The Hypocrisy of Mandatory Chemotherapy
by Vin Miller
Earlier this week, an arrest warrant was issued for a mother who’s resisting chemotherapy treatment for her 13 year old son Daniel Hauser. After Daniel’s first chemotherapy session for Hodgkin’s lymphoma back in January, he and his mother decided to discontinue the treatment.
Based on a court ordered X-ray showing that Daniel’s tumor had regained it’s initial size since diagnosis, Daniel was ordered to resume chemotherapy treatment. The court also ordered the involvement of child protection services based on a judgment of parental negligence. The arrest warrant for the mother was filed after her and Daniel had fled into hiding and missed their next court appearance.
A Grim Prognosis
Hodgkin’s lymphoma is a form of cancer that has a high survival rate when recognized early and treated with chemotherapy. While Daniel’s doctors gave him a 90% chance of survival with chemotherapy treatment, they give him only a 5% chance without it. Despite this bleak prognosis, Daniel and his mother are adamantly opposed to any additional chemotherapy treatments. Daniel made his opinion quite clear by saying that he’d fight, kick and punch to avoid it.
Allowing a 13 year old boy to make such a significant and life altering decision for himself is a highly subjective and controversial matter. In Daniel’s case, the situation is even more complicated based on the allegation that he has a learning disability and can’t read. Based on these factors, the court assumed Daniel to be incapable of understanding the severity of his condition and the necessity of chemotherapy to treat it.
The Dark Side of Chemotherapy
There’s no doubt that Daniel’s situation is a challenging moral dilemma. Not surprisingly, many people have been quick to pass harsh judgment on the mother without considering why chemotherapy might not be desirable. Chemotherapy is a very toxic treatment that destroys healthy cells along with the cancer cells. In fact, it can be fatal and is sometimes the cause of new cancer growth.
A weakened immune system is one of the primary factors that allows cancer cells to reproduce uncontrollably and become problematic. Chemotherapy does nothing to address this and often makes the immune system even weaker. Many people who understand this choose to address the cause of their cancer rather than it’s effects. They do everything in their power, primarily through natural treatment and a much healthier lifestyle, to strengthen their immune system and decrease the load on it. This gives their body the best chance to heal itself and take care of the cancer on it’s own as it should have been able to do in the first place.
Many people who’ve chosen a holistic and natural treatment approach to cancer, sometimes after unsuccessful chemotherapy treatment, have been able to resume a completely normal and healthy life despite being told that they had little to no chance of survival.
Is The Court Smart Enough to Decide For Us?
Chemotherapy is certainly not the only way to treat cancer, and there’s a lot of evidence suggesting that it’s not the best way either. Based on the dangers that are inherent to chemotherapy, I can understand the actions that Daniel and his mother have taken, especially with the possibility that the 5% chance for survival is biased in some way.
Given the dangers associated with chemotherapy and the many variables that could make a statistical prognosis inaccurate, it’s hard to say if this a case of the court truly protecting someone from their own ignorance, or if the court itself is ignorant and is causing this family unnecessary pain and suffering. Regardless of the answer, the stress of this court ruling will likely suppress Daniel’s immune system and make it much more difficult for him to fight his cancer.
The Hypocrisy of Mandatory Chemotherapy
Cancer was a rare disease just a century ago and is now a leading cause of death. During this time span, we’ve dramatically changed the way we live and it’s obviously had a significant effect on our health. Despite this painfully obvious fact, most cancer research is based on advancing the diagnostic equipment and chemotherapy that do nothing to address it’s cause. Little effort is made to understand how the significant changes of the past century correlate to the high incidence of cancer that exists today. Unfortunately, most research is driven by it’s potential for profit and disease prevention just isn’t lucrative enough for many large corporations to take interest in it.
We live in a society where an unprecedented number of people are freely choosing to dig their own grave with unhealthy habits. In fact, they’re encouraged to do so by advertisements from the big corporations that profit from this behavior. We’re encouraged by the media to let our children live a lifestyle that promotes disease, but at the same time, we’re losing the right to protect them from dangerous medical treatments.
Does Big Industry Have a Role in This?
One of the primary reasons that our medical system is focused on chasing symptoms instead of addressing and preventing the root causes of disease is the powerful influence of the drug industry. Chemotherapy can cost as much as $10,000 per month, and with the alarming rate at which people are developing cancer, there’s obviously a tremendous amount of money to be made. Unfortunately, this is why most modern research is focused on patentable medications rather than preventive measures or natural alternatives. It’s also likely to be why cancer is still such a significant problem and why we still don’t have a safer and more effective method of treatment than chemotherapy.
