• 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

tres borrachos said:
She isn't 6. She's 17. Her body...her choice. The state also gives her the right to marry, drive, terminate a pregnancy, and a host of other things without her parents' consent.

The state is out of line here. It's up to her and her parents. I do not care for big government and this is an example of why and when.
Click to expand...

At what age should a minor have the right to let themselves die?

At what age is it her body her choice?

When does it cross the line from being up to the parents and up to the state?

Marrying, driving, and terminating a pregnancy, are very different decisions than suicide.
 
Verax said:
Doesn't really make any sense to me either.
Click to expand...

It personally makes no sense to me as a mother because I would do anything and everything to make sure my kids survive anything. But that's not really what's at hand here. The state didn't rule as they did because they think it doesn't make sense. That shouldn't be considered. It should be what is within her constitutional rights.
 
Verax said:
At what age should a minor have the right to let themselves die?

At what age is it her body her choice?

When does it cross the line from being up to the parents and up to the state?

Marrying, driving, and terminating a pregnancy, are very different decisions than suicide.
Click to expand...

1. No clue
2. Constitutionally from the day she is born
3. When there is a clear case of abuse and neglect and when the child isn't old enough to make decisions about her body (which is not the case here)
4. Her body, her choice....suicide should fall in that
 
You know, a lot of research being done on Hodgkins. They may very well come up with a cure before hers becomes life threatening. The doctors and the state are on very shaky ground here.
 
For me, it's the same type of case of Jehovah's witness refusing a blood transfusion for their child to save his life... I know that these cases popped once in awhile in the last few years but can't remember the outcome, so if anyone can refresh me...

Grey area here is the girl's age: 17 is close to legal capabilities of deciding for oneself, but still below. So, and depending on previous similar cases, I would side on 'forcing' the treatment (you could also argue hippocrat's oath there ;))
 
IceteaGreen said:
For me, it's the same type of case of Jehovah's witness refusing a blood transfusion for their child to save his life... I know that these cases popped once in awhile in the last few years but can't remember the outcome, so if anyone can refresh me...

Grey area here is the girl's age: 17 is close to legal capabilities of deciding for oneself, but still below. So, and depending on previous similar cases, I would side on 'forcing' the treatment (you could also argue hippocrat's oath there ;))
Click to expand...

Actually, the doctors in compelling this are indeed breaking the Hippocratic Oath:

I swear by Apollo the physician, and Aesculapius the surgeon, likewise Hygeia and Panacea, and call all the gods and goddesses to witness, that I will observe and keep this underwritten oath, to the utmost of my power and judgment.

I will reverence my master who taught me the art. Equally with my parents, will I allow him things necessary for his support, and will consider his sons as brothers. I will teach them my art without reward or agreement; and I will impart all my acquirement, instructions, and whatever I know, to my master's children, as to my own; and likewise to all my pupils, who shall bind and tie themselves by a professional oath, but to none else.

With regard to healing the sick, I will devise and order for them the best diet, according to my judgment and means; and I will take care that they suffer no hurt or damage.

Nor shall any man's entreaty prevail upon me to administer poison to anyone; neither will I counsel any man to do so. Moreover, I will get no sort of medicine to any pregnant woman, with a view to destroy the child.

Further, I will comport myself and use my knowledge in a godly manner.

I will not cut for the stone, but will commit that affair entirely to the surgeons.

Whatsoever house I may enter, my visit shall be for the convenience and advantage of the patient; and I will willingly refrain from doing any injury or wrong from falsehood, and (in an especial manner) from acts of an amorous nature, whatever may be the rank of those who it may be my duty to cure, whether mistress or servant, bond or free.

Whatever, in the course of my practice, I may see or hear (even when not invited), whatever I may happen to obtain knowledge of, if it be not proper to repeat it, I will keep sacred and secret within my own breast.
If I faithfully observe this oath, may I thrive and prosper in my fortune and profession, and live in the estimation of posterity; or on breach thereof, may the reverse be my fate![4]
Click to expand...

Hippocratic Oath - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Btw, I bolded the last sentence just for ****s and giggles. Pretty much puts an end to abortion.
 
tres borrachos said:
1. No clue
2. Constitutionally from the day she is born
3. When there is a clear case of abuse and neglect and when the child isn't old enough to make decisions about her body (which is not the case here)
4. Her body, her choice....suicide should fall in that
Click to expand...

