After following up with the headlines for consecutive days, I have to say that one of the most alarming cases that I found very interesting yet worrisome is Daniel Hauser’s mother refusing chemotherapy for her son. To begin, let me briefly give you a recap of the headline. Daniel Hauser is a 13 year old boy from Minnesota who has been diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Around the first week of May, oncologists have claimed that, “given his state and type of tumor, he could normally expect at least an 85% chance of surviving and perhaps even greater than 90%... without therapy he is certain to die of his disease, barring a rare spontaneous remission” (Orac, 2009).
Daniel’s mother, Colleen Hauser, has refused chemotherapy treatment for her son. The Hauser’s
have been taken to trial. Written in a 58-page ruling, Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg has issued an arrest warrant for Colleen due to the fact that Daniel has been medically neglected when there is a clear cure for his illness. Judge Rodenberg has stated that Daniel can remain in the custody of his parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, if they get an updated x-ray and select an oncologist for him by May 19th.
When headlines blew up about Daniel and Colleen’s disappearance, my interest towards this case immediately increased. Days after their run, Daniel and Colleen did voluntarily return back to their home. They did after all decide to follow the court order. Daniel’s parents initially decided to withdraw their son from treatment after he had attended one round of chemotherapy session. The parents claimed that the side effects were too strong and devastating. The Hauser’s wanted to find another treatment plan for the remedy of their son’s illness (Harkness, 2009). I personally believe that it is outrageous for the parents to even considering finding a treatment plan that consists of herbal supplements, vitamins, and ionized water, when oncologists are providing a substantial amount of medical evidence claiming that the chemotherapy can indeed prove a 90 percent success rate!
Ethical values do come into the picture as the public attempts to rationalize Daniel’s parents’ actions. Negligence is presented as the parents allege that medical alternatives should be sought due to their religious beliefs (Dailey, 2009). As the x-rays report, the tumor has grown since the first time his parents chose to disregard and forgo chemotherapy. I strongly believe that Child Support Services and the Minnesota Legislature have taken the proper steps towards bringing this case into the court’s hands. In Judge Rodenburg’s ruling, he indicated that the “state’s interest in protecting the child overrides the constitutional right to freedom of religious expression and parent’s right to direct a child’s upbringing” (CBS Broadcasting, 2009).
This case continues to be very controversial and it captivates my attention as the state attempts to intervene the Hauser’s method of upbringing their 13 year old son with Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The public, the health care system, numerous states, and the Nation itself have different opinions about this headline story. What makes the Hauser’s case even more notorious are the ongoing debates about whether the government should have the right to intervene and have the judicial system protect Daniel from medical negligence.
Currently, the judge has ruled the case and ordered Daniel Hauser to undergo his chemotherapy treatment. Colleen has agreed to take her son to the chemotherapy sessions. The oncologist has also agreed to allow other safe alternative treatments to be provided to Daniel in addition to the chemotherapy. It is chaos that this particular situation had to reach the hands of the judicial system. It is hard enough to be a teenager fighting with lymphoma, let alone have parents that are generating so much publicity into this particular case. Daniel truly needs to focus on battling with his cancer and regain his health and strength again.
Daniel’s mother, Colleen Hauser, has refused chemotherapy treatment for her son. The Hauser’s
have been taken to trial. Written in a 58-page ruling, Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg has issued an arrest warrant for Colleen due to the fact that Daniel has been medically neglected when there is a clear cure for his illness. Judge Rodenberg has stated that Daniel can remain in the custody of his parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, if they get an updated x-ray and select an oncologist for him by May 19th.When headlines blew up about Daniel and Colleen’s disappearance, my interest towards this case immediately increased. Days after their run, Daniel and Colleen did voluntarily return back to their home. They did after all decide to follow the court order. Daniel’s parents initially decided to withdraw their son from treatment after he had attended one round of chemotherapy session. The parents claimed that the side effects were too strong and devastating. The Hauser’s wanted to find another treatment plan for the remedy of their son’s illness (Harkness, 2009). I personally believe that it is outrageous for the parents to even considering finding a treatment plan that consists of herbal supplements, vitamins, and ionized water, when oncologists are providing a substantial amount of medical evidence claiming that the chemotherapy can indeed prove a 90 percent success rate!
Ethical values do come into the picture as the public attempts to rationalize Daniel’s parents’ actions. Negligence is presented as the parents allege that medical alternatives should be sought due to their religious beliefs (Dailey, 2009). As the x-rays report, the tumor has grown since the first time his parents chose to disregard and forgo chemotherapy. I strongly believe that Child Support Services and the Minnesota Legislature have taken the proper steps towards bringing this case into the court’s hands. In Judge Rodenburg’s ruling, he indicated that the “state’s interest in protecting the child overrides the constitutional right to freedom of religious expression and parent’s right to direct a child’s upbringing” (CBS Broadcasting, 2009).
This case continues to be very controversial and it captivates my attention as the state attempts to intervene the Hauser’s method of upbringing their 13 year old son with Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The public, the health care system, numerous states, and the Nation itself have different opinions about this headline story. What makes the Hauser’s case even more notorious are the ongoing debates about whether the government should have the right to intervene and have the judicial system protect Daniel from medical negligence.
Currently, the judge has ruled the case and ordered Daniel Hauser to undergo his chemotherapy treatment. Colleen has agreed to take her son to the chemotherapy sessions. The oncologist has also agreed to allow other safe alternative treatments to be provided to Daniel in addition to the chemotherapy. It is chaos that this particular situation had to reach the hands of the judicial system. It is hard enough to be a teenager fighting with lymphoma, let alone have parents that are generating so much publicity into this particular case. Daniel truly needs to focus on battling with his cancer and regain his health and strength again.
- REFERENCES:
- CBS Broadcasting. (2009, March 15). Minn. Judge Orders Parents to Treat Son's Cancer. In CBS5. Retrieved May 31, 2009, from http://cbs5.com/national/chemo.therapy.ordered.2.1010515.html
- Dailey, K. (2009, March 19). Parents' Rights, Judges' Rules: in the battle between families and the courts over medical treatment for kids, who has the last word? In Newsweek. Retrieved May 31, 2009, from http://www.newsweek.com/id/198397
- Harkness, K. (2009, May 19). Judge rules family can't refuse chemo for boy. In MSNBC. Retrieved May 31, 2009, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30763438/
- Orac. (2009, May 12). Daniel Hauser and his rejection of chemotherapy: Is religion the driving force or just a convenient excuse? In ScienceBlogs. Retrieved May 31, 2009, from http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/05/daniel_hauser_and_the_rejection_of_chemo.php
No comments:
Post a Comment