Hodgkin's lymphoma is a highly curable form of cancer when treated with chemotherapy and radiation. But Daniel Hauser (a young teenager) and his parents rejected chemotherapy after a single treatment, with the boy's mother saying that putting toxic substances in the body violates the family's religious convictions. Daniel's mother  said she had been treating the boy's cancer instead with herbal supplements, vitamins, ionized water and other natural alternatives - a regimen based mostly on information she found on the Internet. Since then the disease has advanced, and Daniel's mother has abducted him away from his concerned oncologist in Minnesota.

The Society for Integrative Oncology advocates the best scientifically proven standards for cancer treatment and distinguishes clearly between helpful evidence-based and safe complementary therapies used to reduce symptoms and to help patients cope, in contrast to so-called alternative therapies that are bogus interventions often promoted for commercial gain. In this case, the Hausers have pursued a path of alternatives therapies which cannot be condoned by any rational arguments.

So why do some patients turn to alternative therapies? There are multiple reasons including exasperation with the treatment they have received in traditional care modalities, are terrified of the adverse reactions to conventional therapies, or desperate for a cure, having been told that their cancer is incurable. In this case, it would appear that the oncology staff were exceedingly compassionate and concerned, and had indicated clearly the high probability of cure with chemotherapy, albeit with adverse effects that are minimized as much as possible.

Alternative therapies provide  short-term hope, but are not usually successful. With few anecdotal exceptions, if conventional therapies offer an evidence-based opportunity for long-term benefit, then substituting an unproven alternative treatment may result in losing the best opportunity for survival. This is clearly futile gambling with one's life and diminished personal responsibility. Pundits for alternative therapies often argue that they have been suppressed by the establishment, despite the fact that the Office of Cancer Complementary and Alternative Medicine of the National Cancer Institute (OCCAM) provides ample opportunity for innovative research on best case series(1, 2). Unjustified Pollyanna branding of alternative therapies has negatively influenced patients in deciding to enter clinical trials.

The term “complementary therapy” (or “complementary medicine”) is to be distinguished from “alternative medicine.” Historically, the two are bundled together under the term “complementary and alternative therapies” (CAM). Alternative therapies are typically promoted as viable treatment options: “alternatives” to so-called mainstream therapies such as chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery. Alternative therapies are unproved, rarely based on credible scientific rationale, and potentially harmful—especially when patients are led away from effective, proven therapies by the lure of false promises and an emphasis on a lack of adverse side effects as compared with conventional therapies (4,5). There is no alternative to scientifically evaluated, evidence-based medicine. Most patients who use unconventional therapies (all but 2%) do so to complement rather than to replace mainstream treatment (6). However, because of desperation or fear, or because of inadequate support and communication, patients may seek alternative therapies.