Austin Carter

Module 4 Assignment
Daniel Hauser
Daniel Hauser is a thirteen year old boy from Minnesota who had been diagnosed with
Hodgkins Lymphoma, a type of cancer. The interesting aspect about Daniel Hausers case is
that he was diagnosed during stage 2B. All of the doctors the boy has seen agree that the best
way to go about curing the boy is by chemotherapy treatments. The dilemma in this case is that
the boy and his parents do not want to take the treatment. They believe that alternative methods
are the safest way to go about curing Daniel. This is a very controversial case about whether or
not the parents should have been able to make the decision to avoid chemotherapy.
I absolutely agree with the decision on this case. The boy was very sick, the doctors did
test on him and proved that his tumor was growing. I think the best way to go about treatment
for a person is by what has statistically worked the best throughout history. In this case, that
choice was the chemotherapy. According to Dr. Bostrom, chemotherapy treatments work for the
type of cancer the boy had 90% of the time. (Nesbitt, 2009) This was clearly the best choice for
the safety of the child. In the interview done by the National Public Radio, Arthur Caplan
(professor of bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania) made a point about how the case would
have been different if a better alternative process would have been proposed. (Neary, 2009) But
the parents plan of a better diet does not contain any reason for hope. She points out that she
believes traditional medicine works one hundred percent, (Nesbitt, 2009) which is absolutely
not true. I feel like this case is the reason the court should be in charge of the decision. I feel
like the court will always be the unbiased party, and will always vote in favor for the safety and
health of the person.
I think the best policy for cancer treatment for minors should involve the court. I believe
that the court should be involved when the wellbeing (life/death) of a minor is being hindered by

a decision of his/her parents. I think that in cases of keeping a minor alive, that the court should
be able to intervene. In my opinion, life threatening situations, and only life threatening
situations, beneficence (in terms of overall health) outweighs autonomy. I believe in autonomy
and that that a person should be able to make their own decisions. I also run into the dilemma of
that I equally believe in beneficence. I think that ones own decisions should be disregarded in
terms of life and death. When dealing with cancer, one must focus on the ethical principle of
beneficence the most.

Works Cited
Neary, L. (Host). (2009, May 26). Teen cancer patient on-the-run stirs health care debate. [Radio
broadcast episode]. Retrieved fromhttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?
storyId=104532686
Nesbitt, K. (2009, May 9). Court to hear boys testimony in private today. The Journal. Retrieved
from http://www.nujournal.com/page/content.detail/id/506825.html?showlayout=0