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