Mom, Boy Who Fled Cancer Treatment Found

Pair Had Flown To Los Angeles, Possible To Seek Natural Remedy In Northern Mexico; Boy Evaluated By Doctor

(AP)  A woman and her 13-year-old son who were on the run from court-ordered cancer treatment for the boy are back in Minnesota, the Brown County Sheriff's Office said Monday.

"Daniel Hauser and his mother have been returned to Minnesota," according to a news release. It did not reveal any additional details, but said there would be a news conference Monday evening.

Daniel Hauser was having his Hodgkin's lymphoma evaluated by a doctor at a hospital in the Twin Cities on Monday, according to Tom Hagen, an attorney at the law office representing Daniel's parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser.

Hagen also said Colleen Hauser was not in police custody.

Hagen said Calvin Johnson, his associate who is representing the parents, is out of town and unavailable for comment, but Johnson authorized Hagen to release those details. Hagen said he couldn't share any additional information.

A message left for Daniel's court-appointed attorney was not immediately returned.

Daniel has Hodgkin's lymphoma, a disease which doctor's say has a 90 percent chance of being cured in children if treated with chemotherapy and radiation. Without those treatments, he has a 5 percent chance of survival.

Daniel underwent one round of chemotherapy in February, but stopped after that single treatment, citing religious beliefs. The family opted instead for natural healing practices inspired by American Indians.

A judge ruled that the parents medically neglected Daniel and ordered them to get him an updated chest X-ray as well as select an oncologist for a re-evaluation. After the X-ray showed a tumor in Daniel's chest has grown, the mother and son left town.

The FBI said the pair flew from Minnesota to Los Angeles last Tuesday on Sun Country Airlines. Authorities said they were focusing their search in southern California and northern Mexico, after the pair was spotted in southern California on Tuesday. Investigators suspected they might have been heading to one of a number of alternative cancer clinics in northern Mexico.

The American Cancer Society estimates there are 35 to 50 clinics in Mexican border towns that attract cancer patients looking for alternatives to traditional U.S. treatment methods. Many of these clinics have offices in the San Diego area that serve as contact points for U.S. patients, who are then referred to clinics in Mexico.

Dr. Bruce Bostrom, the pediatric oncologist at Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota who diagnosed Daniel's cancer in January, said he was happy to hear of the boy's return.

"I'm delighted," Bostrom said. "I've been so worried that he was going to die in Mexico. I've been praying for his safe return, so I think my prayers will be answered."

Bostrom was not working Monday and didn't know if Daniel had gone to Children's Hospitals to be examined.

On Thursday, Anthony Hauser appeared before reporters asking his wife to call him and to come home. "If you're out there, please bring Danny home so we can decide as a family what Danny's treatment should be," he said.

The FBI's affidavit in support of an arrest warrant for Colleen alleges she fled the state to avoid being prosecuted on two state counts of depriving another of custodial or parental rights in Brown County. The "parental rights" refer to those of Brown County family services, which was granted custody of Daniel to get him to a pediatric oncologist.

At a news conference Thursday, Brown County Sheriff Rich Hoffmann vowed to arrange a safe return for Colleen Hauser without an enforcement action if she shows "a good faith effort to come back."

[gaye5]

rational_1, I have to disagree with you but whilst I never had anything to do with chemo when I was nursing many years ago, I do know that it can have deverstating effects on ones later life.. I do also believe that unless a parent is beating their children and I mean beating the life out of them then the state should not interfeer, and if this child does not want to go through this then if they want alternative medicines then perhaps that is better than taking something which nearly has to kill him before he might live for a few more years.. I know of a man who had lympth cancer which is usually fatal, and he refused any more chemo as it wasnt working and did the alternative medicines, and 15 years later he is still alive, has children and a full life insurance now..
However in having said that there are many sharks out there both in the pharmaceutical companies and the natural Dr's so it is important to get the right one.. The pharmaceutical companies are experimenting on us and a few natural drs sometimes are just as bad and promise what they cant give..
Just remember that the The pharmaceutical business is highly lucrative. Johnson & Johnson, one of the sector's biggest companies, exceeded $60bn in sales and $11bn in net profit in 2007, and that Medical journal reveals that 70 percent of drug decision-making panel members have financial ties to industry
plus the drugs approved as safe by the Food and Drug Administration are now killing 100,000 Americans a year.

