Chemo Teen and Mom on the Run--How It Could Have Been Prevented
By now, almost everyone in America has probably heard the story of Daniel Hauser and his fight to refuse chemotherapy for his Hodgkin's lymphoma. The most recent wrinkle is that when it appeared that Daniel would be forced to get chemo, he and his mother skipped town, apparently now on their way to Mexico, to avoid enforcement of the court-ordered treatment.
While on the face of it, this would appear to be a case of cultural sensitivity and respecting the religious views of the parents (and presumably the child) who does not want these toxic substances put in their son's body. But wait--Daniel Hauser had chemotherapy once before. Why did the parents not raise the same objection during the first round of chemo?
The answer is because this isn't at all a case of respecting religious views of anyone involved. Even if it were primarily the issue, in most cases where there is a clearly effective treatment and the risk of non-treatment is death, the courts would rule just as they did to order treatment regardless of religious views of the parents.
Moreover, based on recent media reports, Hauser cannot read and his ability to give informed consent may be significantly impaired by that fact and the strong role that his parents have played in controlling medical information regarding his treatment.
Daniel Hauser's story is really one of scared parents and an even more scared teenage boy who doesn't want to face the difficult road of treating Hodgkin's. This is no small problem, of course, but had either son or parents been honest about the heart of the issue there would have never been any need for judges debating about the rights of parents to make religious objections to medical care, treks to California (and maybe Mexico), or any of what looks like it could be a protracted battle.
This entire morass could have been avoided had the parents and their son been honest about their real fears of chemotherapy and specialists trained to deal with these issues would have counseled them and provided perspective that persons in their situation would find difficult to have. Leaving the court system out of it would have been a huge help in diffusing a situation already rife with high emotions and tensions between the medical community and the family.
Ultimately, no one knows how this case will turn out, but ultimately someone--whether it is the courts or the Hausers will not get what they want out of this situation. What we really hope for, of course, is that Daniel Hauser will live.
Summer Johnson, PhD
contribute a comment
Your contributions to the conversation are very much appreciated. We do have a few simple guidelines, though. Be civil. Stay on topic. We reserve the right to remove comments that violate the aforementioned guidelines. One more thing: comments are moderated, so it may take a little while for your comment to be posted. Thanks.
comments
It(He,She) is lamentable these things, because a time ago behind wise that the medical services were a problem for many persons and up to the moment they neither find they do not even give any solution, apparently the government forgot what promised and it is now where it is that to there be remembered(reminded), before that is very late, the medical assurance is important for many people, like that they indicate it in findrxonline, the web page that delivers a lot of information about this debate.
- by Albert on May 22, 2009 at 11:19 AM | link
I'm sure it's true that everyone is scared. But it assumes too much to say that this must be the primary motivation. It certainly assumes too much to assert that the whole situation could've been avoided by addressing the fear directly. I'm sure this thought crossed the minds of the people involved, and I'd bet that many people involved tried to address it directly.
It's also odd to claim that the mother and the son don't actually believe what they say they believe.
Better to take them at their word (they actually do believe what they're saying is true.) Then, identify (at least to ourselves) their belief as a delusion. Then help them overcome the delusion (perhaps it's mostly motivated by fear, as you say.) If they can't overcome it despite our best efforts, and if a minor's health is at stake, then override the delusional decision (in a manner that causes as little harm as possible.)
- by Thos Cochrane on May 22, 2009 at 4:36 PM | link