site map


Privacy policy  ▪  About


Bookmark and Share

BLOG: May 2009

Daniel Hauser Hodgkin's case: child protection

or medical oppression?

Daniel's case - True chances - Late effects - Mortality -
Real picture - Hodgkin's kids - Alternatives

Should the authorities have the power to decide what type of medical treatment is appropriate for your child's life-threatening illness? And, if you don't agree, to take your child away - possibly jailing you in the process - and force that treatment upon your child? The parents of 13-year old Daniel Hauser from Minnesota, suffering from Hodgkin's lymphoma, are just learning that what they think is best for their son doesn't count.

Of course, the answer to the above questions would be easy if the government is backing a treatment that:

 1  - has nearly 100% success rate

 2  - limited delay of treatment involves serious health risk

 3  - has no dangerous side effects, and

 4  - no viable alternative

The reality is, unfortunately, usually much less of a clean cut. In January 2009 Daniel's parents learned that their son has Hodgkin's lymphoma, a deadly lymphatic cancer if left untreated. Initially, they went along with the recommended conventional treatment, which combines radiation and chemotherapy.

After one round of chemo in February, despite its positive results in shrinking the tumor, the Hauser family became very concerned with side effects of the harsh, toxic treatment, both immediate and long-term. They decided to quit chemo in favor of "do no harm" natural treatments (herbal supplements, vitamins, ionized/alkaline water and other natural alternatives), including some traditional American Indians' remedies.

However, after the hospital's oncologist informed state's child protection services about treatment non-compliance, court order was issued to the parents. In a desperate attempt to avoid forced continuation of chemotherapy, the mother fled out of the state with Daniel for six days. Court order was issued for her arrest. The parents had two choices: either accept chemo, or have their son taken away by the authorities.

 So, in June this year, Danny was back to chemo. It did, initially, shrink the tumor again, and, on the negative side, it is poisoning Daniel's body, making him feeling seek and angry.

Are Daniel's parents justified in their fear from chemo and radiation? The fact is that both are

inherently toxic treatments

which most often kill Hodgkin lymphoma, but in the process they poison the entire body. It often makes patient feel miserably sick, and can have

very serious health consequences longer-term -

especially in children.

That doesn't seem to agree with the official picture of the treatment. Press articles cite doctors saying that conventional treatment would give to Daniel "90% chance of success", while without any treatment he would most likely die from the disease.

But what "90% chance of success" really does mean? Plain 9 in 10 chances to beat Hodgkin's, fully recover and live long and happy life? Or there is more to it than this simplistic picture? Shouldn't we know that?

However, doctors don't seem to be willing to talk about possible long-term effects. Is it really all as good and clean as "90% chance of success" imply, or there are also other legitimate concerns? How close is the conventional pediatric treatment for Hodgkin's to the four conditions, listed in the beginning, that would make its legal enforcement justifiable?

Following pages will attempt to answer these burning questions.