COLUMN: State should release hold of Parker
Those of you who have not been paying very close attention to the news recently may not realize it, but there is an interesting case playing itself out in Utah courts and Utah media. It is the case of Parker Jensen and his parents, who have been charged with kidnapping their son and leaving the state to avoid chemotherapy treatment prescribed by Utah oncologists at Primary Children’s Medical Center.
As background information, Parker had a small group of malignant cells removed from his mouth last year, and his parents wanted a better understanding of what was happening to their son. They took him to Primary Children’s Hospital, where specialists tested Parker and determined that he had a rare form of cancer. They recommended almost a year of chemotherapy, and his parents balked. The side effects of severe chemotherapy are not pleasant, and the Jensen’s did not want their child to have to suffer unless absolutely necessary. They requested a second opinion, and got one from a doctor in Los Angeles who, they claim, simply agreed with Primary Children’s, without new tests, and without even having Parker’s files in front of him.
When they still refused to have Parker commence chemotherapy, claiming that other tests had come back negative or inconclusive for cancer, the state stepped in, declaring that the Jensens were endangering their child. Custody of Parker was given over to the Department of Child Protective Services, and cancer treatments were to begin immediately. The Jensens still believed that chemotherapy was not in the best interests of their child, so they took him and fled the state. At that point, the state declared them fugitives, issued warrants for their arrest, and contacted private clinics where the Jensens might go to receive treatment for Parker, asking them to be turned over should they arrive.
There are a few points which disturb me about this issue. First, is the fact that the state felt it had a right to overrule the decision of parents who, to anyone’s knowledge, had never knowingly placed their child in danger in the past. Not only did they overrule the parents, but they seized custody of their child. Remember, this is not a couple of crack addicts we are talking about here, but responsible parents who simply disagreed with a medical diagnosis. I could understand if the Jensens were refusing to let a doctor amputate a gangrenous leg, where death was certain. However, chemotherapy is not a guaranteed cure, even if the diagnosis was correct, so the question bears asking: Do parents have the right to determine what treatments their children will undergo, assuming they are not guaranteeing the death of their child?
The second thing that bothers me about this issue is that the state issued a nationwide warrant for the arrest of the parents, and made sure there was no place where the Jensens could seek additional tests to confirm or refute the findings from Primary Children’s Hospital. What, exactly, did the state have to lose by allowing the Jensens to seek another opinion? If they were truly convinced of the correctness of their decision and the diagnosis of the original doctors, they should have been willing to allow an additional set of tests to confirm it. That they were not willing, leads me to believe that they knew the Jensens might have actually been right, and allowing more tests might have shown that to be true.
Bureaucrats are notorious for defending their power and authority, and are almost never willing to admit they are wrong. Even if Parker’s case was confirmed to be cancer, they were still unwilling to accept any risk of being embarrassed. They claim they simply wanted Parker to receive treatment sooner, rather than later, but why, then, did they continue to take actions to keep Parker from receiving additional tests.
In the end, Parker will receive additional tests, as his parents wanted in the first place, from a doctor of their choosing, and they have agreed to abide by that doctor’s recommendations. If that is all the State of Utah wanted, why did they not simply allow that to take place before, when they had the chance? Hopefully, all will be well for Parker and his family, but cases like this should make us all think about the power and authority of government – where the limit is, and where it should be.
Jeremy Kidd is a graduate student in economics. Comments can be sent to jeremykidd@cc.usu.edu.