Comments on: The curious case of Daniel Hauser

By: Shefaly

Shefaly — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 07:44:23 +0000

Lekhni: Another one on alternative medicine called “prayer”.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8180116.stm

By: Particle

Particle — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 23:37:01 +0000

So then, is there one law for one form of cancer and another for a less curable one?

Law cannot take everything in consideration by default. If someone feels strongly that this distinction be made, he should go through the appropriate channels.

By: Particle

Particle — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 23:32:30 +0000

Can doctors break the patient-doctor confidentiality and alert authorities if patients stop treatment at their hospital?

NO. But I don’t think the doctor in this case informed the authorities merely because the patient stopped treatment at his hospital.

How did this doctor know for certain they hadnt gone to another hospital anyway? Did he do a nationwide/worldwide search of hospitals?

Because *somehow* he found out what the patient and his parents were actually up to. Otherwise I don’t think he would go to the trouble of alerting the authorities.

By: Particle

Particle — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 23:17:32 +0000

How can a court rule that one has to take a certain form of medical treatment?

State (acting through court in this case) is supposed to exist for the benefit of the individual. And state is likely to know better about medical treatments than the parent just as the parent is likely to know better than the child. If the state is not expected to perform its primary function of protecting its individuals we might as well do away with state itself.

But as I said state is *likely* to know better than the parent. If a parent thinks it knows better than the state it can take the matter to the courts. Just like a child can talk to her parents if she thinks she knows better. There’s nothing more that can be done about it.

The issue here is not “a certain form of treatment” but “the most trustworthy form of treatment”. The trustworthiness of allopathy is a consequence of its strong ties with science and its rigorous procedures. That’s why allopathy does and should takes precedence over other forms of treatment. If allopathy can cure a cancer with 80% success rate whereas the success rates of alternative treatments (which are not as rigorous as allopathy) haven’t even been determined, then the state is *expected* to enforce allopathy even if it’s painful.

The state is actually parenting the parent here and with good intentions.

By: Particle

Particle — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 23:15:31 +0000

–

By: Particle

Particle — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:41:10 +0000

3. What forms of medicine are considered treatment? Is allopathy the only form that is acceptable? If this had been a disease where allopathy didnt have a high success rate, would it be wrong to try homeopathy or ayurveda? Continuing with my pancreatic cancer example, if allopathy offers a 5% chance of surviving for 5 years, and another alternative treatment offers the same chance, is one inferior to the other? Especially if say, treatment with allopathy is very painful and homeopathy is not ?

Allopathy need not be the only form acceptable, but it is the only form of treatment with strong ties to science and hence the only one whose claims are properly evaluated. If practitioners of Alternative Medicine accepted the same standards of rigor as Allopathy, they will have the same credibility and your second question won’t arise because success rates of all three can be compared. Similarly for the third question: if the success rate of the alternative treatment has been as rigorously established as allopathy, then both are equally good unless of course one is less painful than the other.

By: addicted

addicted — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 19:18:40 +0000

You are missing the key element here. The patient in question was a minor, and the decisions were being made by someone else anyways (an irresponsible parent here).

While we trust parents in most cases to do the right thing, that is not always the case. When they are making bad decisions, we want the government to step in and take over (child protection?).

While we are doing hypotheticals, lets add another hypothetical (and possibly real) tidbit to the story. What if the child had a large life insurance policy on his name, and the disease is life-threatening? That shows why the government needs to step in such cases.

Now if the patient in question was the mother (an adult) and she chose to take this step for herself, the government, rightly, would not have bothered.

Regarding the doctor-patient confidentiality (or any confidentiality, for that matter) it does not hold if there is knowledge of possible future illegal activity. That is the case in this situation.

By: It’s about the child, not the parent « La Vie Quotidienne

It’s about the child, not the parent « La Vie Quotidienne — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 07:59:50 +0000

[...] The Daniel Hauser case has been in the news recently. Lekhni asks some pertinent questions about it on her blog here. She raises interesting questions, as do other blogs, such as the Science blog, which wonders if [...]

By: the mad momma

the mad momma — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 07:54:41 +0000

i know nothing about this kind of cancer – but i do know someone in india whose mother was told that she’d have to go for chemo and they chose ayurveda instead. she’s fine now.

i think the reason why its a debate is because its abroad. in india it would be no biggie. i for instance treat my daughter’s eczema and asthma through homoeopathy and my PCOS too.

i cant imagine why or how anyone else should be given the right to decide something for us if my child and I are in agreement. right now my daughter’s two – but if a 13 year old child and his parents are in agreement on a treatment, the state should butt out…