Undeserved Deference

We afford a great deal of unearned respect to religion in this country.  Case in point:  the case of Daniel Hauser.

Daniel is a 13-year old Minnesota boy who suffers from Hodgkin’s lymphoma.  He and his parents are part of a cult called the Nemenhah Band and Oklevueha Native American Church of Sanpete.  The Nemenhah Band members claim to be the spiritual heirs of some kind of Native American/New Age religious/healing tradition.  It’s all woo and clap-trap, which is tolerable as long as it doesn’t do any more harm than being a kind of grown-up version of believing in Santa Claus.

Enter Daniel Hauser.  The young teen’s parents refused to have him treated by an oncologist; rather, they wanted to depend on their spiritual healing powers to cure Daniel of his cancer.  Daniel himself said he did not want to be seen by a doctor or given medication.

Now, the question is:  what role, if any, should the state play in this little melodrama?

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution begins:  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”.  Of course, we as a society have disallowed certain religious practices that we consider harmful or criminal.  For instance, no one would defend the right of a re-established Aztec church to perform human sacrifice.  While religious belief is protected, religious practice can be proscribed by the state.

But what about religious neglect?  Here, it seems, we are still a little fuzzy.  Daniel Hauser’s case falls into this blurry region of law and ethics.  Does the state have the right to force Daniels’s parents – and, in effect, Daniel himself – to obtain medical treatment, in defiance of their religious belief?  Failing that, should responsibility for Daniel be taken from his parents and given to the state?

(Since I started writing this, Daniel’s mother fled with him for a few days, presumably in order to avoid submitting her son to court-ordered chemotherapy.  The two have returned, and Minnesota authorities have intervened to force Daniel to undergo evaluation and treatment.  These facts do not change the basic premise of my questions regarding this matter.)

I have read arguments from people who believe that Daniel himself should have the right to refuse treatment.  After all, the boy is thirteen years old, and presumably old enough to comprehend the facts about his situation.  Unfortunately for those people, Daniel is hardly a suitable test case for the ability of young people to exercise rights over their own bodies in life-and-death situations.  It is very easy to believe that Daniel is incapable of making an informed decision, because we have come to know that Daniel, who is home schooled, is functionally illiterate, and is intellectually immature for his age.  And while it may anger some for me to say it, the fact that his parents have raised him in an environment where fantastical metaphysical woo is considered real further disqualifies him from the ranks of those able to use good judgment (albeit through no fault of his own).  So, no – Daniel cannot by himself have the right to deny himself life-saving medicine, because he is incapable of grasping the actual reality of what it is he’s facing, and he’s still a child in the eyes of the law.

Now we come to the parents.  Daniel’s mother, Colleen, is so adamant about her son not getting chemo that she briefly ran off to parts unknown with him.  His father, Anthony, believes chemo may help, but that it’s used too much – whatever that means.  They are adherents to the aforementioned Nemenhah spiritual movement, and they believe that through prayer and some kind of ill-defined “connection” with the universe that church members can heal themselves and others of all maladies.

Faith healing is bunk.  I have yet to read of one verified case of actual miraculous healing, and I read more than my fair share of science magazines and websites.  People who rely on spirits or personal faith, rather than on medical science, are more likely than not going to end up with a permanent case of The Deads.  Intercessory prayer doesn’t work, preachers don’t perform miracles, and all the wishful thinking and mantra chanting in the universe can’t make a tumor go away.

Thus, depending on faith healing is the same as doing nothing – and doing nothing is neglect.  Just because the Hausers are doing nothing based on their religious faith doesn’t mean their doing nothing is any less criminal than someone else’s doing nothing.

The fact that the legal system even has to tread carefully in this case is a testament to the ridiculous power religion still has over this country.  If the Hausers denied their son medical treatment out of nothing more than laziness, there would be no question as to the state taking over the situation.  But because “faith” is involved, suddenly the state has to bend over backwards to treat the Hausers with kid gloves, lest they incur the wrath of – who?  The religious right?  Native American spirits?  God?

Religious belief does real harm to real people.  When we have a clear-cut case of harm being done in the name of faith, as is the case with Daniel Hauser, the preferential treatment the authorities give religious belief should be put aside in the name of decency.

Decency – a decidedly un-religious value.