Of Two Minds A Bit On This One....

[Minimalist]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/conne...motherapy/

Connecticut’s top court rejects teen’s plea to end state-ordered chemotherapy

Connecticut’s top court on Thursday rejected a request by a teenager diagnosed with cancer to halt the state-ordered chemotherapy treatments she has been receiving, saying her rights had not been violated.

I suppose there needs to be a cut-off point but OTOH 17 is not 5 or 6.

[Silver]

I suppose there needs to be a cut-off point but OTOH 17 is not 5 or 6.

I agree. Mentally, there is practically no difference between almost legally adult and legal adult.

[Cato]

I read in another account that the reason given for non-treatment is that the mother and daughter both thought that the "poisonous" chemo was more dangerous than the cancer. In addition, the mother claims to not be letting her daughter die because she intends on pursuing alternative treatment options.

I think refusing treatment is a huge mistake, but the above and the fact that the girl turns 18 in September leads me to conclude that CT should let them be.

[Minimalist]

Ever know anyone who has taken chemo? It's a dreadful process and the idea seems to be that it kills the cancer a little faster than the rest of your body.

If the kid wanted an abortion I would support her right. I guess after thinking it over I have to come down on the side that says the state is being a little heavy-handed.

[TheRealJoeFish]

I tend to agree that a 17-year-old should be able to make her own medical decisions. I've long thought the age of legal autonomy (or what you will) should be lower than 18 (probably 15 or 16).

But what's the solution to problems like this? If we lower it to, say, 16, what happens when a kid who's 15.7 wants to refuse chemo? Is it just a little more palatable to force chemo on a 15-year-old than a 17-year-old? Or do we say that in a certain range (from 16 to 18) it's a case-by-case decision? That seems to open up far more problems than it would solve.

Tough situation.

[Cato]

Unfortunately I've seen loved ones go though the process, most recently my father-in-law (successfully). It's not hard to imagine death being preferable, a comment I heard frequently from my father-in-law, but an 85% chance and being young would make the effort worth it. It's something I hope to never experience.

[Jaysyn]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/conne...motherapy/

Connecticut’s top court rejects teen’s plea to end state-ordered chemotherapy

Connecticut’s top court on Thursday rejected a request by a teenager diagnosed with cancer to halt the state-ordered chemotherapy treatments she has been receiving, saying her rights had not been violated.

I suppose there needs to be a cut-off point but OTOH 17 is not 5 or 6.

I felt the same way until I read a transcript of the NPR interview with the mom. Dangerous anti-science nutjob. Thinks her daughter would be just fine without chemo. Hogkin's has a 99% fatality rate without chemo.

Also the teen told her doctors that she was refusing treatment because she didn't want to upset her mother.

FORTIN: This is not about death. My daughter is not going to die. This is about this is my body, my choice; let me decide.

She simply isn't credible as an activist for her daughter's rights since she is not capable of understanding the consequences of refusing treatment.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm sure Uncle Sam's hands can be washed, and that looks to be the whole point of contention. She ran away from excruciating pain forced upon her by the state - and the state used this to conclude that "she is not mature based on any standard". Good job, dumbasses. I'm sure she won;t just hang herself with her shoelaces in her comfy new state boarding house or anything, if she wants to die. If she just doesn't want their treatment, and her (now former, or soon to be former..apparently...gj there too) legal guardian is onboard...then the state is putting their slimy shaft up two asses.



Whats up Jaysyn...do people need permission from Connecticut to die, regardless of whether or not they intend to die or believe that they will die? Add our very lives to the list of things that belong to the state to make decisions upon, I guess.

[Minimalist]

Dangerous anti-science nutjob.

So what? The Congress is full of them.

[Faith No More]

Let her go. It's a sad situation, but the state doesn't have the right force something as nasty as chemotherapy upon a person, even if it will save their life.