Apparently, the U.S. government is attempting to force chemotherapy on a thirteen year-old boy from Minnesota who refuses the western method for treatment of cancer. From what I understand, Daniel Hauser does not believe he should be forced into a treatment that does not prove 100% positive results. Admittedly, I do not know much about American medicine, or any other form of medicine, for that part. The point of this hub is not to persuade anyone against chemotherapy, or any other medicine for that matter, but in contrast I wish to invade the legitimacy of court interference.

I understand that the United States' Court System has the best interests of American citizens in mind, or at least it does ideally. What I do not understand is how any branch of the government believes it has the ability or jurisdiction over personal matters. Hauser's beliefs about the treatment of his own body are in no way a matter for political debate. I understand that he is young and probably misinformed about the chemo process, and possibly about the effects of Hodgkins lymphoma, but does that mean that his government should intervene and force him to make the decision that is "best?" After all, do we not all die? So far, everyone in history has died at some point or another, with the exception of the very small percentage of us still alive on this planet, but in consideration of scientific facts, we can logically conclude that this small percentage will also pass away, whether naturally or in freak accidents. 

Is it within the reach of the court system to decide how this boy dies? He is not actively committing suicide, but instead allowing himself to either die of natural causes or possibly beat this disease. Unless he continues down the natural remedies path, we will not know whether or not he actually can overcome this disease on his own. I am no conspiracy theorist, but I do know a few (whom I consider a little wacky, myself), and they brought up a very good point: In our world, money is god. What if there are actually holistic approaches to battle cancer, and these approaches happen to be less (severely less) lucrative for, oh let's say, the FDA, AMA, and the countless insurance organizations in America? What if it is in our government's best interests to control this boy's decisions regarding his health? Would such organizations have incentive to intervene in this boy's personal life to prevent unwanted information to leak out? It should seem that our courts are overstepping their boundaries.

I know this seems off track, but it ties into the Daniel Hauser discussion, I promise. On a broad scale, I could say that "the government" is behind all of this, and this whole ordeal is so fat-cats in "the political machine" can continue to fatten their pockets. This is the statement of a paranoid schizophrenic. It is plausible, however, and you can research the amount of money spent by drug companies with an interest in the illegal state of marijuana on the campaigns of politicians. I don't mean to be all Mr. Smith Goes to Washington on you, but I think anyone with any direct interaction with the human race can see how easy it is to severely influence us. Again, money=god to many people, and the cost is cheap for the vast majority, I should assume. The Minnesota court system is overstepping its boundaries. I understand that we must protect our children from negative influences, but does that extend to complete censorship of ideas? Does that desire extend an invitation to government organizations allowing them to intervene in our lives based on their limited understanding of our values and beliefs? Suppose Hauser, who cites a difference of beliefs with the chemotherapy route, is going to die at an early age, but keeping him alive through direct, unnatural, forced intervention only really accomplishes significantly diminishing his quality of life, and therefore, his unique personality and love for the life he leads. Was chemotherapy the best choice? Just from reading the side effects of chemotherapy, which are astounding and horrible, one can see that it is not necessarily even a considerable method. Jon Barron, an albeit possibly uncredited source, explains that tamoxifen claims to reduce breast cancer by 49%, and does so in the measly 1.3% of the cases that it treats, while also causing different forms of cancer in many other instances of use (http://www.curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=335650). 

Aside from all of the opinionated information I just gave regarding chemotherapy, I really want to focus on one major theme, here, that I hope to get you thinking about: Government Control Over Our Lives. Does anyone out there really want an organization of people who are not much, if at all in any way, better than yourself making your life decisions and forcing you to try to live your life according to their plan? If this group of officials can tell me what chemically manufactured medicine to take on a regular basis (and physically force me to take them through sedation), then where do they, or we, draw the line? It scares the bejesus out of me. So what do you think? I am open all day to discussion, questions, or contest. In fact, I would really love for someone to break this down for me in a simple way. Think about it and get back to me.

Love, TheEveryman

Now, I do not support drug use, on any level or by any means, but I disagree with our government's stance of prohibition. According to www.drugs.com, Alprazolam (Xanax) is used to treat depression. Marijuana is also used to treat depression. Alprazolam may cause seizures, swollen or blistered skin, hallucinations, and mood changes (including DEPRESSION). Marijuana is known to cause mild hallucinations, but aside from that, it is said to treat depression effectively. Pfizer, the drug company that makes Xanax, spends millions of dollars per year lobbying for their drugs. Marijuana, on the other hand, is virtually unrepresented, seeing as how its illegal. Again, I do not support the use of drugs on any level. Thus, marijuana and xanax are both taboo in my book. I do find it interesting, however, that our government allows prescribed use of Alprazolam, but refuses doctors the ability to prescribe marijuana to their patients. A key difference in these two drugs is not that marijuana is a much simpler substance that grows naturally in the ground, but rather that Pfizer is a large money-making corporation that supports individuals within the political sphere and the cartels that generate marijuana do not. Aside from NORML, there are basically no firms to lobby in favor of marijuana. Humorously, this might suggest that there aren't that many pot heads in this country, due to the negative effects that pot has on all of its victims.