Religion: A Death Sentence?

Colleen and Anthony Hauser are devout Roman Catholics, who also belong to the Nemenhah Band, a group that promotes beliefs and spirituality derived from Native American traditions.

When their son, Daniel, was diagnosed with Hodgkins lymphoma, they refused traditional medical treatments - instead pledging to 'cure' him with herbal supplements, vitamins and ionized water.

This, of course, had the side-effect of turning a highly curable condition like Hodgkins into a virtual death sentence. Despite the holistic treatment given to Daniel, court-ordered x-rays confirmed that the Hauser's treatment wasn't working and his tumor was continuing to grow.

As a result, a Minnesota judge last week ordered the Hausers to submit their son for traditional treatment - arguing that refusing the chemotherapy (and telling their son that such treatment would 'kill him') was nothing short of medical neglect.

But despite the evidence that she was effectively killing her son, Colleen and Daniel fled instead of undergoing chemotherapy - failing to turn up for court as demanded.

It's a tragic story - and one that's sharply polorized many people's opinion on parent's rights.

"Nanny knows best," writes Libertarian columnist Trevor Bothwell, sarcastically suggesting the the judge had reached his verdict "because chemotherapy apparently is a guaranteed cure for cancer. Because it's apparently painless. Because there apparently are no ill side effects. Because it apparently doesn't destroy every last healthy cell in the human body on the off-chance it will eradicate cancer cells."

Meanwhile, Atheist Michael Rosch defends the judge's decision: "This goes way beyond protecting the parents’ freedom of religion," he writes. "This should be a no-brainer decision." When it comes to Daniel's right to refuse treatment: "He's a minor, and not equipped to know the difference between real medicine and quackery."

The real killing blow? "The parents initially did agree to chemotherapy. It apparently wasn’t against their religion when they allowed his first treatment."

Since moving to America, I've become more and more open to the Libertarian-leanings of independent-minded Americans - but this is not a matter of personal or religious freedom. It's one thing to home school your kids with a Christian curriculum - it's another to actively deny them medical treatment that could save their lives.

As you'll know from this post, I'm deeply skeptical of the motives of pharmaceutical companies and the FDA - but even I believe them when they say that chemotherapy gives Daniel a 95% chance of survival. His parent's 'treatment' gives him the same percentage chance of dying.

Knowing that, how could any rational parent make the decision they did?

Religion makes people do some scary, scary things.

Cheerios are no longer my anti-drug...

Is my baby Boozer on drugs?

He is according to the Food and Drug Administration, who today slapped the wrist of cereal-manufacturer General Mills for 'misrepresenting' their flagship breakfast cereal 'Cheerios' (which Boo munches by the tiny fistful.)

In a 'strongly worded' letter, they argued:

Based on claims made on your product's label, we have determined that your Cheerios Toasted Whole Grain Oat Cereal is a drug - your Cheerios product bears the following claim on its label:

• "you can Lower Your Cholesterol 4% in 6 weeks"

This claim indicates that Cheerios is intended for use in lowering cholesterol, and therefore in preventing, mitigating, and treating the disease hypercholesterolemia. It may not be legally marketed with the above claims in the United States without an approved new drug application.

As a result of this appraisal, General Mills have been ordered to dial back their Cholesterol-reducing claims.

What grind my gears is that the FDA didn't demand this because General Mills weren't being honest about their product's potential to reduce Cholesterol ("Cheerios' health claims were not in question," the Financial Times argued.)

The Food and Drug administration had their nose out of joint because General Mills dared to market themselves as 'heart healthy' without first filing a drug application with the great, all powerful (and willfully corrupt) federal poombah known as the FDA.

The more I witness the shenanigans of federal bodies like the FDA and the FCC (who police radio and television broadcasts) the more I shake my head. Lobbyists are rife throughout both organizations and most of their decisions are politically (or financially) motivated.

The FDA's argument that Cheerios should be reclassified as a drug is just the latest strike in a campaign to stamp out any form of health or wellness product that isn't championed by pharmaceutical industry lobbyists (those FDA officials need their kickbacks, after all.)

Even now, they're attempting to have massage oil reclassified as a 'medical device' (for which, of course, you need FDA approval to market) and slap the 'drug' label on vitamins, herbs, supplements and even teabags.

This means natural, homeopathic products which offer real health benefits could be muscled out of the market entirely - to make way for artificial, patented drugs marketed by the pharma industry (which claim to do the same thing, but in a chemically altered form which they're allowed to patent.)

Of course I want dangerous supplements and products removed from the shelves (and the FDA has done well to get dangerous diet-drugs like ephedrine taken off the market) but I'm not convinced that this organization is motivated by purely altruistic reasons.

Some of the products they wish to ban offer cheaper, natural and more effective alternatives to modern drugs. Some of the modern drugs the FDA have approved are far more dangerous than some of the supplements we've been warned about:

For example, take anti-inflammatory Rofecoxib - marketed as Vioxx - which the FDA approved in 1999; it was still an 'approved' drug when manufacturer Merck pulled it from the shelves for causing kidney disease and heart arrhythmia.

Rather cynically, I've stopped trusting what the FDA tell us - I think the majority of their decisions are influenced by lobbyists and politicians, instead of the medical professionals we should be relying on.

And, as for Cheerios?

Well, whether this makes him a 'drug-addict' or not, Boo will still be allowed to eat them!