your mind based on the understanding or coming to realize another person’s point of view.
Now, it may seem as if I am going off on a tangent, but if you understand that I am not talking about the subject matter of torture (above) and that I am talking about the principles of how we should try to understand another person’s point of view (and how they came to their conclusion) then we are on the same track and can continue.
I will start with Jamie Neben with efforts to address (directly and clearly) the issue I believe he is trying to tackle between a minor’s decision and an adult’s decision.
I believe when a minor is involved in a life decision we should allow unbiased opinions, information, and representation to be given to the child. I would like to see that we would help encourage good support for the life of the child until he/she can make the adult decision.
As for an adult. This is something I do not believe we have as much jurisdiction over unless the person did not leave their will and can not speak for themselves. As in that point, we may need to get involved similar to what took place with Terri Schiavo.
In addressing some of Cady’s items, let’s keep in mind my previous comments.
I hope we can agree that the word “zealots” are used for someone that is militant. Militant in a way that would make them take the law into their own hands and actually kill someone who they believe is doing harm. If you have a different definition, please let me know so we can be on the same page.
With my definition, can we agree that nearly all anti-abortion supporters will not physically go after an abortion doctor?
I have actually talked to many who take an anti-abortion stance and probably more who want the woman to decide if she should abort the baby. There are also some who do not want to address the issue at all.
All of the people are nice overall. I believe that we may be nice and can still make bad decisions. It depends on our influences, atmosphere, and experiences.
My second question to you would be, do you think abortions have gone too far out of control (abused) when statistics are reporting that 1 of 3 pregnancies end in abortion and therefore do you believe there should be (more) stringent requirements to curb it?
Third question. Do you believe that it’s very possible that the majority of the anti-abortion supporters who state their goal as one of “saving babies”, actually want to save the babies and would rather not have to deal with trying to control what a woman wants to do with her body?
Fourth question. Should Daniel Hauser have been given the absolute right to make the decision about treatments to save his life as a 13 or 14 year old, should his parents, or should the courts be involved?
Thank you,
A. C. Smith-
Hi, A.C.
Merriam-Webster defines a “zealot” as a fanatical partisan, so, no, I don’t think we can all accept your definition. Certainly a militant would be classed as a zealot, but the latter encompasses more. For example, there are plenty of white supremacists (zealouts) out there, but not all of them are going to try to kidnap Reserve Board members or shoot people at a museum. And, anyway, the point of the comparison had nothing to do with the murder of Dr. Tiller. The point was that, with Hauser, you have someone who is indisputably a person whose life was being placed at risk, yet the movement that says it cares the most about “life” was utterly silent. This is a movement that expresses not one whit of concern for the already-born, unless they’re in a vegetative state from which they won’t recover.
On your second question, I won’t address an unsourced statistic. That said, I don’t support restrictions on safe, legal abortion in any event. I do support education, especially for young people, that is honest and teaches them about contraception and prevention of STDs.
Question 3 — and I’m only scratching the surface of a complex issue here — When it comes to the anti-abortion movement, no, I don’t think it’s just about “saving babies.” It’s about control. Outfits like the Family Research Council are in the anti-abortion camp, but they also support “abstinence only” education and restrictions on access to birth control. They push the idea that only married people should get to have sex and when they talk of a deteriorating morality in our culture, it seems that women are always the example of that deterioration. (It’s actually quite hilarious when Fox takes on this last point; they usually do a split screen so that, while the talking head bemoans the lack of morality, the viewers get to watch women in bikinis taking part in spring break type activities. Anyone want to wager on which side the male viewers are watching?) We’ve been down this road before as a country and every time a morality movement gains control, women suffer because we are forced into a confined space, carved out for us irrespective of what we want and what our abilities are. As just one example, we only have to go back to your appearances on Rev. Peterson’s show. During the first, he said women can’t make good decisions without men; during the second he said that if women are in charge, “all hell will break loose.”
I’m not interested in getting anyone to agree with me about when life begins. It’s a distraction and a futile endeavor. What I care about are policies, the laws, rules and norms that either allow or prohibit all women to realize their full potential as individuals and as citizens.
Question four — kids at that age should not have an “absolute right” to decide for themselves what medical treatment they will undergo. Although I think the medical establishment can be too closed-minded about what they call alternative treatments, I trust the safeguards built into it and the judicial system when intervention is required.
In closing, I don’t know if you appreciate the myriad issues your post has raised and, because of the rich discussion it could lead to, I’d like very much to say even more in this response. But, alas, I have to pay the bills and it’s time for me to leave for work. Have a great day and I’ll look forward not just to your reply but your upcoming appearance on Rev. Peterson’s show.