What Do You Think?
Should a parent and child have the right to refuse potentially harmful treatment regardless of the prognosis? Can we rely on a government that can’t control an epidemic of preventable diseases to know what’s best for our family?
Post this on Twitter
Post this on Facebook
Support this on StumbleUpon
Email this to friends
Leave a comment
There are two sides to every argument, and I believe that both sides in this case were partially correct and also partially wrong.
Natural methods should have been considered by the court; I should know because I too refused chemotherapy treatment and have never regretted doing so. My natural method has also given me a better quality of life; an aspect that hardly ever receives a mention.
The court however were obliged to follow the course of the law. Once the mother and son had failed to appear at a hearing, they couldn’t allow the matter to rest there.
The mother’s choice of method is arguably the best for the health of her son, and if so then her decision was correct.
The laws of any country should be upheld however, and therefore she should have sought legal advice and help.
It’s very easy to analyse the right and wrongs from an armchair and with only the basic facts, and this case appears to require the judgement of Solomon. However the publicity of this case will not have done the toxic medicine industry any favours; many people will now become aware of natural alternatives with no known harmful side effects compared to chemotherapies with their inherent damaging side effects.
I do feel very stongly that government needs to let parent’s seek out the treatment for their children that they feel comfortable with. It’s way too much of “big brother’s” BIG hand in this.
It honestly scares me!
So what is next… mandatory vaccinations?
It isn’t that the family isn’t treating the cancer, it’s that it isn’t what the government wants them to do. They are doing what they feel is best for their child, and there is nothing unethical or immoral about that!
This story makes me so uneasy….
Thank you John and Amy for sharing your opinions!
John – Congratulations on your success with defeating cancer! It’s especially inspiring to hear that you did it naturally and are experiencing a better quality of life as a result!
I agree with you that the mother should have sought legal help. Perhaps she was too afraid or couldn’t afford it. Either way, I hope you’re right that this case will spread awareness of the toxicity of chemotherapy and that good alternatives do exist. I could see some aspects of this case causing the opposite reaction and I hope I’m wrong about that.
Amy – It makes me uneasy as well. I originally had a few paragraphs about vaccines in this article but took them out because I didn’t want it to detract from the message. In my opinion, vaccinations pretty much are mandatory already except for the people who know they can get avoid them based on religious beliefs.
Fortunately, the government is showing signs of hope by slowly admitting to the dangers of vaccines and that they can trigger autism and other disorders.
Hello Vin, Amy and John,
What is most scary here is the lack of the freedom of personal choice.
Just a few minutes ago on CNN a doctor came on talking about this situation and said that some questions should be asked and one he noted was:
“Will the complimentary therapies detract from the effectiveness of the conventional chemotherapy??’
If that is a valid question then the opposite also needs to be asked, “Will the conventional therapy interfere with the effectiveness of the natural or complimentary therapy?”
I understand the validity of the mom seeking out legal advice…but we all know that once you get into that system it is a lot of time and a lot of money and commotion – and time is of the essence for the boy.
My children are 15 and 17 and not vaccinated to address the example you gave – in Pa. I have the option of a third exemption which is Moral/ethical, but across the river in NJ they do not have that option. I educated myself with everything I could find, backed by my clinical knowledge before making the decision. Had anyone forced me into it I would have reacted like a mean Momma bear! But no one has really challenged me on it thank goodness.
I don’t want the government telling me how to address my health – they are practicing medicine without a license doing that, and perpetuating antiquated healing technologies which may NOT be in the best interest of the person. It is s judgement call, and one that we should have the ability to participate in for ourselves.
Hi Susan, thanks for sharing your opinion!
It doesn’t take much to figure out that modern medicine often has it backwards. Put in other words, it seems that the doctor on CNN was basically asking if treating the symptoms of cancer will be negatively impacted by trying to address the root cause. I can understand his concern, but it seems totally backwards in my opinion, and I agree that the opposite question must be asked as well.
That’s a good point about how time consuming the legal process is, and in regard to stress and it having an impact on Daniel’s recovery, the legal process may very well be even more stressful than being on the run.
Thanks for the additional info on vaccinations. I think it’s great that you raised your children without them!
I have a really big problem with court ordered medical treatment for children. I feel nothing but compassion for the children and their families and understand why the government might choose to pursue a case like this one. I don’t see how we can entrust the health of our children to a government that fails so miserably on all aspects of health care.
Another well-written and researched article, Vin.
John,
Stories like yours are so inspirational and seldom celebrated. It takes great courage to do what you did – it’s one thing to hypothesize about combating terminal illnesses using alternative means, another to actually do it.
