Teen forced to continue chemotherapy against her will.

[Warpoet]

Yes, let's all pretend that there is no difference between a minor and an adult. We can give toddlers the vote while we're at it.

Absurd comparison. We're talking about a 17-year-old. There is no relevant difference in her ability to make this decision now versus if she were one year older.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Yes, let's all pretend that there is no difference between a minor and an adult. We can give toddlers the vote while we're at it.

Absurd comparison. We're talking about a 17-year-old. There is no relevant difference in her ability to make this decision now versus if she were one year older.

Ya, but the cutoff line needs to be somewhere. Along with that line, a process needs to be in place for those who are close to the line to see if they need to be moved over it. Both things are in place.

 

[Warpoet]

Ya, but the cutoff line needs to be somewhere. Along with that line, a process needs to be in place for those who are close to the line to see if they need to be moved over it. Both things are in place.

The latter is in place in some states. Some here seem to think it shouldn't exist at all, or, if we take their logic at face value, that the government should be making these decisions regardless of age.

 

[arkirk]

I feel all medical treatment needs to be consensual.

ALL medical treatment? How are hospitals expected to function if they can't perform medical treatment on unconscious patients, patients below the age of consent, patients drunk or high and unable to legally consent to anything, in emergency situations where the patient's life and health is in immediate risk?

That is easy to answer. Many times in this life you just find yourself guessing what a person might want. In this case and in similar cases, a patient's fear of and mental rejection of the treatment can indeed affect the efficacy of the treatment to the degree it becomes worthless. Obviously a person who is extremely intoxicated or unconscious is not to able to either consent or object. I agree I should have used the words all conscious patients capable of communicating.

The patient's state of mind is what I am pointing to. If they are unable to consent, there has to be a protocol to determine just how far one can go with their guessing. Sometimes an unconscious patient may have a piece of jewelry with instructions as to whether or not they are to be resuscitated. What I am really saying is that treatment should not violative of the patient's consent. No wakeful patient should be subjected to treatments simply on medical authority and without their consent.

 

[Toni]

Yes, let's all pretend that there is no difference between a minor and an adult. We can give toddlers the vote while we're at it.

Absurd comparison. We're talking about a 17-year-old. There is no relevant difference in her ability to make this decision now versus if she were one year older.

That is illogical. Most people grow in their knowledge base, understanding, emotional maturity level and ability to think ahead a great deal between the ages of 17 and 18 and each year. She isn't likely to get much taller but she will mature and grow mentally, emotionally, cognitively in the next 12 months. If she doesn't die first.

 

[Warpoet]

That is illogical. Most people grow in their knowledge base, understanding, emotional maturity level and ability to think ahead a great deal between the ages of 17 and 18 and each year. She isn't likely to get much taller but she will mature and grow mentally, emotionally, cognitively in the next 12 months. If she doesn't die first.

People grow mentally, emotionally and cognitively at all ages. There is no magical switch that is flipped on someone's 18th birthday that enables them to make these kinds of important decisions responsibly.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Feel free to cite a different number instead of just tossing one statistic and muddy the waters.

I don't recall the exact number I found.

The basic problem is that she has a stage 3/4 case (That's filtered through some reporter, I agree it doesn't make sense.) Look up the survival curve and it was only about 2/3 chance of 5-year survival which means the overall odds are even worse than that.

Cancer patients who live for 5 more years are considered "cured." They can be sick as dogs for those 5 years, have zero quality of life, then drop dead at five years and one second. And in cancer lingo they will go down statistically as being cured for 5 years.

The girl is clearly not considering this but it ought to be part of the discussion.

 

[Toni]

That is illogical. Most people grow in their knowledge base, understanding, emotional maturity level and ability to think ahead a great deal between the ages of 17 and 18 and each year. She isn't likely to get much taller but she will mature and grow mentally, emotionally, cognitively in the next 12 months. If she doesn't die first.

People grow mentally, emotionally and cognitively at all ages. There is no magical switch that is flipped on someone's 18th birthday that enables them to make these kinds of important decisions responsibly.

Exactly. So why empower her to make a foolish choice now, when there is absolutely not one shred of science that supports her cognitive and emotional ability to actually recognize her choices and the logical outcomes?

