Judge May Override Parental/Religious Rights

A family in Sleepy Eye, Minnesota stands to have their parental and religious rights overturned by a judge. A county attorney attests that Colleen and Anthony Hauser are guilty of child neglect and endangerment because they have opted not to proceed with chemotherapy as a treatment for their son Daniel, who has Hodgkin's lymphoma. That particular brand of cancer is apparently very treatable by chemo in patients Daniel's age; the boy is 13 years old. It is said that, if he gets the treatment, there is a 95% chance he will live. On the other hand, if he does not get it, there is a 95% chance he will die. Daniel and his parents are part of a Native American religious sect called Nemenhah, a faith which is guiding their actions. The Hausers have evoked their protected right to practice their religion without state interference. The state argues it has a "compelling interest in protecting this young man" from what it deems the irresponsible convictions of his parents.

It is a familiar scenario, one that hits close to home for me. I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness. Though I left the religion upon adulthood, I still vividly recall the organization's teachings on blood transfusion. As far back as I can remember, once a year, a "brother" would get up on the podium at the head of the congregation and preach for twenty minutes on the physical and spiritual repercussions of blood transfusion. He would inevitably cite Genesis 9:4, "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it," and equate transfusion to consumption. When he was done, attendants would hand out cards to all in attendance which we would sign and place in our wallets or purses; these were medical directives stating that we conscientiously objected to blood transfusion. In my 17 years with the organization, transfusion was never a practical issue, thankfully. However, I can tell you without doubt that, at the age of 13, had I been in a medical emergency that required blood transfusion, I would have made my best effort to reject the treatment. I would have done so due to a conscientious, if underage, belief that blood transfusion was detested by God. Today, on the other hand, I would have no objection to blood transfusion. As an adult who has had many years to develop his own religious and personal conviction, I am now quite confident God has no objection to blood transfusions, birthdays, or the Pledge of Allegiance, among many other things. Jehovah's Witnesses are a strange bunch. I live today somewhat resentful of my parents' religious choice, knowing it could have easily resulted in my untimely death. That said, they had the right to make that decision, whether I agree with it now or not, and certainly in spite of the state.

The Hauser story is considered controversial, and is getting a fair amount of airtime here in Minnesota. Controversial it is, but in no way legally ambiguous. The Hausers have the right to make their own medical decisions regarding themselves and their minor children, particularly when those decisions are informed by their religious beliefs. There should be no debate on the subject, no question in the judge's mind. The controversy is hypothetical, not legal. There is nothing wrong with shaking your head at the Hausers and saying, "Wow, that's stupid. They should know better. If it was my kid, he'd be getting chemo." There is something wrong with taking the next step and trying to impose that judgment on them and force treatment. Religious thought, belief, and practice are matters of personal judgment - personal, not communal - individual, not societal. As a result, there will be times when those judgments run contrary to conventional wisdom. The question then becomes whether an individual has the right to religious self-determination. That is a question the United States Constitution answers clearly. That is why I fail to see the so-called "compelling interest" the state here claims to have in protecting Daniel from his parents.

The interventionist advocate would here counter with hypothetical cases much like my own. What if you had been hit by a car, Walter, and your parents refused a transfusion and you died? Sure, you agreed with them then. But you were only 13 and they had you brainwashed. I'm not saying it wouldn't suck. I'm not saying I like the scenario. But the buck has to stop somewhere and there are only three options - me (the minor child), my parents, or the state. There is no argument whether a child should be able to make that kind of decision on their own. The remaining question is whether it should fall to the parents or the state. What if the parents are wrong?

It's an inappropriate question. The parents can't be wrong about a religious medical choice. It is a subjective matter, a personal matter, a matter between them and their god. The state can only protect them from intervention or overrule their decision. And if the state overrules them in this case, by what criteria will future cases be judged? What will constitute "neglect?" Who will author the standard? Which religious worldview will underlay that standard? Those aren't questions we want answers to. Aside from the religious rights in question, there is also the matter of basic parental rights. A commenter on the Star Tribune's website exclaims "Daniel is brainwashed!!!" Maybe he is. It's irrelevant. He's 13 years old, and therefore legally incompetent regardless of any other consideration. Until he is 18, his parents are his legal custodians, which means they make his decisions for him. End of story.

It is ridiculous that these basic rights are coming into question. It's not the government's job to fix the Hausers' situation. There is a simple standard which underlies the Bill of Rights. Government will always err, because it is a human institution and human beings are imperfect and prone to error. Because government will err, it MUST err on the side of liberty, or tyranny will inevitably result. Let's hope it doesn't result here.