I've read a couple of interesting articles on this issue and it's useful to compare their positions: Albert Mohler: When Medicine and Faith Collide and Frank S. Rosenbloom: What Happened to the Right of the Patient to Choose?
Now I agree that the Hauser's where making a bad decision, but if people aren't allowed to make decisions that I disagree with they're not really "free people" are they? On the other hand I can see things from Mohler's perspective, the state exists for protecting people from those that would do them harm, in fact that is the only true purpose of the government; and this applies even if the ones who would do an individual harm are his own parents.
I find myself leaning more towards Rosenbloom's view in this case, but then I don't have a clear, strong opinion either way. I'm inclined to feel that the Judge in this case should strive to assure that Daniel, the child, is fully aware of the consequences of his decision, and then if so honor them. Of course that's partly a cop-out answer; what should the Judge do if he doesn't think Daniel understands the situation, and he can't explain it to him? A hard decision to make, and I don't know what choice I'd take.
I suppose what worries me about the Hauser case isn't so much the actual decision made, but rather that so many consider it to be a perfectly natural and obvious decision. Shouldn't there be careful deliberation and examination of the merits of this specific case before making a judgement? Obviously the Judge would have at least briefly examined it, but there seems little consideration of the freedom of choice aspect of this in the media and many commentators.
Posted by Timothy Pollard in Jurisprudence
Politics
Religion
Socialism
Linkage
Philosophy on May 29, 2009
Comments