Can the Government Force You To Take Chemo?
A Minnesota court case raises a fundamental question regarding the balance of individual liberty and governmental power. The case requires the presiding judge to decide whether a 13-year-old boy and his family can refuse chemotherapy treatment for his cancer or whether the government can force him to receive the treatment against his will.
Daniel Hauser has Hodgkin’s lymphoma and his doctors say chemotherapy will give him a 90 percent chance of survival. Without it, they say he will die.
However, Daniel and his parents want to treat his cancer with nutritional supplements and alternative treatments promoted by the Nemenhah Band,which advocates natural healing methods used by some Native Americans.
“This is about the right of a 13-year-old young man to be free from acts of assault on his body,” said the family’s attorney, Calvin Johnson.
Daniel was diagnosed with cancer this January. A week later, Daniel had to visit an emergency room due to a severe illness. At that time, the family consented to his first and only chemo treatment to date.
However, Daniel became depressed after his chemo treatment and decided he did not want to continue them.
When Daniel’s doctor notified child protection authorities, the county Daniel lives in brought charges against the family to require Daniel to submit to treatment.
What do you think readers?
Which party has a stronger interest in its rights? Does the boy and his family have a stronger interest in living (and dying) as they so choose or does the government have such a strong interest in this matter that it would be justified in forcing him to undergo and invasive, painful and lengthy treatment?
Explore posts in the same categories: Current Events