Should 13 yo Daniel Hauser be forced to undergo chemotherapy for his Hodgkin's lymphoma?

Parents have the right to martyr themselves, but not their children.

The kid gets treatment.

This is kind of tough here. I am a parent and would want my child to get better. If he responded well to the first round then I am gonna have to agree with the judge here. Seems like it's an invasion of personal choice, but this is life or death. This is kind of like mother's who don't want to get their kids vaccinated...I think they are dumb. The reason we don't have outbreaks of the things that used to kill in the millions is b/c we have preventions for them now. Same with this situation. If the child is going to get better with the chemo, then the kids future is sunny..if he doesn't undergo the chemo he will most likely die. So ultimately the parents in choosing not to have the treatment and trying "natural" methods are actually assuring the child's death. I agree with the judge. Of course it's going to be hard and the side affects are bad, but in the long run the child could end up having a very successful life and bright future.

There are two assumptions here

1. that a 13 year old can not possibly understand his options

2. that dying is the worse possible outcome to any situation regardless of the amount of suffering needed to achieve it.

1.I tend to agree that normally I would suspect a 13 year old would have only a vague understanding at best. Counselling for this patient is badly needed so that he understands to the best of his ability. It would be hard to imagine a Physician with any ethics would forceably inject any patient with chemotherapy against his will.

2. Once the patient understands then his decision that he would rather die then take chemotherapy should be respected. To some there are worse things then death.

i think the child should be taken into a room and have everything explained by a third party.show him the proof of how he responded to the chemo and what response he has had to the alternative treatment.then let him decide.no one should be forced to seek a medical treatment that is so horrible.yes he has a good chance at survival but it shouldn't be forced down his throat. and the talk of him being taken away from the only family he has known what will that do to his health?stress is proven to diminish the immune system and we are talking about someone who is already in bad shape?i think how they are going about all of this is wrong, very wrong.i'm not against the treatment, i am however against forcing him to undergo it and the chance of him being taken from his family

The difference between standard therapy and any alternative in this case is so stark, and the parents' thought processes so warped, that in this case, the judge's ruling has to be considered correct. If their religious beliefs were such that they just refused treatment on general religious grounds, and worked on the assumption that their child would die but be in the hands of God, their position would carry more weight than is the case here. The state has a well-founded interest in protecting him from quackery, and the dodge of calling it religious just won't wash given the expected outcome of the choices.

As much as I think this family is a bunch of nutjobs for avoiding treatment, I would think that the family has the right to choose and if the parent is the legal guardian, they should be able to make this choice regardless of how stupid the choice it. Her decisions will cost her son his life and she is too wrapped up in her nutjob world to see that. With this said, I think it is their choice and the courts should not be forcing families to do something that is against their religious and ethical beliefs.

If the "natural method" that his parents are interested in pursuing is clearly efficacious, it would surely be adopted by oncologists. It sounds to me that ignorance and distrust of "mainstream" medicine are the motivating factors for their decision, as opposed to critical assessment and rationality. I think in this case state-intervention is warranted, as the child in question is much more likely to die if he doesn't receive the appropriate treatments.

No. He should be given the option to seek alternative options. I've heard there are many different natural cures to some cancers. They should at least give that a shot. And I think the boy is old enough to make the decision on his own. He shouldn't have to do it if he doesn't want to.