XnForums

May 28, 2009
What Happened to the Right of the Patient to Choose?
By Frank S. Rosenbloom, M.D.
The parents of a 13 year old Minnesota boy, Daniel Hauser, who with their support refused chemotherapy for Hodgkin's Lymphoma, have now told Judge John Rodenberg that they will agree to the treatment. Previously, they had missed a court date and fled the state in order to avoid judicially imposed chemotherapy. Their recent reversal came after they were given a choice; agree to chemotherapy for their son or lose custody of him.

This immediately brought to my mind the movie Sophie's Choice, in which the main character, a Nazi era Jewish mother of two played by Meryl Streep, revealed her terrible choice. When she arrived at Auschwitz with her children, a Nazi officer sadistically forced her to choose which one of her two children would live and which one would die. Faced with an irresolvable conflict, she made a choice that by its very nature could never be morally reconciled.

Many would disagree with the comparison. However, we are faced in both instances with a parent or parents forced to choose between two courses of action, neither of which is morally acceptable to them and in fact both of which are reprehensible to them. Daniel's parents had no choice but to acquiesce or lose their son. As a pro-life physician and a father I would of course hope that Daniel, with the good counsel of his parents and his doctors, would freely agree to undergo chemotherapy. I believe that conventional medical treatment is the only medically correct decision. If Daniel does not undergo chemotherapy, barring a miracle, he will surely die. Further, as a physician I take strong issue with his parents' beliefs regarding medicine.

However, there is a bigger issue here that cries out for resolution in a society obsessed with choice. People from all over the United States believe that Daniel should be forced to have chemotherapy. Many of those people are from states where 13 year old girls can choose to have an abortion or can make other medical decisions, usually reproductive in nature, with no input from their parents, let alone a judge, despite ample proof of the adverse affects on post-abortive teens. Where is Daniel's right to choose and why don't these same people support that right?

Obviously, the right to choose is only defensible if you make choices that are politically correct. The case of Terri Schiavo saw the courts impose a sentence of death on an innocent woman who required the administration of food and water via a feeding tube, but was not terminally ill. She was, indeed, severely dysfunctional and was likely[1] in a persistent vegetative state, but she was certainly not dying from her disability. Her parents were willing to care for her and all they needed was to be left alone.

But, according to the currently popular view, she did not have sufficient "quality of life" and therefore could be killed. As a result of a lawsuit brought by her husband, a man who had some very dubious motives, fluids were withdrawn and she died a slow, agonizing death from dehydration. If you challenge that assertion, try going without anything to drink for a few days and then get back to me.

Now the court has imposed a particular form of therapy in order to force an individual to live! Chemotherapy is no walk in the park. It has significant uncomfortable effects and in some cases can be lethal. There is an increased risk of developing other cancers in the future as a result of chemotherapy. There are significant risks of life threatening infection, liver failure, kidney disease, heart disease, and sterility, to name but a few. The discomfort from undergoing cancer treatment can at times be worse than that caused by waterboarding and the decision of whether or not to be subjected to this should be left to the individual and his or her family, not to activist lawyers and paternalistic judges. Should the courts impose penalties on parents for not taking their children in for physical exams, neglecting dental care, or feeding their children sugar? Should parents who smoke have their children taken away? Where will it end?

In fact, it will not end.

The assault on our freedom is escalating. The words "choice" and "choose" have become the most abused, misused and weaponized words in the English language, held aloft by the left to promote their agenda. President Obama has proceeded to reverse conscience protection for doctors who choose not to perform or refer for medical procedures they find morally wrong, such as abortion. The Democratic leadership has promoted the passage of the Freedom of Choice Act, which will strip the freedom of choice from doctors, nurses and religiously affiliated hospitals. President Obama supports the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, (an interesting title in light of Daniel's case) which would seriously undermine parental choice and could have a tragic effect on American families. Several states have passed reprehensible laws supporting the right of terminally ill people to choose doctor assisted suicide, yet Daniel is being prevented from deciding against chemotherapy because people do not agree with his choice. Ironically, if he lived in a state with legally sanctioned assisted suicide he could probably find a doctor who would help him in killing himself, if that were his intention.

This intellectually indefensible discordance between the support for legally assisted suicide on one hand and usurping a patient's right to refuse intensive therapy on the other is almost schizophrenic. Decisions are being made for people according to the fashion of the day, not by people for themselves. The right to freedom of religion and the right to act in accordance with one's conscience are being negated by the state, eerily reminiscent of past mistakes by other societies throughout history.

However strongly we may disagree with the decision by Daniel and his parents, and I do disagree with it, he is not actively attempting to commit suicide but is making an unpopular (and admittedly unwise) choice.