The JOURNAL of the AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (JAMA) Vol 284, No 4, July 26th 2000 article written by Dr Barbara Starfield, MD, MPH, of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, shows that medical errors may be the third leading cause of death in the United States.
So why would anyone trust them now.. and there are many articles like this..

[Zowwyy]

We do not allow immature children to make life decisions. You people actually want to allow him to chew on a tree root and cure his cancer? He needs the chemo... just face the facts. Stop blaming the government. If the mom gets cancer ler her run away and die her way, but not even wacky religious parents have the power of life or death over a child!!

[tommynutz]

Can anyone tell me who is going to pay for this $100000000000000000000 dollar procedure?

Highly doubt

[rational_1]

So parents all work to create babies for the "state" and their children are property of the state. Parents that love their children don't obey the laws because they are laws. They happen to be in compliance because they recognize it is best for their child. When children are abused and neglected that's one thing, but this is a 13 year old that has experienced the treatment being FORCED on him against his will. His parents are NOT refusing treatment, just the CHEMO. It has to do with free choice or rule by the masses.
Posted by forrestlayne at 6:08 AM : May 26, 2009

No parents don't create children for the state, but neither do they own them. You're right that most (not all) parents do all the rights things for their kids and generally best serve their interests, but by no means can this be said to apply to ALL parents (think crack hos). There is a place for the state to serve as a failsafe to ensure that the interests of all kids are protected. This is one of those cases - the mother was basically proposing to deny her child a medical treatment that is effective in 90% of cases. That would not be in his best interests, which is why the state stepped in. You've been approaching this from the viewpoint of the interests of the parents - why not think about this from the point of view of the child (not his opinions, but his interests)?

[stupidcrazyguy]

Well, I remembered that Vioxx was also clinically tested and approved, and it turned out ........ ???. Hormone replacement was approved to be good for woman, and the result is ........????.


Now, the court orders the treatment. Will the judge and the doctors be charged if the boy still dies after this wonderful chemo? Have the judge and the doctors they themselves experienced the torture of chemo? Wouldn't we the PEOPLE have the right to choose the right not to get all those torture before we die? Shouldn't we the HUMAN have the right to find the best treatment for our own health? How can you be sure the doctors and the tradition medicines are right? For now and forever?

From my own experience, I am actually feeling a lot better when I am totally out of tradition medicine. Tradition medicine is good in someway, but not for every thing.

I think the government have a lot other things they should be doing.

[forrestlayne]

But the government is already very involved. There are mandates for children to be in appropriate car seats within vehicles, children must be educated, children cannot be served alcohol, etc. If you disagree, try giving your toddler a beer in public and see how long it is until you're having a conversation with a judge. If you're arguing that parents should have limitless control in raising their kids, then you would of course be fine with completely depriving them of educations, having 3 year-olds riding on their own in the backs of pick-up trucks on the highway, and all sorts of other nasty things that I could think up. So, the government limitations on parental rights you mention are already in existence - this is just another example, and in this case, one that I think is in the best interests of this child.
Posted by rational_1 at 5:26 AM : May 26, 2009

So parents all work to create babies for the "state" and their children are property of the state. Parents that love their children don't obey the laws because they are laws. They happen to be in compliance because they recognize it is best for their child. When children are abused and neglected that's one thing, but this is a 13 year old that has experienced the treatment being FORCED on him against his will. His parents are NOT refusing treatment, just the CHEMO. It has to do with free choice or rule by the masses.

