Hodgkin's Lymphoma

There's a bit of a moral brouhaha going on in New Ulm, Minnesota.  

The mother of 13-year-old Daniel Hauser testified Friday that she and her son would refuse to comply with any court order requiring the boy to resume chemotherapy for his cancer.

"Danny clearly made up his mind. He's not doing it,'' Colleen Hauser, of Sleepy Eye, Minn., testified on the opening day of a trial over whether a court should order the boy into medical treatment against the family's wishes.

Hauser, whose son was diagnosed in January with Hodgkin's lymphoma, said conventional treatments such as chemotherapy conflict with the family's religious beliefs. She said they prefer natural remedies such as herbs and vitamins.

Asked where she learned about the alternative healing techniques, Hauser said, "on the Internet.''

{...}The Hausers declined to speak to reporters after Friday's court session. But Dan Zwakman, a member of the Nemenhah religious group to which they belong, acted as the family spokesman. He argued that this is a case about religious freedom, noting that the group's motto is "our religion is our medicine."

The basic premise, he said, is "that we will do no harm. Chemotherapy is known to be dangerous. It's a killer."

On the witness stand, Daniel's mother showed little emotion as she testified in a soft voice about her son's ordeal.

She said that on the day Daniel had his chemotherapy in February, she felt pressured into signing the consent form, and never intended to agree to the full six treatments that his doctors at Children's Hospitals and Clinics had recommended.

"At that time, I was so emotionally distraught, I didn't know what I was doing," she said.

She said Daniel was furious when he realized he would be getting the treatment.

"Mom, I'm walking out of here," she said he told her, "and he almost did."

The boy refused to go back for the five additional treatments and his parents concurred, which ultimately triggered a child-endangerment petition filed by Brown County Attorney James Olson.{...}

 

The issues are thus: First, does a thirteen-year-old boy have the right to refuse cancer treatment?  Second, do his parents have the right to hide for cover under the rubric of religious freedom in their effort to back up his wishes, even if it would appear that their claim to said religious freedom seems more than a little specious?  And, third, does the refusal of the parents to give the child treatment constitute child endangerment, thus allowing the courts to come in and force the child to undergo treatment?

This is one of those instances when I'm really glad I'm not a judge.

I read about this on Saturday, showed the story to the husband, who patently declared himself to be solidly on the side of the parents.  After all, he said, they have a right to raise their child as they see fit.  If they don't want to put the kid through chemo, not only because of their supposed religious beliefs, but because he's their kid, they should have that right---even if it means they're incredibly stupid in doing so.  It was pretty simple to him. 

It's not so simple to me. 

I have every reason to believe that this woman is inherently misguided in her belief that nutrition and vitamins that she read about on the internet will keep her kid's cancer in check, or, miraculously, will cure it.  She seems to think this is an alternative treatment to chemo.  Furthermore, she doesn't apparently believe that tumors can gro and that radiological technology will document said growth. She and my beloved Cake Eater Father should get together and have a chat, because he holds many of the same views she does---although he doesn't subscribe to a Native American group. 

I regularly get chewed out by my Dad for being "stupid," because I refuse to believe that any of the quacks he follows on the World Wide Web have any credibility or even know what they're talking about.  It doesn't help their credibility in my mind that all of these doctors have their own herbal supplements for sale and take Visa.  At this stage of the game, his back is really up, my devoted Cake Eater readers, because he just wants me to not suffer, and he truly believes that modern medicine is inflicting said suffering upon me.  He's got a point, because everything I deal with now is a result of modern medicine's intrusions into my body.  That's a fair complaint.  For the record, I'm not against using a natural source as a cure for anything.

Yet...

