If you do what you have always done, you will get what you have always had.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009


Daniel Hauser is back in Minnesota and will likely start his chemo again. State and Federal charges against him mom will most likely be dropped. Mighty nice, considering she was doing what she thought best for her child.

Here's what's chapping my hide. Iran and North Korea are rattling their sabers. The economy is in the toilet. People are still losing their homes and jobs. The Federal government is throwing good money after bad and racking up debt that my grandchildren (or maybe great-grandchildren) will be paying off. Why are we using state and Federal money to force a child who doesn't want it to take chemo? OK, yeah, according to the doctors, there is a 90% cure rate with chemo and a 5% survival rate without it. The fact still remains that chemo is a poison with side effects of its own. Why is this family being treated like criminal fugitives for wanting to pursue other treatment options? Daniel is their child, not the government's. This is not about whether a 13-year-old boy should be treated by the medical establishment, an herbalist, or a Satanic shaman; it's about parents' rights, children's rights and the fact that the government wants to control every facet of life from cradle to grave.

Twenty years ago, George Orwell's "1985" was an interesting, if disturbing, piece of fiction. Now we're twenty years closer to that reality. Don't believe me? That's fine, but think about this: When was the last time you went out to eat with your family in a restaurant that didn't have a television? Or how about the 24-hour news stations? How often do we hear good news that's worth a plugged nickel? If you see good news on the news, it's some trite bit about a cocker spaniel that saved a toddler and a parakeet from a burning building. Why do we need 24-hour news anyway? We were doing fine with an hour of news a couple of times a day before CNN hit the airwaves about the time the Gulf War started.

Which brings me back to Daniel Hauser. Why is a 13-year-old boy who doesn't want to treat his illness with poison a national news story? Big Brother is in the house, people--the White House.

Labels: ,


Blogger Jean said...

When I read about Daniel, I think back to my sister. As far as I know, she and my parents had a choice when they decided the treatment was worse than the non-probable cure and jointly decided to stop the experimental treatment they were trying on her (she was 9 1/2, but parents listened to her when making their decision).

Perhaps "experimental" is the key word, but don't people have to sign consent forms before nearly all treatments? If the treatment is mandated, what's the purpose of consent? Is it a formality and the option to not consent not really an option?

I know non-consent by a parent is sometimes controversial and there are times when I believe a parent refusing treatment is a fool; however, deciding when failure to treat is abuse and when it's an informed choice by a parent is a difficult question worthy of contemplation and resolution. What's the right choice? Not easy to say.

5:19 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home