You're just leaving everything up in the air and not elaborating, that is not the way law and order works. The state can't decide when and when not to act based on personal decisions, there has to be a strict protocol. How can you say the state is wrong when you can't articulate what the proper rules should be?

2 and 4. You say she is born with that right and then say suicide falls in that category. So basically you're saying a child is born with the right to kill themselves at any time should they choose? Following that logic should they also be allowed to self harm? cut? drink alcohol, smoke? have sex? not go to school?
 
I have a family member who had breast cancer, she went through months of chemo and radio. She's decided if the cancer returns, she'd rather not go through all that again. I don't agree with the kid in the OP, but I understand where she's coming from, and believe her choice should be respected.
 
Verax said:
You're just leaving everything up in the air and not elaborating, that is not the way law and order works. The state can't decide when and when not to act based on personal decisions, there has to be a strict protocol. How can you say the state is wrong when you can't articulate what the proper rules should be?

2 and 4. You say she is born with that right and then say suicide falls in that category. So basically you're saying a child is born with the right to kill themselves at any time should they choose? Following that logic should they also be allowed to self harm? cut? drink alcohol, smoke? have sex? not go to school?
Click to expand...

I didn't leave anything up in the air because there is no law that can answer #1.

Constitutionally, according to SCOTUS, a female controls her own body and has a right to make choices about her own body. An infant isn't capable of making a choice but a 17 year old is. You don't understand the difference?

There are laws that say nobody under 21 can smoke or drink alcohol. There are laws that state the age of consent for sex (although I don't believe a 10 year old girl will get arrested for having sex, just the person who had it with her). There are laws that say children must be educated up to a certain age. So I have no idea why you are comparing them.
 
Hatuey said:
APNewsBreak: Girl says she knows she'll die without chemo






On one side, she's an idiot who can be cured. On the other, she has a right to be an idiot and die because of that. Not sure how I feel about this but I smell the anti-science stench a mile away.
Click to expand...

I have to wonder what stage she is at.Depending on the stage of cancer she could most likely lead a long healthy life after a painful dangerous treatment or she might be going through a painful dangerous treatment just to extend her life for a few years with an extremely slim chance she might live a long life. If she is at a early stage then I do think until she turns 18 the state should treat her. But if all this going to do is put her through months of pain just so she might live a year or two longer then I think the state should leave her alone.
 
Verax said:
At what age should a minor have the right to let themselves die?

At what age is it her body her choice?

When does it cross the line from being up to the parents and up to the state?

Marrying, driving, and terminating a pregnancy, are very different decisions than suicide.
Click to expand...

tres borrachos said:
1. No clue
2. Constitutionally from the day she is born
3. When there is a clear case of abuse and neglect and when the child isn't old enough to make decisions about her body (which is not the case here)
4. Her body, her choice....suicide should fall in that
Click to expand...

For Number #1 I don't know if there is a morally correct answer to that question. But since the law has to be practical, I would say at the parent calls the shots up to age of emancipation in whatever state is applicable.
#2 I would say the same. The parent should have the right and ability to control their child's schedule, diet, television habits, personal hygiene, education, etc. within reason up to the age of emancipation. I am very big on the principle of it's my house and I pay the bills and therefore you will follow my rules.
#3 Ditto
#4 Ditto

The only say the state should have in any of that is in the case of gross neglect or abuse or inability to parent in which case the child should always be removed from the home.
 
tres borrachos said:
I didn't leave anything up in the air because there is no law that can answer #1.

Constitutionally, according to SCOTUS, a female controls her own body and has a right to make choices about her own body. An infant isn't capable of making a choice but a 17 year old is. You don't understand the difference?

There are laws that say nobody under 21 can smoke or drink alcohol. There are laws that state the age of consent for sex (although I don't believe a 10 year old girl will get arrested for having sex, just the person who had it with her). There are laws that say children must be educated up to a certain age. So I have no idea why you are comparing them.
Click to expand...

Yes an infant isn't capable but a 17 year old might be... I was curious where you draw the line?

So you're okay with a child killing themselves because there isn't a law saying its illegal?
 
AlbqOwl said:
For Number #1 I don't know if there is a morally correct answer to that question. But since the law has to be practical, I would say at the parent calls the shots up to age of emancipation in whatever state is applicable.
#2 I would say the same. The parent should have the right and ability to control their child's schedule, diet, television habits, personal hygiene, education, etc. within reason up to the age of emancipation. I am very big on the principle of it's my house and I pay the bills and therefore you will follow my rules.
#3 Ditto
#4 Ditto

The only say the state should have in any of that is in the case of gross neglect or abuse or inability to parent in which case the child should always be removed from the home.
Click to expand...

