Teen forced to continue chemotherapy against her will.

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

The "technicality" is called "the law". Arbitrary lines exist through out law. Age of consent, smoking, drinking, marrying, joining the military. There is no scientifically set reason why the exact age is what it is. It is what we have come to.

 

[Warpoet]

The "technicality" is called "the law".

I am aware. It is still a technicality, and does not speak to the moral issue that you keep dodging.

Age of consent, smoking, drinking, marrying, joining the military.

Not even remotely comparable.

There is no scientifically set reason why the exact age is what it is.

Which is why there needs to be a system in place to review these issues on a case-by-case basis.

Should I start keeping count of the number of times you've dodged my question? If the problem is that she's making a shitty decision that's going to cost her her life, why shouldn't the courts intervene if she were making the same decision at 18? Or 81? Don't hide behind what the law says. Give me an actual answer.

 

[Davka]

I am aware. It is still a technicality, and does not speak to the moral issue that you keep dodging.

Age of consent, smoking, drinking, marrying, joining the military.

Not even remotely comparable.

Actually, they are quite good comparisons. Each of these is a life-changing decision with profound consequences, and all but marrying carry potentially deadly consequences. There is a reason that we do not allow minors to make such decisions. There is a very good reason for setting age limits on emancipation, and why those age limits are only set aside in exceptional cases, in which the minor has demonstrated an unusual level of maturity and self-reliance.

 

[Warpoet]

Actually, they are quite good comparisons.

No, they aren't. None of those examples concern compulsory, state-sanctioned intrusion into a person's body. They are wholly separate.

See the bolded part of the SCOTUS precedent another poster linked to for an example of the law getting it right, at least in principle:

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.

 

[Archimedes]

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?

It's not really a valid point at all as the same silly argument can be made the other way.

If it's legal and moral to disallow people below the age of 18 from voting, then why not make the age of majority below 19, or 20, or 21, or 22, or 25, or 30, or 50?

Just because grey exists in these kind of discussions doesn't mean that black and white don't also exist and that you can't point at something and clearly and unambiguously declare it black or white. A 16 or 17 year old when it comes to legal matters is in the grey area at least from a moral and ethical point of view. A toddler isn't. Let's not get stupid and compare the legal and moral issues of a 17 year old with those of a 2 year old toddler.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

This thread has gotten me to wondering if we should do something similar with adults and crazy medical decisions. If the docs declare your decision dangerous and crazy you have to justify to the judge that you understand the implications. (I am not saying you shouldn't be allowed to refuse medical treatment. I'm saying that a refusal based on garbage shows you're not competent to take care of yourself.)

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

This thread has gotten me to wondering if we should do something similar with adults and crazy medical decisions. If the docs declare your decision dangerous and crazy you have to justify to the judge that you understand the implications. (I am not saying you shouldn't be allowed to refuse medical treatment. I'm saying that a refusal based on garbage shows you're not competent to take care of yourself.)

But if you're an adult, that doesn't matter. At some point, society needs to give people's idiocy a big fuck you.

 

[TV and credit cards]

This thread has gotten me to wondering if we should do something similar with adults and crazy medical decisions. If the docs declare your decision dangerous and crazy you have to justify to the judge that you understand the implications. (I am not saying you shouldn't be allowed to refuse medical treatment. I'm saying that a refusal based on garbage shows you're not competent to take care of yourself.)

Should Steve Jobs have been forbidden to attempt to cure cancer with vitamins and acupuncture? The world may have lost one of the greatest entrepreneurs of our time due to this poor decision. But to say you no longer have control of your body, that the government can step in in this specific instance breaks new ground.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This thread has gotten me to wondering if we should do something similar with adults and crazy medical decisions. If the docs declare your decision dangerous and crazy you have to justify to the judge that you understand the implications. (I am not saying you shouldn't be allowed to refuse medical treatment. I'm saying that a refusal based on garbage shows you're not competent to take care of yourself.)

Should Steve Jobs have been forbidden to attempt to cure cancer with vitamins and acupuncture? The world may have lost one of the greatest entrepreneurs of our time due to this poor decision. But to say you no longer have control of your body, that the government can step in in this specific instance breaks new ground.

Jobs was in a position where nothing was going to work. There's nothing wrong with trying a longshot in that case.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Should Steve Jobs have been forbidden to attempt to cure cancer with vitamins and acupuncture? The world may have lost one of the greatest entrepreneurs of our time due to this poor decision. But to say you no longer have control of your body, that the government can step in in this specific instance breaks new ground.

Jobs was in a position where nothing was going to work. There's nothing wrong with trying a longshot in that case.

That's not my understanding of it. Mine is that he was lucky enough (in cancer terms) to have a slow growing tumor with a strong likelihood of survival. Unfortunately, he tried to fight it for the first nine months with vitamins.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Age of consent, smoking, drinking, marrying, joining the military.

Not even remotely comparable.

Military service at the very least is identically comparable.

There is no scientifically set reason why the exact age is what it is.

Which is why there needs to be a system in place to review these issues on a case-by-case basis.

What do you think the court just did?

Should I start keeping count of the number of times you've dodged my question?

I wouldn't consider "not being able to come up with a strip test solution" being dodging a question.

If the problem is that she's making a shitty decision that's going to cost her her life, why shouldn't the courts intervene if she were making the same decision at 18? Or 81? Don't hide behind what the law says. Give me an actual answer.

I didn't say that she should be allowed to die because of her stupidity if she were 19 instead. But there is no legal recourse for the situation.

 

[Warpoet]

Military service at the very least is identically comparable.

No, it is not, by any reasonable understanding of the word "comparable." We are talking about the state forcefully intruding into a person's body against their will. None of your examples are comparable.

What do you think the court just did?

I'm aware of what the court did. The fact that it exists directly contradicts your assertion that we have to rely on arbitrary age limits when it comes to deciding these issues. We don't, and we shouldn't.

I wouldn't consider "not being able to come up with a strip test solution" being dodging a question.

I would, as would any rational person reading this, since your claim is null at best and not relevant to the moral question of whether or not the government should be allowed to force treatment on people simply because they refuse it for bad reasons.

I didn't say that she should be allowed to die because of her stupidity if she were 19 instead. But there is no legal recourse for the situation.

I know you didn't say that; you didn't say anything either way on the question, despite being asked directly several times. You just keep repeating what the law says, which is not an answer. That's what's known as "dodging the question." So I'll ask again, and in bold this time, on the off chance that it might elicit a real answer: regardless of what the law does or does not say, SHOULD the government be allowed to force an 18-year-old to accept treatment because he/she rejects it for irrational reasons?

 

[Juma]

No, it is not, by any reasonable understanding of the word "comparable." We are talking about the state forcefully intruding into a person's body against their will. None of your examples are comparable.

All of those examples afffects the body.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No, it is not, by any reasonable understanding of the word "comparable." We are talking about the state forcefully intruding into a person's body against their will. None of your examples are comparable.

We are talking about a life course decision. A 15 year old walking into the war zone is somewhat comparable to a 17 year old refusing life saving treatment.

What do you think the court just did?

I'm aware of what the court did. The fact that it exists directly contradicts your assertion that we have to rely on arbitrary age limits when it comes to deciding these issues. We don't, and we shouldn't.

You keep harmping on me about this. I don't know why. I'm hardly at peace with how the legal system is on this, but seeing this is currently the legal system we have, it is the law. You seem to want me to pretend that these rules, regulations, and laws don't exist because what they are demanding is based on arbitrary baselines.

I wouldn't consider "not being able to come up with a strip test solution" being dodging a question.

I would, as would any rational person reading this, since your claim is null at best and not relevant to the moral question of whether or not the government should be allowed to force treatment on people if they refuse it for bad reasons.

Please stop taking me out of context. The teen wants to live. She made her choice.

I didn't say that she should be allowed to die because of her stupidity if she were 19 instead. But there is no legal recourse for the situation.

