Do we allow beliefs a free pass?

Daniel Hauser is a 13 year old Minnesota boy diagnosed with Hodgkin's Lymphoma. He and his parents have decided to forgo chemotherapy and radiation therapy after one round of treatment due to their religious beliefs. They follow the religion/cult of Nemenhah that proscribes the use of Native American 'alternative' remedies and supplements and wish to pursue these.


His parents' decision would be in Daniel's best interest if they did not fly in the face of all of modern medicine. Yes, there is a delicate balance between physician and guardian as advocate for the patient. However, physicians a a fiduciary duty to speak up for patients when they think that the patient's quality of life and/or health are not being represented in the best way.

It is a somewhat personal decision on the physicians part whether to seek out a judicial ruling on something like this. It is noted that according to his physicians, his Hodgkin's Lymphoma has a 90% cure rate with treatment. This is a cure, not just extending his life for a few months or a year while he experiences a poor quality of life. He quit the treatment after only one round because of the side effects. Those painful side effects are evidence that the chemo is doing what it is supposed to do.

Now, are he and his parents making an informed medical decision that is in the best interest of the child's health? No. The Nemenhah belief that 'natural' remedies and supplements can be used to treat AIDS and cancer are not scientifically founded. These have not been shown to alter, treat, or ameliorate the effects of Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

1. Children do not have the capacity to make medical decisions. If you do not like this, change the legal age of becoming an adult.

2. Parents do not have the right to make medical decisions which will likely kill their child.

Why be an Atheist...Condoms?

On occasion I am asked why I am an atheist. Typically, this question is couched in a discussion of Pascal's Wager. My usual answer involves a dearth of evidence, but I sometimes provide specific examples where a religion or belief causes harm.

Today, Pope Benedict XVI began his tour of Africa in Cameroon. As 'the' representative of Catholicism he upholds the tenets of this brand of Christianity, one of which is abstaining from condom use. This view is based on the belief that sex is meant for procreation and anything that in any way hinders procreation is 'sinful'. While this is unfortunate given the number of unwanted pregnancies, I find it morally repugnant given the HIV epidemic in Sub-Saharan Africa.



The Pope reaffirmed the Catholic ban on condom use, in a continent with over 22 million AIDS sufferers. While I am unconcerned with the majority of Catholic doctrine, I do take issue with their banning one of the methods that can help prevent the spread of this disease. Is Rome any more concerned for the millions of orphaned children due to AIDS or the maintenance of rigid doctrine? I think he has shown the church's stance on this.

Now I have one more reason to be glad to be an atheist, as I can use condoms and a bit of common sense to prevent acquiring AIDS.