Scary Parenting
Posted by RenaissanceTrophyWife on May 21, 2009
This story really makes a chill run down my spine. In case you hadn’t heard, a woman named Colleen Hauser has disappeared with her teenage son Daniel, who has Hodgkins lymphoma—because she doesn’t believe chemotherapy is the best treatment for her son. Apparently, she testified that “she had been trying to ‘starve’ Daniel’s cancer with supplements, an organic and sugar-free diet and high-alkaline water.”
While I was trained in Western medicine, I believe there is absolutely a place for complementary (or “alternative”) therapies, especially for disease states in which the mechanism of action remains unclear. However, Hodgkins does not fall into that category.
Seriously, if we could cure cancer by following a diet and drinking high-alkaline water, don’t you think we would’ve stopped spending millions of dollars on cancer research by now?
Well, we can cure some types of cancers. Although the word “lymphoma” sounds serious, and it is, if caught early AND TREATED, survival rates are fairly decent—on the order of 90%. If not treated appropriately, survival is, expectedly, very poor.
It’s not as if this treatment is experimental, or a last-ditch alternative in this case—chemo has the potential to cure the kid.
It saddens me to think that a mother’s religious beliefs may factor into the matter of her child’s life or death. I realize that faith is a helpful tool in many situations, but if you’re going to use that argument, whatever happened to the basic tenet of “God helps those who help themselves”? Relying solely on mineral water and faith seems like a pretty poor effort to me. Thinking about it gets me all worked up so I’m trying to be polite here… but all I can hope for at this point is that this woman will turn herself in so a treatment plan for Daniel can be discussed and put in motion. Sigh. The alternative of death by withholding of care is a pretty horrible option.
Is anyone else similarly shocked/upset/disappointed?
Image source: AP Photo/The Star Tribune, Kyndell Harkness
Update: Read about the happy resolution here! Thanks, Kristan!
Kristan said
Actually I thought you were quite polite, no worries. And I’m with you: where in the Bible does God say “NO CHEMOTHERAPY!”?? (Well okay, that’s not *exactly* what you said. But you know what I mean.)
I do hope things work out for the boy… And that the mother opens her eyes to the fact that maybe faith is bigger than the limited definition she’s giving it.
Kristan said
YAY! http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090525/ap_on_re_us/us_forced_chemo
RenaissanceTrophyWife said
I’m so happy!!!! thanks for the link!
Tellie said
I have to disagree with this one. I am a firm believer that parents should have sovereign right over their children’s medical decisions up to the point of actual physical/mental abuse (i.e. beatings, torture, etc).
You see, once you the government says that “certain medication must be given regardless of beliefs” then you have to accept when they tell you “for your child’s welfare” what other medicines, education, mental health, etc. The government will begin forcing a parent to give children certain vaccinations even if they could cause a higher risk of developing autism, and also force parents to give their children psychotropic drugs such as Ritalin. Parents are either sovereign or they are not. If an “in between” is left, any boundary can be crossed by manipulating public ignorance.
I’d like to compare this to abortion. In the case of abortion, the freedom to have sex (in most cases) has been exercised. It is the responsiblity that is being avoided (again, in most cases). However, in the withholding of medical treatment due to religious beliefs, it is not avoiding responsibility but taking it(however foolish that belief may be).
Still, it is sad when a parent’s misguided ideas cause a child to suffer, die or be deprived of something they should probably have.
RenaissanceTrophyWife said
Tellie, thanks for stopping by! Sorry I’ve been MIA for so long. You make great points, and I agree that intervention should generally be limited to abusive situations. (FWIW, I disagree on the vaccines/autism link but agree with the Ritalin point.)
However, and I realize I didn’t mention this in the post, the family had previously brought him in for an initial round of chemo, after which he went into remission. This story developed after he recurred and his physician recommended treatment. If a doctor had not been involved, I agree that there is little that anyone can do legally to keep parents from making such rash decisions, and sad as that is, I agree that government mandates are not the answer. In this case the prior medical intervention made Daniel’s care the legal responsibility of the doctor as well, thus the many parties involved in trying to get him treated.
Healthcare providers have an ethical responsibility to treat pediatric patients in order to preserve life, no matter the parents’ wishes or religious convictions. Once we get involved by treating the patient initially, the responsibility rests with the doctor. Letting parents refuse treatment is an ethical breach, and the process, especially in emergency situations, is to try to save the child’s life first and get the protective court order at the same time. We got this drilled into our heads in med school.
Anecdotally, doctors who’d been in these situations uniformly said that the parents were incredibly grateful that their child was alive, despite their refusal of treatment on religious grounds.
(I was confused as to why the parents would refuse a second round of chemo, and why the first round was ok despite their religious beliefs, but that’s a whole separate issue.)
Hope this clarifies my thoughts a little!