I know you didn't say that; you didn't say anything either way on the question, despite being asked directly several times. You just keep repeating what the law says, which is not an answer. That's what's known as "dodging the question." So I'll ask again, and in bold this time, on the off chance that it might elicit a real answer: regardless of what the law does or does not say, SHOULD the government be allowed to force a 18-year-old to accept treatment if she rejects it for irrational reasons?

Why 18 years old? Why not 54?

It is a case by case deal.

 

[Warpoet]

We are talking about a life course decision. A 15 year old walking into the war zone is somewhat comparable to a 17 year old refusing life saving treatment.

Except no one is forcing 15-year-olds into battle. Which is the key difference, and why all of your comparisons fail.

You keep harmping on me about this. I don't know why. I'm hardly at peace with how the legal system is on this, but seeing this is currently the legal system we have, it is the law. You seem to want me to pretend that these rules, regulations, and laws don't exist because what they are demanding is based on arbitrary baselines.

No, I want you to explain why the laws (many of which do NOT rely on arbitrary age limits) are just ones, since you're so adamant about forcing medicine down peoples' throats. What is legally permissible and what is right are not one and the same.

Please stop taking me out of context. The teen wants to live. She made her choice.

I have not taken anything out of context. I am asking a clear, simple, direct question, and instead of answering it, you continue to dodge and misdirect.

Why 18 years old? Why not 54?

It is a case by case deal.

So, you agree with me then that there should be no arbitrary line, and that a 17-year-old should have some recourse for control over her body rather than simply being forced into accepting treatment?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So, you agree with me then that there should be no arbitrary line, and that a 17-year-old should have some recourse for control over her body rather than simply being forced into accepting treatment?

You see to be arguing along the lines of "I'm going to have my GOTCHA moment here!"

She is going to be treated. She'll likely see the outcome she wanted, ie to live. You seem to want to argue whether it is partly cloudy verse partly sunny.

 

[Warpoet]

You see to be arguing along the lines of "I'm going to have my GOTCHA moment here!"

You mean I want an answer to my question?

She is going to be treated. She'll likely see the outcome she wanted, ie to live. You seem to want to argue whether it is partly cloudy verse partly sunny.

Dodging ability: over 9000.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Jobs was in a position where nothing was going to work. There's nothing wrong with trying a longshot in that case.

That's not my understanding of it. Mine is that he was lucky enough (in cancer terms) to have a slow growing tumor with a strong likelihood of survival. Unfortunately, he tried to fight it for the first nine months with vitamins.

More aggressive treatment would have bought him more time, not a cure.

 

[bilby]

That's not my understanding of it. Mine is that he was lucky enough (in cancer terms) to have a slow growing tumor with a strong likelihood of survival. Unfortunately, he tried to fight it for the first nine months with vitamins.

More aggressive treatment would have bought him more time, not a cure.

Well it was very good of you to take time out of your busy schedule as an Oncologist to obtain and review his confidential case notes for our benefit. Thank you.

 

[TV and credit cards]

That's not my understanding of it. Mine is that he was lucky enough (in cancer terms) to have a slow growing tumor with a strong likelihood of survival. Unfortunately, he tried to fight it for the first nine months with vitamins.

More aggressive treatment would have bought him more time, not a cure.

This is my reference: My reference.
Walter Iasscson is no Oncologist either but, I have never heard if any more enlightening information came out on this.

According to Steve Jobs’ biographer, Walter Isaacson, the Apple AAPL +0.13% mastermind eventually came to regret the decision he had made years earlier to reject potentially life-saving surgery in favor of alternative treatments like acupuncture, dietary supplements and juices. Though he ultimately embraced the surgery and sought out cutting-edge experimental methods, they were not enough to save him.

Jobs’ cancer had been discovered by chance during a CT scan in 2003 to look for kidney stones, during which doctors saw a “shadow” on his pancreas. Isaacson told CBS’ 60 Minutes last night that while the news was not good, the upside was that the form of pancreatic cancer from which Jobs suffered (a neuroendocrine islet tumor) was one of the 5% or so that are slow growing and most likely to be cured.