Issues of bioethics don’t often flare up in small Minnesota towns, but that’s exactly what’s happening this week in a New Ulm courthouse this week. The case centers around Daniel Hauser, a 13-year-old with Hodgkin’s disease who is refusing additional chemotherapy treatment because it’s contrary to his family’s religious beliefs. Daniel and his parents are adherents of Nemenhah, a Native American faith that advocates the use of alternative homeopathic remedies. The county is asking the judge to intervene and require Daniel to resume chemotherapy.
I spent a little time just now glancing through the final court filings in the case. Daniel’s attorney doesn’t spend much time discussing his client’s faith and for good reason. Minnesota caselaw provides strong precedent for courts to intervene when parents look to only spiritual means for a child’s health care. Instead, counsel argues that Daniel’s parents made a rational decision when choosing to pursue alternative medicine rather than chemotherapy. I’m not sure the judge is going to buy that argument. Most medical experts cited in the briefs believe that Daniel has at least an 80% chance of being cured with chemotherapy. Daniel’s attorney offers no support that alternative medicine offers the same odds.
He might have also argued that Daniel has the capacity to make decisions about his medical treatment and is entitled to decline chemotherapy. Some courts in other states have ruled that adolescents have a sufficient degree of maturity to make such decisions independent of their parents. Making that argument on behalf of a 13-year-old (as opposed to, say, a 16-year-old) might be challenging, but it’s a stronger argument than relying on unscientific “expert” testimony.
A ruling is expected soon.
