Daniel Hauser’s lymphoma case more complex, far-reaching than media suggests

The American Cancer Society says, “Many laboratory studies in cell cultures and animals have shown green tea acts against cancer cells. Test tube studies have suggested that compounds in the tea may help stop new blood vessels from forming, thereby cutting off the supply of blood to cancer cells. It is tempting to assume that it may therefore help prevent some cancers, but studies in humans have been mixed.” Shown here, editor’s personal favorite: Fruta Bomba, a green tea that is naturally sweet; available at Teavana shops.The case of Daniel Hauser, the 13-year-old Minnesota boy facing a judge’s order to undergo conventional treatment for Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, is far more complex than media suggests. At the moment, Hauser’s whereabouts are unknown. His mother has allegedly fled with him after a judge denied Daniel and his parents’ desire to seek unconventional medical treatment. The Hausers are members of a relatively newly established group, The Nemenhah Band whose mission aims “to provide a safety net for Natural Healers by effectively bringing the Sacred back into Natural Healing.”

USA Today said, “Judge John Rodenberg, who had ruled last week that Daniel's parents were medically neglecting him, issued an arrest warrant Tuesday for Colleen Hauser and ruled her in contempt of court. Rodenberg also ordered that Daniel be placed in foster care and immediately evaluated by a cancer specialist for treatment.” Whatever the other directives, ordering Daniel into foster care would certainly not be in the boy’s best interest. Daniel needs his parents more than ever.

Most TV pundits push the angst angle. Why not treat a boy for an illness that has a high potential for being cured? But that’s reducing the information to a very troublesome level and if we think beyond Daniel’s case, there are other implications.

Side effects and risks for treatment of Hodgkin’s
Conventional treatments for Hodgkin’s may have troubling side effects and in some, cancer may recur. Daniel is at a pivotal point in puberty, when males develop sexual characteristics and approach a growth spurt.

The National Cancer Institute in a paper redistributed by the University of Bonn Medical Center, said: "Children and adolescents may have treatment-related side effects that appear months or years after treatment for Hodgkin lymphoma. Because of these late effects on health and development, regular follow-up exams are important. Late effects may include problems with the following:

*Development of sex organs in males.
*Fertility (ability to have children).
*Thyroid, heart, or lungs.
*An increased risk of developing a second primary cancer.
*Bone growth and development."


If corticosteroids are used, a research paper published at the National Institutes of Health notes the following, “Knowledge regarding risk factors for psychiatric reactions to corticosteroids remains limited. Effects of concurrent medications will require planned studies to better elucidate the effects of individual agents. As others have proposed (Stiefel et al, 1989), it is important to study psychiatric disturbances related to corticosteroids, while controlling for type of illness, concurrent medications, and co-morbid medical conditions.”

How does the court’s decision impact other issues like late term abortion?
Another lapse in media covering this story relates to the complete lack of information about the release the parents must sign when a child receives treatment. What risks must the parents agree to accept when they by necessity sign a legally binding document?

Almost everyone is also missing an issue that at first glance doesn’t relate to Daniel’s case. If the courts are determined to protect the safety of an ill child when the parents seek a treatment the courts deem unacceptable, why are the courts not intervening in every single case of late term abortion where the mother’s physical health is not at stake? Once a baby can survive outside the womb, is there not a vested interest in protecting that child? If we intervene in a case such as Daniel’s, are we not contradicting ourselves as a society by not permitting babies nearing term to live? Has anyone even thought of this application of the law?

Other legal issues
What other legal issues may be considered? If a teen receives multiple tickets for speeding or reckless driving and the parent permits that teen to continue driving, should the court place the child with foster parents to prohibit him from driving? Daniel’s case can be extrapolated to a number of issues.

The Minnesota judge, and others like him, should think long and hard about other issues like late term abortion in relation to this case. The court has intervened, taking over the role of a parent with a sick boy, yet courts permit perfectly healthy babies who can live outside the womb to die even when the delivery does not present a real physical threat to the health of the mother.

Are we opening a door into further usurping of parental powers for issues we haven’t yet considered?

Daniel Hauser’s case is more complex and perhaps more far-reaching than a simple analysis permits.

Daniel Hauser's lymphoma case more complex, far-reaching than media suggests by Kay B. Day