Legal Commentary

As I enter my third year in what is pretty much the best job possible, it seems to me that, with the exception of publishing "hot topic" law review articles, being a law professor is most often a position where timing is not essential.  One exception to that general rule, however, are those moments where we are called upon for media commentary in response to some pertinent news item. 

In May, I was asked by my law school for a statement on the Daniel Hauser case, in which a Minnesota judge required 13-year-old Hauser to receive chemotherapy for Hodgkin's lymphoma; Daniel and his parents had initially refused such treatment in favor of holistic treatment methods favored by the Nemenhah band.  With chemotherapy, Daniel's chances of recovery were estimated to be over 90%; without this treatment, his cancer would almost certainly prove fatal.  Shortly after the judge's order, the boy and his mother had fled to California en route to Mexico before opting to return home a few days later.  Hausner did eventually receive the chemotherapy, and his tumor did shrink.  My statement supported the judge's decision in light of Minnesota state statutes and child medical neglect precedents, many of which dealt with Jehovah's Witnesses who had refused blood transfusions. 

After the press release containing my statement was released, my e-mail inbox began to fill up with comments from concerned citizens responding to my point of view.  The comments ranged from Jehovah's Witnesses who wished to educate me on the possibility of bloodless surgeries to rather irate folks who insisted that my heartless willingness to support the torture of innocent Daniel could only mean that I had no children of my own (if only they knew!) to enthusiastic supporters of religious freedom who insisted that adherence to a religion meant that parents could choose to heal their children in whatever ways they thought fit.  The volumes of e-mail that I received surprised me--I had received such comments before regarding my media statements on death penalty issues, but never to such an extent.  I didn't respond to any of these e-mails lest they result in protracted back-and-forth debates over social issues on which disagreement is not only acceptable, but outright predictable. 

I have since wondered how other prawfs respond to e-mails from "concerned citizens."  I'm sure others have many interesting stories and response strategies.  Do you respond or not?  Does it depend on the tenor of the e-mail message?  Do you use an alternative e-mail address when commenting on particularly controversial news events?  My inquiring mind wants to know.