Too bad you don’t apply the same spirit of independent thinking to your misguided notions of government. Government intervention in this case is clearly a violation of this family’s civil liberties. No law of any country should be upheld when it violates peoples’ civil liberties. Our job as citizens isn’t to mindlessly obey government. Revisit The Declaration of Independence. As a people, we are within our rights – even encouraged – to question government, even replace government when it no longer adheres to constitutional principles it’s sworn to uphold. There comes a time when continually “complying” to unjust laws serves only to ensure your enslavement in a fascist state. This family has courageously drawn the line by exercising their rights. There is no such thing as Due Process when the state insists on poisoning its citizens against their will.
There are plenty of examples of successful alternatives.
http://www.amazon.com/You-Heal-Your-Life-Gift/dp/1561706280
Thanks for blogging about this topic, Vin! As a Naturopath, I am all for the most natural forms of therapy. Therefore, personally, I do not agree with chemotherapy. Having said that, my biggest concern here (like alot of other people) is our freedom of choice taken away. Who is the government to tell me what is good or not good for either myself or my child? Personally, I don’t believe it should be up to anyone except the parents and the child. I don’t believe that as a 13 year old, he’s not able to understand the facts….I think he understands them just fine and if parents disagree with the chemo and he does too, then that should be their decision and no one else’s. I am praying for their family and hope that during this time of searching, public outcry will help the courts to re-assess their decision.
Thank you Jenny, Spence and Melissa for sharing your opinions! After seeing so many short sighted and close minded responses to this case in the media, it’s refreshing to see such support for our freedom of choice in regard to health care.
Vin, this is not a close case in my mind. The kid is 13 not 5. If he was 5 then it might be different. If we were talking about something that was not in the least controversial, it might be different.
Unless it is clear cut abuse, the state is not in the position to make these decisions. In my mind the chickens are coming home to roost in our society. People have demanded a nanny state, and now they are getting one they don’t want. You can’t have it both ways. Better to err on the side of freedom of choice in all areas.
This case makes me so angry! How dare any authority tell me how I can and cannot treat my own child! It’s a sad state of affairs when our nation has come to something such as this…and today I watched V for Vendetta – a great film and a shuddering look at what may come in our future – totalitarian governments at work. We must not allow George Orwell’s fiction to become fact!
To me this boils down to the right to consent to medical care. If at least we had been looking at a situation where the boy said he wanted care but his mother blocked it, well, thirteen is considered a legal adult in some cultures. The court may have been justified in intervening. But that wasn’t the case here. The boy and his mother were unified in their opposition. They should have been left alone. The first commenter here meant well, I’m sure, but there never should have been a legal order for the two to appear in court to begin with. And unjust laws should be opposed.
I’m about fed up with the term “nanny state” though. When the government tries to make me do something I don’t want to do, a kindly babysitter is the last image to cross my mind. I think of something or someone more along the lines of Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot. “Nanny” sounds like a sexist cheap shot and carries a lot of baggage in a culture in which mothers are vilified for being human and flawed AND vilified for doing their damn jobs. (Why do you think we try to keep our kids from doing unreasonably dangerous stuff? Because collective cultural experience tells us those behaviors are unreasonably dangerous. It’s called “learning from experience,” because forcing each successive generation to make the same mistakes over and over and possibly die from them is totally anti-evolutionary and a sad waste of energy to boot.)
I DO want the government to play referee in situations where I can’t stand up to an oppressor on my own because I’m outnumbered or unpopular or whatever. What I do NOT want is the government being a schoolyard bully. You’ve seen how refs behave on the football field. They step in only when it’s necessary, and they are not playing the game itself, choosing to leave that to the actual players. That’s what I wish the government would do. That’s not “nanny,” and protecting me from an employer who wants to work me to death for nothing is not the same thing as forcing me to go to a hospital when I don’t want to.
Thank you Stephen, Raine, and Dana for your thought provoking comments!
Dana – I agree that the phrase “nanny state” doesn’t do the situation justice. I also like your referee analogy. If it were only that simple!
I searched for an update on this case and it appears that even though the Hauser family is still firmly opposed to chemotherapy, they’ve given in and Daniel has already received two treatments. His tumor has shrunk significantly, but the treatment seems to be exhausting him. Fortunately, the charges were dropped against the mother and the parents have maintained custody rights, but under the condition that they’ll continue with the chemotherapy.
From Minnesota Public Radio:
Daniel Hauser’s parents agree to chemotherapy
Daniel Hauser responding positively to chemo