I absolutely support a person's right to die, as long as it is an informed choice. This is not an informed choice. In this case, this girl does NOT want to die. She wants to live. Unfortunately, she has been misled by her parents into believing that she does not need chemo to survive her lymphoma. Without medical treatment, she is unlikely to live long enough to find out that her parents are quite misinformed or willfully uninformed or just plain stupid.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What personal freedom? If she stays the course she won't have any freedom at all, she'll be dead, which isn't what she wants. In an absurd twist the US seems to be able to pride itself on, the court has to force a person to do what they don't want in order to see the outcome they do want.

So again, let's just force everyone else who refuses necessary treatments on non-scientific grounds to receive them while we're at it, since it's apparently the government's responsibility to make these decisions for them.

The teen wants to live. The teen made that decision.

 

[Davka]

Yes, let's all pretend that there is no difference between a minor and an adult. We can give toddlers the vote while we're at it.

Absurd comparison. We're talking about a 17-year-old. There is no relevant difference in her ability to make this decision now versus if she were one year older.

So where do we draw the line between minors and adults?

 

[Warpoet]

Exactly. So why empower her to make a foolish choice now, when there is absolutely not one shred of science that supports her cognitive and emotional ability to actually recognize her choices and the logical outcomes?

Because there is no logical reason why an 18-year-old should be allowed to make this decision, but a 17-year-old should not. Not one person arguing in favor of forcing treatment in these cases has presented one.

Regardless of WHY she is making a bad decision, her being 17 is not the issue. You are claiming that her parents are the reason, but her parents are decades beyond the age where this would even be an issue and have still not "grown" enough to see reason, thus undermining your argument.

The teen wants to live. The teen made that decision.

So, if she were one year older and refused treatment because she "wants to live," is the court allowed to force her to accept treatment because that'll achieve her desired outcome?

You can keep dodging the question if you want to. I'm not going to stop asking it.

So where do we draw the line between minors and adults?

There should not be an arbitrary line here. Given the implications of forcing medicine into someone's body against their will, there should be a process in place for these questions to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

That process exists to some extent, and did not rule in the patient's favor for reasons we don't know much about. But some here appear not to think that process should exist at all.

 

[Toni]

Because there is no logical reason why an 18-year-old should be allowed to make this decision, but a 17-year-old should not. Not one person arguing in favor of forcing treatment in these cases has presented one.

Regardless of WHY she is making a bad decision, her being 17 is not the issue. You are claiming that her parents are the reason, but her parents are decades beyond the age where this would even be an issue and have still not "grown" enough to see reason, thus undermining your argument.

The teen wants to live. The teen made that decision.

So, if she were one year older and refused treatment because she "wants to live," is the court allowed to force her to accept treatment because that'll achieve her desired outcome?

You can keep dodging the question if you want to. I'm not going to stop asking it.

So where do we draw the line between minors and adults?

There should not be an arbitrary line here. Given the implications of forcing medicine into someone's body against their will, there should be a process in place for these questions to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

That process exists to some extent, and did not rule in the patient's favor for reasons we don't know much about. But some here appear not to think that process should exist at all.

I think her age is a perfectly good reason and more importantly, it is within what the law allows. As stated before, i dont agree that 18 should be the legal definition of adulthood. i also dont think there is any way around an arbitrary legal age set as legal adulthood.

i agree that there can and perhaps should be a case by case review. In fact it is not rare for a woman to be ordered to undergo procedures against her will if she is pregnant, including forced c-sections, mandatory drug/alcohol rehab, for starters if she is pregnant.

 

[Davka]

So where do we draw the line between minors and adults?

There should not be an arbitrary line here. Given the implications of forcing medicine into someone's body against their will, there should be a process in place for these questions to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

That process exists to some extent, and did not rule in the patient's favor for reasons we don't know much about. But some here appear not to think that process should exist at all.

That's a nice utopian solution, but that's not the way laws generally work. Arbitrary lines are precisely what the law deals in, because any other type of line will end up being subjective.