LOVE the new avatar!
 
Verax said:
Yes an infant isn't capable but a 17 year old might be... I was curious where you draw the line?

So you're okay with a child killing themselves because there isn't a law saying its illegal?
Click to expand...

A child killing himself isn't up to me unless it's one of my children.

A 17 year old is perfectly capable of making her own decisions. When she is 17 years and 364 days old, she is one day away from being able to enter into legal contracts. They don't mature in body nor mind overnight.
 
A seventeen year old spends time away from their family working, gaining life experiences, and making their own life choices, so I don't see how we can declare them incapable of making their own medical decisions. The very idea they are minors and must be forced to take treatment is idiotic.
 
IceteaGreen said:
For me, it's the same type of case of Jehovah's witness refusing a blood transfusion for their child to save his life... I know that these cases popped once in awhile in the last few years but can't remember the outcome, so if anyone can refresh me...

Grey area here is the girl's age: 17 is close to legal capabilities of deciding for oneself, but still below. So, and depending on previous similar cases, I would side on 'forcing' the treatment (you could also argue hippocrat's oath there ;))
Click to expand...

No. A physician is to show respect to the patients autonomy by allowing and calling for the patient to make their own decisions regarding what medical care will be provided.
 
apdst said:
What !akes it a story, is that the over-reaching government thinks she doesn't have that right and they want to use their tyrranical authority to force her to go through treatment. However, she most certainly has the right to refuse treatment.
Click to expand...

she is being treated against her will, so obviously she does not.
 
mak2 said:
Do you think she should be allowed to commit suicide?
Click to expand...

Absolutely, why not? I think *EVERYONE* should be allowed to commit suicide. It's their lives, let them live it how they want.
 
mak2 said:
Ok, gooberment bad, let her die...
Click to expand...

Ok, A Marine that isn't for standing on the side of freedom....We've come a long way since I was in I guess.
 
Verax said:
Couple problems though. IMO the only person who should decide if they can die should be the person themselves. However in this case that person is legally a minor and may not be mentally matured enough to decide for themselves. So sure it goes to the parents, but that presents a problem as well. Should a parent be allowed to make a decision for her child to let them die when a viable alternative exists?

Think of this in more extreme terms and it would sound ridiculous. Lets say a 6 year old has a blood infection and will die without antibiotics. The parents say they don't believe in it so no, don't do it. This would not be allowed, so why is this case so much different? The state and or medical team would step in and make the right decision because the parents were deemed of unsound judgement.
Click to expand...

I lean in the same direction as this post. Similarly, I can accept forcing Christian Scientist parents to provide medical care for their child. Parents don't own their children and should not be allowed to injure or kill them, no matter the reason. If her chances for recovery after chemo were very poor I would allow the parents to make the decision, if I was sure that the minor agrees with the parents. I would not allow the parents to prohibit a child from getting routine treatment that the child wants.

Teens under 18 are not allowed full freedom by law is that most of them are not inclined to make short term sacrifices for long-term benefits.

One reason I support the government's actions in this case is that the parents seem to be influencing her in the direction of not getting treatment.


I had a friend who had lymphoma 18 years ago and is fine now after suffering through three months of chemo. It was rough, but bearable and clearly worthwhile.
 
Last edited:
mak2 said:
What she wants to do is equivilant to suicide. If she gets the chemo I think her recovery rate is about 80+%, if she doesnt it is less than almost none. The question in this case is why does she want to die and should society just let her? I think suicide should remain illegal.
Click to expand...

Truthfully, I think there's a point at which it should be OK. I don't know what that point is. If someone is 95 and has had 2 heart attacks, maybe a DNR isn't out of the question. If you've already been through the ringer medically speaking maybe it's OK to accept that you will die.

I'm not saying that in this case the threshold has been reached. However, I do think there's a point where it's OK to let go and let nature take its course.
 
How about this as a equivalent situation: A 17 year old has been sentenced to six months in prison, but wants to commit suicide instead of enduring prison. Would you allow that choice?
 
Hard Truth said:
How about this as a equivalent situation: A 17 year old has been sentenced to six months in prison, but wants to commit suicide instead of enduring prison. Would you allow that choice?
Click to expand...

How about this choice, A 17 year old has murdered his entire family with an axe, and has been deemed to be mentally competent, and faces the death penalty...Should it be carried out?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom