From the OhMyGov! Opinion Page...
In defense of his monarchy, King James VI proclaimed that the state “is rightly compared to a father of children.” Today, many in the United States consider the family as a microcosm of government. But what happens when family and state disagree? The story of Daniel Hauser has chilling implications for advocates of liberty.
As previously reported by OhMyGov!, 13-year-old Daniel Hauser of Minnesota has been undergoing court-ordered consultations and chemotherapy treatments to counter Hodgkin’s lymphoma. After a diagnosis in late 2008, Hauser underwent one chemotherapy session in January, but in February, harsh side effects and religious objection caused Daniel's parents to seek alternative treatments for their son. When a judge ordered continuation of chemotherapy in mid-May, mother Colleen Hauser fled the state with her son. Pursued by federal and state authorities, they returned to Minnesota. They have since consented to chemotherapy with a stipulated consultation after each round and complementary alternatives.
The Hauser story represents a massive collision involving parental rights, medical neglect, and religious freedom. In simpler terms however, it renews a vital conversation in our free society about when the state can or should intervene in our private lives. Legally, the Hauser case has grounds in precedent from the 1940s; in principle, however, it is an erosion of liberty.
Moreover, the ramifications of the Hauser case will only deepen as the Obama administration seeks to overhaul the nation's healthcare system. The introduction of new government-sponsored health insurance, which many expect to be part of Obama's proposal, could mean greater power for the state in dictating acceptable treatments and medicines.
Healthcare professionals are no different than financial or legal professionals. They are employed and compensated for expertise and advice. Ultimately, however, doctors act as advisers, not enforcers. The Hauser case represents a disturbing departure from this reality. Instead of allowing the family to pursue other options, the medical establishment reported them. When Colleen Hauser and her son left Minnesota, police alerted the FBI. Can the family’s sudden capitulation to the court even remotely be described as an act of the free will?
Many who defend the governmental intervention emphasize the extreme nature of this situation. The best interests of the child must be considered, and statistically, chemotherapy and radiation treatments enjoy a 90 percent success rate in Hodgkin’s cases. The state, however, is not equipped to decide “best interests.” This is the role of parents, a role clearly usurped in the present case. Whereas parents have interests in a child’s well-being based on shared life and love, the state has interests in a citizen’s well being based on taxes.
In short, the privacy and autonomy of the Hauser family have been sacrificed for a political statement. The government will ensure Daniel receives treatment, even if it means strapping him down and reminding his mother that her arrest warrant can be renewed. Coercion in the “best interests” of an individual makes it no less oppressive. If Congress implements a public option for healthcare, it could certainly reduce the monetary cost of medicine. The citizens of this country must remember, however, that individual liberty may be the asking price.
Most Emailed
Get our Newsletter!
Click here to sign up and stay informed