 

[Archimedes]

Absurd comparison. We're talking about a 17-year-old. There is no relevant difference in her ability to make this decision now versus if she were one year older.

So where do we draw the line between minors and adults?

Obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere, but let's not get drawn into stupid hyperbolic arguments that imply that allowing a 17 year old to be able to make medical decisions that override her parents or legal guardians is the equivalent of giving 2 year old children legal rights similar to those of adults like voting, etc.

Is it really necessary to sink so low as to start talking about the rights and lack thereof of toddlers in an argument about the medical and legal rights of a 17 year old?

 

[Toni]

So where do we draw the line between minors and adults?

Obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere, but let's not get drawn into stupid hyperbolic arguments that imply that allowing a 17 year old to be able to make medical decisions that override her parents or legal guardians is the equivalent of giving 2 year old children legal rights similar to those of adults like voting, etc.

Is it really necessary to sink so low as to start talking about the rights and lack thereof of toddlers in an argument about the medical and legal rights of a 17 year old?

I'm not Davka but he was making a valid point: if it is wrong to not allow a 17 year old make her own decisions, should we allow a 16 year old to make the same decisions? Surely the difference between 16 and 17 is not greater or smaller than 17 & 18. What about 15? 14? 13? 12?

 

[TV and credit cards]

Obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere, but let's not get drawn into stupid hyperbolic arguments that imply that allowing a 17 year old to be able to make medical decisions that override her parents or legal guardians is the equivalent of giving 2 year old children legal rights similar to those of adults like voting, etc.

Is it really necessary to sink so low as to start talking about the rights and lack thereof of toddlers in an argument about the medical and legal rights of a 17 year old?

I'm not Davka but he was making a valid point: if it is wrong to not allow a 17 year old make her own decisions, should we allow a 16 year old to make the same decisions? Surely the difference between 16 and 17 is not greater or smaller than 17 & 18. What about 15? 14? 13? 12?

We do, if a court decides the individual possesses the maturity to make the decision.

 

[Davka]

I'm not Davka but he was making a valid point: if it is wrong to not allow a 17 year old make her own decisions, should we allow a 16 year old to make the same decisions? Surely the difference between 16 and 17 is not greater or smaller than 17 & 18. What about 15? 14? 13? 12?

We do, if a court decides the individual possesses the maturity to make the decision.

In this case, the court apparently did not think she had the maturity to make her own decision. Considering the foolishness of the decision she was trying to make, I am inclined to agree.

 

[Warpoet]

I think her age is a perfectly good reason and more importantly, it is within what the law allows.

People keep citing the law as if it addresses the ethical question at play here. It does not.

Again: her parents appear to think the exact same way she does despite decades of additional life experience. There are probably thousands if not millions of people their age or older with similar ideologies. The suggestion that age is the central problem with this sort of anti-scientific thinking does not stack up to evidence.

And since nobody seems willing to own up to the overarching implication of the logic being deployed here, which is that the government has the right to force people to accept medical treatment if their reasons for refusing it are shitty ones, the entire argument collapses.

As stated before, i dont agree that 18 should be the legal definition of adulthood. i also dont think there is any way around an arbitrary legal age set as legal adulthood.

i agree that there can and perhaps should be a case by case review.

The last sentence above contradicts pretty much everything before it, and is more or less what I've been saying the entire time.

- - - Updated - - -

That's a nice utopian solution, but that's not the way laws generally work.

Except it already does in a number of states. And rightfully so, given the seriousness of the matter.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The teen wants to live. The teen made that decision.

So, if she were one year older and refused treatment because she "wants to live," is the court allowed to force her to accept treatment because that'll achieve her desired outcome?

You can keep dodging the question if you want to. I'm not going to stop asking it.

I'm sorry, but until they develop a strip test to be able to tell the maturity of an individual, we are stuck with arbitrary lines. She should consider herself lucky. If she were 18, she'd be dead soon.

 

[Warpoet]

I'm sorry, but until they develop a strip test to be able to tell the maturity of an individual, we are stuck with arbitrary lines.

No, we aren't. People keep asserting this as though doing so enough times makes it true; it does not.

And again, I'll note that you didn't answer the question and are simply hiding behind a technicality.