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?