• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

APNewsBreak: Girl says she knows she'll die without chemo

Was the court's decision correct?

  • Yes

    Votes: 9 36.0%

  • No

    Votes: 13 52.0%

  • Don't know / Not sure

    Votes: 3 12.0%
  • Total voters
    25
danarhea said:
No. The Independent Payment Advisory Board, which was created under the Affordable Care Act, has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. Her treatment has absolutely nothing to do with "Nationalization" of health care, as you put it. This case was decided by the State of Connecticut.

And please, one last time, stop derailing the discussion, and please stop the baiting.
Click to expand...

:roll: The "derail" was started by TDS - you aren't responding to him, because you are supporting your Tribe. I got it. In the meantime, inasmuch as the topic is "does the government have the right to make these kinds of decisions", well, actually, yeah, IPAB does indeed have relevance.
 
cpwill said:
:roll: The "derail" was started by TDS - you aren't responding to him, because you are supporting your Tribe. I got it. In the meantime, inasmuch as the topic is "does the government have the right to make these kinds of decisions", well, actually, yeah, IPAB does indeed have relevance.
Click to expand...

So now you want to make it personal? OK, I can go for that. 'Ya ready? LOL.

'Ya know, until now, I felt sorry for you, because I thought you had been brainwashed by a retarded wombat. Then I realized that the wombat didn't have any eyedroppers, so he couldn't have brainwashed you. You are just a freakin' idiot, that's all. And again, IPAB does not even apply in this case, but you wouldn't know it because you are even more retarded than that retarded wombat I had previously thought brainwashed you.

Report THAT, bitch!! :mrgreen:

And, yea, this is definitely worth it,..... 'Ya freakin' jerk. LOL.
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
Yep. Most completely cured.

Hodgkins is one of the most treatable of cancers.
Click to expand...
If what you say is true, what kind of mother would allow her own child to refuse this sort of treatment? Perhaps the state was right to step in and basically take over guardianship of this minor.
 
Threegoofs said:
Yep. Most completely cured.

Hodgkins is one of the most treatable of cancers.
Click to expand...

Wasn't always that way. My wife's father died of Hodgkins. However, they gave him 6 months to live, and he stayed alive for 10 years.
 
There is no place for the government to do this.
 
As a citizen, I voted "No" on principle because I don't believe the government has the right to enforce "life" on anyone against their will.

As a parent, I'd have more trouble with it, because a teenager's brain is not completely formed, and I might struggle with the option of using my parental rights to insist my child be saved if at all possible.

However, the government should have had no say in it at all. The only exception is when a very young child is being denied life-saving treatment by parents because of their own personal beliefs.
 
Fletch said:
If what you say is true, what kind of mother would allow her own child to refuse this sort of treatment? Perhaps the state was right to step in and basically take over guardianship of this minor.
Click to expand...

Maybe the mother is a Christian Scientist. Or maybe the mother feels that her daughter is adult enough to make the decision for herself. Or maybe the mother agrees with the child that the treatment amounts to poison. For whatever reason, why does the government believe it has the right to force the child do to something she does not want to do? Also, at what age does a child become an adult?
 
DiAnna said:
As a citizen, I voted "No" on principle because I don't believe the government has the right to enforce "life" on anyone against their will.

As a parent, I'd have more trouble with it, because a teenager's brain is not completely formed, and I might struggle with the option of using my parental rights to insist my child be saved if at all possible.

However, the government should have had no say in it at all. The only exception is when a very young child is being denied life-saving treatment by parents because of their own personal beliefs.
Click to expand...

So at what age do you draw the line? If its more at a stage of development-what stage?
 
danarhea said:
Maybe the mother is a Christian Scientist. Or maybe the mother feels that her daughter is adult enough to make the decision for herself. Or maybe the mother agrees with the child that the treatment amounts to poison. For whatever reason, why does the government believe it has the right to force the child do to something she does not want to do? Also, at what age does a child become an adult?
Click to expand...
The legal age is 18 I believe and that makes this girl a minor. Generally speaking, minors don't have rights of their own but have guardians who are supposed to look out for those rights until the child is an adult. If you have a guardian who puts a child at risk, it is common and acceptable practice for the state to remove the child and take over the role of guardian. I don't know enough about this particular case but that sounds like what has happened.
 
Fletch said:
The legal age is 18 I believe and that makes this girl a minor. Generally speaking, minors don't have rights of their own but have guardians who are supposed to look out for those rights until the child is an adult. If you have a guardian who puts a child at risk, it is common and acceptable practice for the state to remove the child and take over the role of guardian. I don't know enough about this particular case but that sounds like what has happened.
Click to expand...