I want Daniel to undergo chemotherapy. I want him to have the chance for a long and healthy life. But, the decision must be made by Daniel and his parents, not by Big Brother. There is a fundamental difference between child neglect and abuse versus an informed decision by a young patient, supported by his parents, not to undergo chemotherapy and to take a different course. Daniel and his family must have the freedom to make that choice, and supposedly "pro-choice" advocates show their hypocrisy when they deny them that freedom.

Comments?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/what_happened_to_the_right_of_1.html

Good article...I concur with the good doctor's assessment.

Sorry, you can't let Neanderthal parents make wrong decisions for their children.

When parents are incompetent, the government takes over.

That's been a standard for many years.

Pax!

A friend of mine had colon cancer. He declined chemotherapy and decided to go another route. The MD's were a tad upset, but he doesn't have colon cancer anymore.

All patients should have this same choice...otherwise, not only will Allopathic medicine and Big Pharma again monopolize the healthcare profession, but all kids could end up being wards of the state, while parental responsibilities would continue to decline into total atrophy in the process.

Big Brother needs to back off a bit here and let parents assume the consequences of their decisions...Otherwise we could get into a social situation where all our decisions will be made for us, and we won't ever be able to think or talk about our rights as parents or free citizens anymore, as Big Brother continues on its mission to create nothing but workers and soldiers to fuel and provide for it's ever-growing insensibilities.

You're wrong, Doc......it would NOT be the PARENTS who assumed the consequences--it would be the CHILD who was killed by the consequences.

Children must be protected from incompetent parents.

Your hyperbolic use of the term "Big Brother" is just as silly and dishonest as was that use by the right-wing hack who wrote the article.

A responsible government made the correct decision in this case.

Pax!

There's more to this than meets the eye. What about lesser medical treatments? Flu shots come to mind. If a parent says no, should the medical proponents of vaccine's be allowed to override the parents decision, especially with experimental treatment? What about a child with a deformed limb, one leg an inch shorter than the other, or any number of things which could be decided as a threat to the childs health by the medical proponents of quackery? What about the new pill for teenage girls and young women that stops their menstral cycle because they don't want the bothersome "curse" upon them for a few months or more?

How much control should the medical fields be granted by federal laws?

IS there such a thing as a responsible government that is smart enough to oversee such decisions? Or would they be prone to special interests?

How many people do you know that chemo therapy has not helped and only made the health situation worse for the patient? I know of at least three, two in my own family. Not all people can tolerate the therapy and their lives are worse for however much time they have left.

No, flu shots are not required. Common sense should tell you that the government will only step in when a life-threatening condition is present.

Your whining is silly.

Pax!

Whinning?? My point is when can the government step in and decide what life-threatening condition is present. For example, IF the flue bug can kill and the medical community knows for a fact it can kill, and large numbers of people within weeks or months, why would the government not step in and decide against the parents who objected to flu vaccination? I believe this is a case in point today knowing about the swine flu outbreak, however, no government overriding the situation as yet. At the moement parents have the option of yes or no. And also, there is no guarantee that even with the flu vaccine given death will not occur. So, which is a more serious life-threatening situation then, not taking chemo or not taking a flu shot?

I'm sure you'll come up with some backassed remark to lessen parental authority.

No, you just fail to comprehend the issue.

If a child was dying of the flu and the parents refused to allow medical treatment, one could expect the government to take interest if there was time and opportunity.

The government, as I clearly said before, has a concern only where a life-threatening disease is present. With your silly example of a flu shot, that is not the case.

Pax!

Oh get a gripe on reality Logos. Parents have more say in the welfare of their children than your government controled mind.

Parents do not have the right to refuse medical treatment. Period. Pro-choice in regards to abortion is one thing. In regards to deciding if your child with cancer should undergo chemo is something totally different.

No, parents refuse medical treatment for all sorts of things. Period!

In regards to a child with cancer, parents seek treatment. But if that treatment isn't working, then the parents and the child are legally able to seek other remedies or other medical experiments. Dying children are not the wards of the state.

Roselyn, the fact that reality has proven you wrong in this case seems to bother you not at all.

Consider it again.

Look at what happened.

Look at the facts.

If you keep denying such obvious facts I will begin to believe you're an idiot.

Children are not the property of their parents either.

The parents can seek other remedies if they reasonable. I am sure you wouldn't agree with parents refusing chemo because they thought praying was an acceptable alternative.

I understand where you're coming from. But in the case of a dying child where medical chemo is useless, the parents have the right to seek other means, whatever means they choose, including prayer. Most physicians agree with what I have just stated. That's because, in most cases, the child has less than a few months to live and nothing doctors can do. Everyone then makes peace with the situation and no arguments are left on the table, so to speak.