I just want some independent proof---and the more independent sources the better---that something works, rather than just said Visa-accepting-quacks' word (and the iffy studies they quote in their defense) that it does.  Dad thinks I'm an idiot because I still go to Dr. Academic and my other doctors when he believes what they have done is to cause more harm than good.  He doesn't understand why I still give them my trust.  Even though he has, understandably, forgotten quite a bit about the specifics of what I've gone through (it's hard for me to remember all of it, so I don't blame him)---and in one memorable instance, has selectively chosen not to remember something rather vital---he still believes he knows better.  I'm not saying he would have me ditch traditional medicine altogether, although he apparently doesn't put much stock in it anymore.  I am saying, however, he doesn't want me to apply the same standards I would apply to modern medicine's treatments (i.e. studies with good sample sizes and math backing them up, and the more of them, the better) to the ones he comes up with.  He just wants me to take his word for it.  That's the essence of the rub. 

I'm in a tough position with my father, because I know he's just doing it because he cares. Really and truly. Yet, every now and again, I hear about how dumb I'm being, how I'm such a know-it-all, etc.  He just called me "Carnac" the other day, referring to my know-it-all status. Sigh.  It's these times when I really have to bite my tongue.  It's kind of hard to defend your thinking when it's your father who's calling you an idiot.  It kind of rules out the harsher, argument-ender tactics, because otherwise I'll hear from my mom about how mean I'm being, and that I really don't need.

I'm fortunate, however, in that I am over the age of majority and don't have to follow his dictates simply because he's my father.  I am in charge of my health care, for better or worse, and any mistakes I might make are mine.  I'm an adult.  I am in charge of my life.  Daniel Hauser, however, is not in charge of his life.  His parents are.  Should they be allowed, in essence, to allow their son to die because they don't want to put in Brian Urlacher as a linebacker against his disease, but would rather have a member of the Lollipop League as his defenseman?  Social Darwinism is one thing, yet...this is a boy we're talking about. A thirteen-year-old boy, who could, conceivably, have a long life ahead of him, where he would be a productive member of society if he undergoes treatment and is able to leave his cancer behind him. 

Can you really sacrifice his life at the altar of parental rights?  If these parents were abusing him with sticks, stones, and the occasional crobar, society would overwhelmingly say, yes, get the kid out of the home.  Take him away from his parents, who obviously don't have any parental qualities at all.  Yet.  Because we're talking about chemo here, which everyone can agree is some seriously nasty medicine, they're supposedly being good parents because they're refusing to put their son through that hell, no matter how beneficial it may be? I'm not so sure that holds up.  Neither am I sure that the religious argument holds up either, because these beliefs appear to me to be adopted for legal cover.  I don't know this kid's reasoning for avoiding chemo.  The mother claims the treatments violate their religious beliefs, but at no point in that article was it mentioned that the kid believed the same and that was what was prompting him to refuse treatment.  That was simply implied.  I'm not so sure I buy it.

Again, can you sacrifice his life at the altar of parental rights?  Because that essentially what this boils down to. 

I don't know.  It just doesn't seem right, in a very itchy sort of way. I understand that parents have rights.  I approve of the notion that parents should raise their children, with the least amount of intrusion from the state as possible.  But shouldn't children be protected from stupidity---even if its their own, or that of their parents? This is clearly not a case of "let them touch the stove and they'll learn how to avoid getting burned in the future."  This kid, clearly, doesn't have that kind of time to learn his lesson. If he had already undergone treatments, and they weren't proving effective, and he wanted to refuse additional treatments, I would say, yes, the kid has a right not to suffer anymore.  He would have credibility with me, a fellow chemo-sufferer, then, despite his age.  At that point, he would be more familiar with his body, and what he did and did not want to endure for the sake of living a little longer. But this kid? He doesn't want to even try.  One can infer that, from what his oncologist said on the stand, Daniel doesn't fully understand what he's doing, or even what he's feeling, because he's attributing his sickness to chemo, rather than his illness, which is not the case.   

What does this all mean?  Hell if I know. That's why I said I was glad I wasn't the judge.  I sincerely hope the judge can convince the parents that they're being idiots; that the kid is being an idiot, without having to force anyone to do anything.  Sadly, however, I think the judge will probably order the kid to undergo treatment and will say something to the effect of, "When you're eighteen, you can come back and yell at me then."