The case of Colleen Hauser and her son Daniel has sparked debate over the question as to whether parents, who through religious beliefs, can deny medical care to their children.
Of course, adults do this all the time. Not always due to religion, but their quality of life has become such that intervention wouldn't improve their condition enough to warrant going through it. Dying with dignity. Given how precious life is, one can't help but respect the wishes of those who simply want to end their suffering.
In some cases, though, religion does enter in to decisions made. Scientology, and professional lunatic Tom Cruise and his melonhead pal John Travolta, have all spoken out against using medications on children. They're not the only ones. Here in Wisconsin, Leilani Neumann let her daughter die of untreated diabetes. A condition that, in many cases, is easily treated with medications, and in the case of Madeline, could have saved her . . . even minutes before she died. Obviously, prayers didn't help.
There are the "miracle" stories, however. Those unexplained cases where a person goes in to remission or becomes cured of their condition. But, when one compares the miracles to the cases where medications and treatments have provided improvement, the miracle cures are pretty rare.
So, what about it? What about parents who, because of their faith, prefer not to have medical treatments available for their children? Even when treatments or medication could help? After all, many of us prefer not to have government intrude into our lives making decisions for us. Isn't this a case of government intrusion?
To me, this is a no brainer. Colleen is now on the lam with her son. Once found, she should be arrested for child neglect and the son should be given treatment. We're talking children here. Dependents. Young people who look to adults to make responsible decisions for them. Danielle is 13 years old. Far too young to understand or make life and death decisions on his own. What's more, the Hausers are catholic. I assume they believe in the right to life for babies. What about the right to life as a 13 year old? Again, this might be different if Danielle's condition were such that treatment would only provide a small level of quality of life improvement and death would be ultimately unavoidable But, it's not. How it is, why it is, that a parent would stand by and let their children die when they can be helped is beyond me. It's not only insane, it's criminal.
The fact that Danny said he would kick and punch anyone who tried to help him does make for a dicey situation. Problem is, once he's dead, we can't ask him if he'd like to do that over again. I wonder what Danny would think about all of this when he turns 30 and has kids of his own?