Colleen Hauser is a criminal

John Lantos, MD
May 22, 2009

Parents have rights to raise their children as they see fit. They can decide which church or school the children go to, what prayers they learn, what they wear, what books they read or movies they see.

But their rights are not absolute.

They do not have the right to deny their children life-saving medical treatment. Instead, they have the obligation to keep their child alive. If they do not fulfill that obligation, the state can take protective custody of their children and authorize medical treatment. If the children die, the parents can and should be criminally prosecuted.

When cases involving parental treatment refusals come to court, it should only be to establish the facts. Courts confirm the diagnosis, affirm that effective treatment is available and that non-treatment will cause imminent harm, and step in to protect the child.

Given the uncontroversial nature of these claims, and the widespread societal consensus supporting them, it is surprising that cases of parental medical neglect are newsworthy and even controversial. They should be no more controversial than other illegal acts.

There should not be discussion or debate about the morality or legality of such acts, any more than there should discussion about the morality of murder, rape, or bank robbery. There should only be discussion of how to apprehend the criminals.

Colleen Hauser is a criminal. If her son Daniel dies as a result of her reckless negligence, she should be charged with manslaughter.

Children have a right to life independent of their parents’ religious beliefs. Parents are free to make martyrs of themselves for the sake of their own deeply held beliefs. They are not free to make martyrs of their children.

Links:

Parental rights, ethics and the Hauser case, Minnesota Public Radio, May 22
Faith, medicine at odds in chemo refusal, USA Today, May 21
Parents' Rights, Judges' Rules, Newsweek, May 19