Jesse Ventura, Al Franken, and now this!Follow

Yes, even in Minnesota parents are @#%^ing retards.

Although, I didn't read any remarks by the parents that claimed they were aborting the child. Perhaps the kid was just a mistake that they are correcting now.

Edited, May 15th 2009 2:06pm by baelnic

They were handed the cure and couldn't stand to let their precious child live so they stopped treatment.

A Peyote vision told them that a buffalo chip sweat lodge would cure him is more likely.

Judge isn't telling the parents what to do with their body.

I'm for government health regulation in general (See: Heavy taxes on tobacco. Ireland style.)
If the parents are making definitely false decisions in particular cases, maybe take away custody?

Yes, of course. I assumed this case was about a child with good chances of getting cured.

As for taking children away, my parents' custody was partially taken away when I was 16. They were given the choice of signing a contract and giving custody to the Orphanage temporarily, or having it taken from them completely. In the end, the fact hat they had partial custody meant I wasn't eligible for a student loan when I needed it most because I "could've just moved back in with them".

Anecdotal and unrepresentative - the ones with the biggest gripes are the ones that speak up. Let's see some data. Or, if you want to, I can counter with my own anecdotal experiences, though I don't think that's such a good idea (because it's virtually meaningless).

Not when the cure gives the boy a 90% survival rate, wheras refusing it gives him a 5%. Not when the child is 13 and still too young to really make an informed decision. 16 or 17 I could see letting him have more of a voice if he truly didnt want to go through the chemo. 13? Nope. Not when the only reason they are refusing treatment is through religous reasons. While I disagree with peoples decisions to refuse medical treatment due to their religious beliefs (I lost someone dear to me through this so I admit to having strong emotions on this issue) if they are an adult, they are old enough to decide. But not kids, especially this young.

Complicated decision, probably unconstitutional, definitely the right thing do from a moral standpoint. If the family appeals, they likely win easily in appellate court.

Having read the thing, let me first say: Judge Rodenberg can write and he's whip smart. He's wasted in his current role, and I think he knows that. Hopefully this decision, while I think it's legally wrong, will get him some attention on a larger scale. Anyway, that aside, here's where I think he stumbles:

The decision's really long and well reasoned, and touches on many elements of law, but the crux of it is really this:

Hauser, and by extension, his parents, are competent enough to make other legal decisions, function in society, etc, but are not competent to make this decision because their religious belief is that Hauser isn't ill and will recover without intervention. This is where he runs into problems. In trying to slice the baby in half here, Rodenberg comes dangerously close (and in my opinion does stray into) arguing that religious belief contradicted by fact isn't protected by the 1st or 14th amendments. Which, of course, it is. It's the entire point of religious freedom as a legal concept. Compelling medical treatment for people who's only fault legally is legitimate religious belief isn't going to wash. It sets a precedent for all sorts of "slippery slope" arguments that I don't think we need to get into.

A more effective decision, legally, would have been to find Hauser incompetent to make the decision, his parents unfit to raise children because of mental illness, and take the kid into state custody. There are obvious issues with that, and it's easy to see why this was the better option, and again I agree that it was "the right thing do" and likely the best practical option Rodenberg had, but as a matter of law, it's got serious problems.

I'd much rather see precedent set in the form of religious conviction equating to mental illness

Well there's substantial precedent there, already. Courts frequently decide people are mentally ill, even if the manifestations of that illness are religious in nature.

Yeah... getting back to the legitimate question of religious freedom - I'm curious as to how long this family has been affiliated with this sect, as opposed to their "official" Catholicism.

Judge needs to rule that that kid needs to go to ******* school too!



A 13-year old that cannot read is beyond comprehension for me. That is criminal.

An illiterate, homeopathic midwest Catholic teen arguning that he knows better than a bunch of idiots who blew half a million dollars in medical schooling?

sounds about right.