A Lion in the House (2006)

A 225-minute documentary shot over six years at Cincinnati Children's Hospital, premiered at Sundance in 2006 and broadcast on PBS across two nights that June. It follows five children and their families. Timothy Woods, fifteen, has Hodgkin lymphoma; his cough and swollen neck were initially dismissed, he struggles with adherence and weight, responds briefly to an experimental regimen, then relapses into disease resistant to every combination tried, and dies. Alexandra Lougheed, diagnosed at five, has relapsed leukaemia, transplants and a fungal infection in her cheekbones that divides her parents over surgery; when the leukaemia returns they stop treatment and she dies at eight. Justin Ashcraft, nineteen, has endured ten years of leukaemia treatment; a stroke, paralysis and brain lesions follow a new therapy, and after a fruitless six weeks in Houston his family let him die in his sleep. Jennifer Moone finishes two years of chemotherapy and stays well, but loses IQ points and needs tutoring. Alex Fields, first misdiagnosed with asthma, completes fifteen months of chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin lymphoma and is told it will not return.

Spoilers throughout. Discussing the cancer storyline means discussing how this ends.

Almost everything. Because it was shot across six years rather than reconstructed, it captures what compressed drama cannot: the boredom, the repetition, the relapse that erases a year of progress, the cognitive late effects in a child who survived, the sibling who becomes clinically depressed, the mother who leaves her job and never goes back. It is unusually honest about money, following a single parent without a car and a nursing aide who cannot afford medication or unpaid leave. It shows clinicians disagreeing with each other and with parents, and it stays in the room for the moment when treatment stops being treatment and becomes something else. The children are allowed to be funny, rude, non-compliant and frightened rather than saintly.

Little is dramatised; the licence lies in selection and editing. Six years compress into under four hours, so plateaus disappear and outcomes can look faster and more fated than they were. Three of the five children die, which is not the general picture of childhood cancer today, when most children treated for leukaemia and lymphoma survive; viewers should not read that ratio as a statistic. The protocols filmed date from the late 1990s and early 2000s and have since changed considerably, so specific drugs, doses and transplant decisions should not be taken as current practice.

For childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, NCI lists fever, easy bruising or bleeding, petechiae, weakness or fatigue, pale skin, bone or joint pain, shortness of breath, painless swollen lymph nodes in the neck, underarm, abdomen or groin, pain or fullness below the ribs, loss of appetite, weight loss, abdominal pain, and frequent or persistent infections. Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma most often begin as painless swollen nodes, sometimes with fever, drenching night sweats, unexplained weight loss, itching, or a cough and breathlessness when nodes in the chest press on the airway, which is exactly the pattern the film shows being mistaken for asthma or a lingering cold. The single most important fact: there is no screening test for childhood cancer in children at average risk. Nothing at a routine well-child visit is designed to find it, and no blood test is recommended for symptom-free children. These cancers are found when a symptom persists and someone investigates, so the thing to act on is duration. Children with certain inherited predisposition syndromes are offered surveillance, but that is targeted, not population screening.

A film is not a diagnosis, and a dramatised illness is not a guide to your own. What a story like this is genuinely good for is lowering the barrier to a conversation you might otherwise put off.

If something in your body has changed and stayed changed for a few weeks, that is worth raising with a doctor — not because it is likely to be cancer, but because most of the time it will not be, and finding that out is the point. Where screening exists for a cancer, it is the one thing you can do before anything is wrong at all. See screening and possible warning signs.

Cancer Explained is free and ad-free. Nothing is sold on this page and no sponsor sits behind it.

If this helped you understand something, or moved you to ask a question you had been avoiding, you can help keep clear cancer information free for whoever needs it next. Support our work.

A Lion in the House is worth watching as a film. It is not a guide to the disease it portrays. The gap between the two is what this page is for — and the thing worth carrying away is that a change which persists is worth a conversation, whatever a story led you to expect.

This page describes a work of film or television for education. It is not medical advice, and nothing here is a judgement of anyone's real medical care. Spotted an error? Please email [email protected].