13-year-old boy refusing chemo

Danny Hauser, the 13-year-old from Sleepy Eye, Minnesota who has Hodgkin's lymphoma, is refusing to follow the recommendations of several hospitals that he get chemotherapy and radiation treatment. Medical experts say Danny's chances of recovering from the disease is between 80-95% if he proceeds with radiation treatment, but that he is likely to die without these treatments.

Danny's parents support and are encouraging Danny's decision.

The family's refusal is based on their religious beliefs (a Native American religion known as "Nemenhah"). His mother explains it this way: "It's our religious belief. God has put everything on this earth to heal any kind of whatever-you-want-to-call-it. He has put every plant, herb ... we men just have to find it" (http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/05/07/parents_refuse_treatment_for_son/).

I'm a big proponent of respect for cultural diversity (religion, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.), but I'm not convinced that a family's religious beliefs should take precedent over established medical practices when it comes to dealing with a potentially terminal disease in a child. Certainly I agree that an adult should have this right. But are we really doing the right thing in putting a 13-year-old in charge of such decisions?

In America 13-year-olds are not allowed to drive. They are not allowed drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes. They do not have the freedom to choose whether or not they will attend school regularly. Most commmunities have curfews in place for 13-year-olds. It is illegal for a 13-year-old to have sex with an adult. 13-year-olds are not allowed to join the workforce, or to watch R-rated movies without an adult present. So why do we have all these restrictions on 13-year-olds? Isn't it because we recognize, as a society, that 13-year-olds are not able, developmentally, to make certain decisions as well as adults? What chaos would ensue were we to allow 13-year-olds to get car loans, run their own bank accounts, and be responsible for managing credit cards effectively?

When I was 13 I fumbled my words when trying to talk to a cute girl. I plastered my locker with pictures of Michael Jordan. I had no informed political or religious beliefs of my own, other than what I was told to believe by my parents. At 32 I'm still forming my beliefs and opinions. How in the world, as a 13-year-old, would I have had the capacity to make such an important decision as to whether to treat my cancer with chemotherapy or not??

In 2007 a 14-year-old American boy refused blood transfusions after doctors gave him a 70% chance of surviving luekemia with the proper treatment. The boy's refusal was based on his religious beliefs (he was a Jehovah's Witness). His legal guardian (paternal aunt and also a Jehovah's Witness) supported his decision, as did a judge. The boy died. (http://www.newser.com/story/12924/boy-dies-after-refusing-cancer-treatment.html?utm_source=ssp&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=story)

And so here is my problem with Danny Hauser's situation. We have a 13-year-old boy who is incapable, developmentally, of making such an important decision as to whether to accept or refuse treatment for a (likely) terminal disease. And we have parents who are encouraging him to abide by religious beliefs that will likely result in his death. He will refuse medically established treatments and instead rely on herbal treatments that have not been medically established. Shouldn't known facts prevail over unestablished opinions in protecting the life of a minor? If I encounter a child suffering from diabetic shock, are we to say I am at liberty to experiment with unproven treatments rather than call 911? If I successfully convince him that throwing sand in his face will heal him, will I not be found negligent for his death?

Some may say Danny's situation is different, but I'm not sure it is. If the difference is that Danny's situation involves religious beliefs, then I question why the religious element makes it okay. We're not able to establish if any one particular religion is correct, but we are able to establish that chemotherapy and radiation therapy will likely save Danny's life. Shouldn't we be expected to ensure the safety of kids like Danny, despite our opinions of how the universe came to be and how a possible creator might feel about our decisions?