[rational_1]

The problem is that you cannot pick one answer for this situation and the other answer for another? Circumcision lowers the risk of infections - been proven clinically - should all male babies be forced? I guarantee that would spark outrage.
Once government starts the interference - will it ever stop? or will "we the people" have to try to stop it?
Posted by forrestlayne at 7:33 PM : May 25, 2009

But the government is already very involved. There are mandates for children to be in appropriate car seats within vehicles, children must be educated, children cannot be served alcohol, etc. If you disagree, try giving your toddler a beer in public and see how long it is until you're having a conversation with a judge. If you're arguing that parents should have limitless control in raising their kids, then you would of course be fine with completely depriving them of educations, having 3 year-olds riding on their own in the backs of pick-up trucks on the highway, and all sorts of other nasty things that I could think up. So, the government limitations on parental rights you mention are already in existence - this is just another example, and in this case, one that I think is in the best interests of this child.

[julesarcher1]

Hey if they want to use things that won't work and pray to Jesus for recovery thats fine. After all Jesus can cure it he gave it to the kid. Such a loving God ha ha ha
Posted by Freeguy33 at 1:08 AM : May 26, 2009


These bodies are imperfect.

[skyk-2009]

I can't wait for civil unrest to thin this herd of liberal "know-it-alls" who want to run everyone's life but their own. Tisk, tisk.


God bless gun powder and the Second Amendment!
Posted by Illuminos_9 at 10:27 PM : May 25, 2009

Excuse me but didn't a piece of scum named Jefferson Davis say the same thing? Didn't work out to well for him did it?

[clancy49]

Well said, no fooling.

[jackster12-2009]

I'm all for freedom and individual rights... and for keeping a tight rein on government in many, many matters. I also agree that this is difficult ethical territory. But look, this isn't a question of a man who's dying and wants the right to die in peace... it's a question of a boy with his life ahead of him and a very curable illness.

I know a childhood sufferer of Hodgkins. She's 40 now and has three beautiful children. What about the rights of those kids and everyone her life has touched since? I know you can argue this from lots of angles. But still...

[nofoolling]

While I feel for this child, we must consider the consequences of allowing the government to decide personal matters, as the government's successful track record in most matters requiring rational thought is almost nonexistent.

A case could be made for child endangerment for anyone who exceeds the posted speed limit with a child in the car, thus risking serious injury or death.

Parents of halloween trick or treaters could be charged with reckless endangerment for sending their children off to collect candy from strangers.

Parents of obese children would be high at the top of the abuse list for allowing, through neglect, or even through encouragement to overeat, decisions directly affecting their child's overalll health and well being.

Backyard swimming pool accidents, team sport injuries, allowing children to consume soda, eat junk food, or even go outside without a coat when the temperature falls below a certain level, could all be questioned.

Of course these are simplistic arguments, but once you open the proverbial pandora's box of government interference into our personal lives, fascism will surely follow. In nazi germany children were considered children of the state, and the parents marginalized and ostricized on the word of the government

Many of you have expressed a kind of rage at the parents of this child because he is sick and the doctors have hope, yet where is the collective outrage for the thousands of innocent children being bombed in our wars, those mangled, crippled, dismembered, and the families forever traumatized by our weapons of death raining down upon their cities and villages?

Seems a double standard exists because we arent inundated daily with the pictures and stories of these unfortunate children. No one is issuing arrest warrants for their killers.
Out of sight, out of mind.

And of course I feel for this child, I hope he makes it, as much as I'm rooting for all humans everywhere to grow and prosper, but we cannot allow these individual instances to be manipulated against the greater whole of mankind.

At what point is government intrusion too much? Or will some follow mandate lemming-like regardless.

We will all die, but it is how we live that defines us.

[forrestlayne]

Children are not possessions to be argued over and stockpiled like cattle
Posted by willcad at 8:09 PM : May 25, 2009

You better tell that to every divorce lawyer out there.

[forrestlayne]

Parents don't have "rights" to their children, they have responsibilities to their children. And this woman abdicated her responsibility when she decided to risk her son's life by taking him off a proven treatment with a 90% cure rate in favor of some unproven quackery.

