Teen forced to continue chemotherapy against her will.

[Playball40]

What are your thoughts? Should a 17 year old be able to decide for herself?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/court-hears-case-of-teen-refusing-cancer-treatment/

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If her decisions are based on a reasonable understanding of the medical condition, yes.

From the NPR story, the mother is certain the daughter can survive without treatment, so I don't think the hurdle is passed at all.

"They are also killing her body. They are killing her organs. They're killing her insides. It's not even a matter of dying. She's not going to die," Fortin said.

The teen has a disease that will kill her. Treatment will likely save her life (85% according to the NPR report). This isn't about a terminal patient who wants to die in peace. So fuck her freedom and save her life so she can live to whine about it later.

This shit pisses me off. It is as bad as the anti-vaccination crowd.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No.

We had a similar case up here in Canada last year where some parents wanted to deny chemo to their kid in order to have her receive some kind of weird aboriginal treatment. The courts said that this was their right and I disagreed with that.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/aboriginal/aboriginal-right-to-refuse-chemotherapy-for-child-spurs-debate-1.2854317

It's really no different than a parent denying medical care to a child because they prefer to pray the disease away.

If you're an adult, feel free to drop dead from whatever stupidity amuses you. If you're a child, there's a higher level of responsibility needed and if the parents aren't willing to provide that then the courts need to step in. There's a provision for patients of her age to be treated like adults if they've displayed the maturity necessary to make these decisions but I agree with the judge that she clearly has not done so.

 

[bigfield]

I agree with the court decision.

The medical evidence makes it clear that discontinuing the treatment will kill Cassandra.

The patient cannot make the decision, because she is a minor and demonstrably not mature enough to decide to die. The parents must make the decision.

If the parents choose to discontinue the treatment, then they are guilty of neglect, and the decision must be taken out of their hands.

Therefore Cassandra must be forced, either by her parents or by protective services, to continue the treatment.


Strikes an interesting contrast with the matter of pregnant minors undergoing abortion.

 

[TV and credit cards]

The girl does not have the option according to CT state law prior to her eighteenth birthday. She is pushing the state to recognize her right anyways.

No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestioned authority of law.

I was initially searching for a reason why she came to this decision like, will there be some effect on her quality of life afterwards should she proceed with the chemo but 'why' isn't the issue. If she is of sound mind and everything I've read thus far says she is, she should be allowed to make this choice. "Mature minor doctrine" aside, her parent is supporting her decision.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I don't know. This is like a madman proclaiming that the bullet in the chamber of the gun he is holding to his head will not harm him, but stop his visions.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The girl does not have the option according to CT state law prior to her eighteenth birthday. She is pushing the state to recognize her right anyways.

No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestioned authority of law.

I was initially searching for a reason why she came to this decision like, will there be some effect on her quality of life afterwards should she proceed with the chemo but 'why' isn't the issue. If she is of sound mind and everything I've read thus far says she is, she should be allowed to make this choice. "Mature minor doctrine" aside, her parent is supporting her decision.

Her parent thinks her daughter's life is not at risk. That is the source of this ridiculousness. Intolerable ignorance should not be an excuse to withhold treatment of this teen for a 6 in 7 chance of surviving.

 

[Davka]

If she had only a tiny shot at survival with chemo, she'd have a point. But as it stands, she really doesn't.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

The girl does not have the option according to CT state law prior to her eighteenth birthday. She is pushing the state to recognize her right anyways.
I was initially searching for a reason why she came to this decision like, will there be some effect on her quality of life afterwards should she proceed with the chemo but 'why' isn't the issue. If she is of sound mind and everything I've read thus far says she is, she should be allowed to make this choice. "Mature minor doctrine" aside, her parent is supporting her decision.

Her parent thinks her daughter's life is not at risk. That is the source of this ridiculousness. Intolerable ignorance should not be an excuse to withhold treatment of this teen for a 6 in 7 chance of surviving.

I'd also point out that they are in the position to influence her beyond what any other person would be able to.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If she had only a tiny shot at survival with chemo, she'd have a point. But as it stands, she really doesn't.

Which is supposed to be a good thing! She can live. Live god damn it!

 

[Warpoet]

As another poster pointed out, why is not the issue here and so most of the outrage over her reasoning is beside the point. The issue is whether people CAN think rationally, not whether they choose to. A year from now there would be no legal issue at all even if she made the exact same decision for the exact same reasons.

When we are talking about forcing people to accept medication they don't want, I don't find "fuck her freedom, it's good for her" to be a very rational or persuasive argument.

