A local story now making the national news concerns a 13 year old boy with Hodgkin’s disease who has refused to undergo chemotherapy. He underwent one round, and then told his parents he didn’t want any further treatment. As the story goes.

His parents say they are supporting his decision to use alternative healing methods favored by a Missouri-based religious group, the Nemenhah Band, which bases its beliefs on natural healing methods advocated by some Native Americans.

Now here’s where it gets sticky. The doctors were concerned when he didn’t return to continue his treatment, and the final result was that a Minnesota trial court found that Daniel does not understand his medical situation and lacks the ability to give informed consent on medical procedures.

Daniel Hauser and his mother have now vanished, in defiance of a court order that he return for treatment. The story is all over the news, with a lot of opinions and debates being tossed around.

This is just one of those ever gray areas of medicine, when the parents, child, medical professionals, and legal system all clash with eachother. So many questions, so few answers. Who has the final say in a child’s treatment? The parents or physician? A judge? The child?

I would say that there is no one answer to this, and certainly, this is not a “one size fits all” situation. For example, there is a world of difference between a mature 17 year old and a 2 year old. Both are considered children, but in reality, the 17 year old could just as well be the 2 year old’s parent!

It also depends on the nature of the situation. Parents who stand over a 5 year old who has just been run over by a car, and refuse medical care, leaving it to God’s will vs. a 5 year old with an earache and parents who refuse antibiotics initially (most earaches are caused by viral infections).

What is interesting about this case, aside from all of the other factors, is the child’s age. I don’t know how mature he is, but 13 is the milestone into adolescence. No longer a tween but a teen.

Now, the argument is that a 13 year cannot possibly understand that he has a life threatening condition, or understand the choice that he has made. In other words, he is too immature to make decisions regarding his health, well being, and very life.

Suppose, however, that Daniel was just an average 13 year old without a serious illness, but one fine day just picked up a gun and calmly shot his parents. Would these same judges be saying that he didn’t understand the decision he made to murder? That he didn’t know what he was doing? Or instead, would the prosecutor be clamoring to try him as an adult and give him an adult sentence?

Also, it is conceivable that a 13 year old in the United States can marry. Yes, get married, even without the obligate pregnancy.

While the age of consent is 18 across the board, younger teens can marry in many states with parental permission. Here’s a few examples:

Texas–With parental and judicial consent, parties can marry but not below the age of fourteen for males and thirteen for females.

New Jersey–With parental consent, parties can marry at age sixteen or younger.

New Hampshire–With parental consent and the consent of the judge, males can marry at age fourteen and females can marry at age thirteen.

Massachusetts–With parental consent and/or the consent of a judge, males can marry at fourteen years of age and females can marry at the age of twelve.

If Daniel happened to be a girl, then he’d be old enough to get married in at least 3 states with a parent’s permission. So in the eyes of the law, a 13 year can marry if the parents agree, but not refuse medical treatment even if parents are in agreement.

Interesting.

I’m not offering any opinion on this case, just throwing out food for thought.