Children are not possessions to be argued over and stockpiled like cattle. A parent's "rights" do not include risking their child's health or safety.
Posted by willcad at 8:09 PM : May 25, 2009

How can you possible state that parents have no rights to their children - do you actually believe that or was that just an emotional outburst?

[willcad]

IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THIS CASE. IT IS PARENTAL RIGHTS.

They are not declining treatment- they are declining chemo. Should not that be their right? They are choosing an alternative treatment not NO treatment. You think the AMA would ever endorse an alternative that would take away their patients and money? No doctor in America will support alternative medicines in public let alone in a court.
Posted by forrestlayne at 7:48 PM : May 25, 2009

We're not talking about a horse or a dog, we're talking about a human being.

Parents don't have "rights" to their children, they have responsibilities to their children. And this woman abdicated her responsibility when she decided to risk her son's life by taking him off a proven treatment with a 90% cure rate in favor of some unproven quackery.

Children are not possessions to be argued over and stockpiled like cattle. A parent's "rights" do not include risking their child's health or safety.

[forrestlayne]

They tried chemo - the tumor shrank. They quit chemo, went to alternatives - the tumor grew. For most anyone that would be pure proof of which treatment worked. So why did she run?
Posted by SusanStoHelit at 7:48 PM : May 25, 2009

That's exactly right - they tried it and decided it was not worth it for whatever reason. That's their choice now - they have experienced they chemo first hand and want to do something else. Maybe to them the "pain is not worth the gain". At 13, I'd have to say the boy knows what it felt like and he says doesn't want any more. He said he would fight it.

So government knows better than people that have experienced it?

[IrishWench01]

Would her daughter have preferred to live? I'm pretty sure about that. So, that's why I think there is a place for the state in making these types of decisions - when it's bloody obvious that the parents are not acting in the best interests of the child.
Posted by rational_1 at 7:24 PM ...........

It is a moral dilema for me and I'm not totally comfortable with my decision. I initially believed this was the right thing to do. I expressed as much on these boards when the article first appeared. It was a gut reaction on my part. Then I did much soul searching and decided that I wasn't supportive of this and the way it was handled.

On your second point -
I am a very spiritual person, although not part of any organized religion. I cannot say that prayer will not work as in the case of the mother you referenced. I have seen amazing things happen in the most unexpected situations. How do you condemn a fervent believer in their faith and doctrine, that it is a fallacy?
What surprises me is how vehemently people will defend religious freedom and practices. They will use religion to force laws, stop laws from being written, to justify actions and to prevent freedoms for others. Then deny the truth of the philosophy in the same breath.

[SusanStoHelit]

You do not have to believe in chemo for it to work - this is no faith healer quackery - this is science. It works whether you believe in it or not.

Notice how she fled when the X-ray revealled the tumor had GROWN - not shrunk - from her experiments in alternative medicine? I really wonder what that was about.

They tried chemo - the tumor shrank. They quit chemo, went to alternatives - the tumor grew. For most anyone that would be pure proof of which treatment worked. So why did she run?

[forrestlayne]

None of this has any relation to a boy with a highly curable fatal illness. This is nothing more than a parent allowing a child to suicide, sacrificing the child to their beliefs and preferences - and maybe even (since it's really not religious) - their inability to handle caring for their child during the treatments needed to save his life.
Posted by SusanStoHelit at 7:35 PM : May 25, 2009

IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THIS CASE. IT IS PARENTAL RIGHTS.

They are not declining treatment- they are declining chemo. Should not that be their right? They are choosing an alternative treatment not NO treatment. You think the AMA would ever endorse an alternative that would take away their patients and money? No doctor in America will support alternative medicines in public let alone in a court.

[gravyboat45]

His mother has no problem giving him 'alternative' medicine, what's the problem with giving him modern medicine that is proven to work in many cases?
Posted by rwsmith29456

Because they don't want it? Because chemo makes you very ill, and is a long process that requires it's recipiant to believe in it, and the family to support the loved one, and believe in it as well?

Because it's about the family the alternative treatment INSTEAD of chemo?

Because if they do both, then it's not,"alternative", is it?