I'd need to see more information about why the justices decided she wasn't mature enough to make this decision herself.

 

[Juma]

The patient cannot make the decision, because she is a minor and demonstrably not mature enough to decide to die.

Yeah, because we all know that when you turn 18 a flip is switched and you magically gain the ability to think rationally

As another poster pointed out, why is not the issue here and so most of the outrage over her reasoning is beside the point. The issue is whether people CAN think rationally, not whether they choose to. A year from now there would be no legal issue at all even if she made the exact same decision for the exact same reasons.

When we are talking about forcing people to accept medication they don't want, I don't find "fuck her freedom, it's good for her" to be a very rational or persuasive argument.

I'd need to see more information about why the justices decided she wasn't mature enough to make this decision herself.

This is not so much about the tern as her parents!

 

[Warpoet]

This is not so much about the tern as her parents!

I don't think parents should be allowed to make these sorts of decisions that endanger their children, but if a 17-year-old can demonstrate that they are of sound mind and understand the gravity of their situation at the level an adult would, I don't accept the argument that the government can force them to accept treatment.

Apparently that threshold was not met in this case, but there's not a lot of information in the article as to why not.

 

[coloradoatheist]

This is not so much about the tern as her parents!

I don't think parents should be allowed to make these sorts of decisions that endanger their children, but if a 17-year-old can demonstrate that they are of sound mind and understand the gravity of their situation at the level an adult would, I don't accept the argument that the government can force them to accept treatment.

Apparently that threshold was not met in this case, but there's not a lot of information in the article as to why not.

It's an interesting quesiton because she could turn around and ask for an emancipation from her parent and then choose her own fate. It's been decided that 18 is the age to make a medical decision.

 

[Warpoet]

It's an interesting quesiton because she could turn around and ask for an emancipation from her parent and then choose her own fate. It's been decided that 18 is the age to make a medical decision.

Lots of things have been "decided" by the government, but that doesn't make them right. I don't see any rational reason why a teenager who is capable of making a decision with same clarity of mind as an adult shouldn't be allowed to.

Whether or not that's the case in this specific instance is a separate question.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As another poster pointed out, why is not the issue here and so most of the outrage over her reasoning is beside the point.

To the contrary. Her reasoning is of significant issue. The fact that she thinks (as comes from her mother) she can survive this without a doubt is the key to demonstrate she isn't mature enough to understand the facts of her health situation.

When we are talking about forcing people to accept medication they don't want, I don't find "fuck her freedom, it's good for her" to be a very rational or persuasive argument.

I'd need to see more information about why the justices decided she wasn't mature enough to make this decision herself.

The problem is she doesn't understand the facts. She thinks survival is certain. She wants to live, but is choosing a course that will kill her. That isn't a particularly mature decision making strategy.

 

[Warpoet]

To the contrary. Her reasoning is of significant issue. The fact that she thinks (as comes from her mother) she can survive this without a doubt is the key to demonstrate she isn't mature enough to understand the facts of her health situation.

By your reasoning, when she turns 18, she still shouldn't be allowed to make this decision because she isn't able to do so rationally.

 

[coloradoatheist]

It's an interesting quesiton because she could turn around and ask for an emancipation from her parent and then choose her own fate. It's been decided that 18 is the age to make a medical decision.

Lots of things have been "decided" by the government, but that doesn't make them right. I don't see any rational reason why a teenager who is capable of making a decision with same clarity of mind as an adult shouldn't be allowed to.

Whether or not that's the case in this specific instance is a separate question.

I agree with you. If she understands the argument and what her options are then I think she should be allowed since she's over 16.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

To the contrary. Her reasoning is of significant issue. The fact that she thinks (as comes from her mother) she can survive this without a doubt is the key to demonstrate she isn't mature enough to understand the facts of her health situation.

By your reasoning, when she turns 18, she still shouldn't be allowed to make this decision because she isn't able to do so rationally.

Yeah. That isn't the law, though.

By my logic if Patient A wants to live, then she shouldn't undergo a plan of treatment that has very little chance of doing it.

 

[coloradoatheist]

By your reasoning, when she turns 18, she still shouldn't be allowed to make this decision because she isn't able to do so rationally.

Yeah. That isn't the law, though.

By my logic if Patient A wants to live, then she shouldn't undergo a plan of treatment that has very little chance of doing it.

So society gets to decide how long you live and how you live? A lot of people make very bad decisions about their life. Can government decide whether or not posting on this board is beneficial or harmful to your health?