In Connecticut, and a few other states, the concept of "Mature Minor" is valid in the courts. This case centered on whether or not she was mature enough to make the decision.
 
Fletch said:
If what you say is true, what kind of mother would allow her own child to refuse this sort of treatment? Perhaps the state was right to step in and basically take over guardianship of this minor.
Click to expand...

Yep.

I think the stats (off the top of my head) are that about 60% are disease free at 10 years post treatment and 90% are alive at 10 years- very good numbers. Repeat treatment, especially if it worked the first time, is almost as effective as initial therapy.

This is a very reasonable decision,
 
danarhea said:
In Connecticut, and a few other states, the concept of "Mature Minor" is valid in the courts. This case centered on whether or not she was mature enough to make the decision.
Click to expand...
If the treatment has an 85% chance of saving her life and she chooses not to take it, I question whether she is truly mature enough to make that decision. Don't you?
 
danarhea said:
In Connecticut, and a few other states, the concept of "Mature Minor" is valid in the courts. This case centered on whether or not she was mature enough to make the decision.
Click to expand...

And based on her decision (and the reason she gives 'treatment is poison'), she's clearly not mature. Not surprising...neither is her mother.
 
danarhea said:
So now you want to make it personal? OK, I can go for that. 'Ya ready? LOL.
Click to expand...

:) Sorry - hit a nerve?


:shrug: the point remains the same. Not only was the individual who bent this conversation into the national sphere not me, but in fact the IPAB is relevant to the discussion of whether or not government has a role to play in these decisions.

You may argue that a Court System is uniquely better situated to make these decisions than unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats (which would be interesting, given how many judges fit that description) if you like, but that would actually require you to be germane :)
 
Anywho, It would be interesting to read this thread in the light of this one. I see an interesting juxtaposition.
 
The girl wants to commit suicide and that as of now is illegal so what is the issue here?
 
IMO the mother has had more (likely incorrect) influence over her daughter's decision than her doctors. While this influence isnt surprising, the odds are this is the mother's wish and the daughter now believes it as well. I would still think that the doctors know the best treatment. These things have to be weighed very carefully, there are many variables in someone's condition and available treatments. I cant help but think multiple doctors have a better grasp of that.

Chemo can be very damaging but we also know a great deal more about those effects now.
 
cpwill said:
The IPAB
Click to expand...

Looks like you missed the memo the IPAB is pretty much " toast ".

From a Jan. 2014 article

Reform Update: Its funding gutted, IPAB fades into background


But all of the noise surrounding IPAB has since subsided, and news that Congress gutted the program raises questions about the panel's relevance.

“It's sort of an academic discussion,” said Dr. Robert Berenson, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, a left-of-center think tank. Berenson said IPAB was always intended as a “safety valve” if per-capita cost growth in Medicare surpassed targets, and there has been no need to pull the trigger.

Total Medicare spending per enrollee grew just 0.7% in 2012, even slower than the 2.5% growth rate in 2011, economists in the CMS Office of the Actuary reported this month.

“And yet it's still politically like gunpowder,” Berenson said. “You have a bunch of groups that continually attack it. So I assume the administration doesn't want to have to defend IPAB when it doesn't serve any practical purpose at this point,” he continued. “More importantly, the appointees have to go through hearings to be approved and they didn't even put Don Berwick up,” he said, referring to the Harvard-trained physician who President Barack Obama appointed as CMS administrator during a congressional recess. Berwick departed from his post in late 2011 and never went through the Senate confirmation process.
Click to expand...

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20140124/NEWS/301249973
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
But she will die if not given the chemo. How does that translate to a "death panel", where the government would mandate a death?
Click to expand...

I know. being against this ruling is like wanting assisted suicide on demand for anyone that asks. She's a minor and scared kid who was dealt a bad hand but when she is cured she wlll be grateful to be alive. I would just make sure she gets plenty of marijuana for the side effects and she will get thru it fine. Many who receive Chemo happily have no where near those odds. We should not let her commit suicide when she has hope for a normal life.
 
Last edited:
lizzie said:
No, the government should NOT have rights in this decision. Who makes the decision that what the government has decided, is the right decision? This isn't a moral issue. It's one of the right to self-determination wrt living and dying.
Click to expand...

So you support assisted suicide on demand even when the patient has a chance for a normal life? Do you think we should set up suicide clinics for people who don't want to live anymore for whatever reason? Even for minors? I Believe in assisted suicide but for terminally ill patients only and only if they are suffering and have no hope of regaining their health. Death isn't all its cracked up to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom