• 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

Me too and I'm happy to know that if I'd been a minor and I had stupid mother who would have let me die because she believed in that my only chance at life was a "Big Pharma" conspiracy that the state would have stepped in to help me.

If that were the case I'd agreed with you. But in this case the daughter and mother agreed. The state overstepped the mother's decision to support her daughter's decision. A more apt comparison would have been if you had decided chemo was your best alternative but the state insisted you be subjected to some other clinical treatment instead.
 
I have a customer with a Cadillac with a Northstar engine. They are known for a problem with the threads for the cylinder head studs that causes reducd sealing pressure and presents as a head gasket failure. Technically it is not the gasket that failed. To repair it you have to remove and disassemble the engine, then machine and install threaded inserts before reassembly. A lot of labor involved, overall nearly 40 hours of work. It is usually cheaper and faster to buy a used engine a couple of years newer (after the problem had been corrected) and install it. The most expensive option is to buy a remanufactured engine and install that. We're talking about 3 different approachs, each of which would correct the problem, and range between $3500 to almost $7000.

There is another option, an additive you can put in the radiator to seal the leak. It is a method often used by people looking to sell a car they know to have a serious problem. It does not always work, and when it does it is only a matter of time before the base problem progresses and it fails again. But it is cheap and quick to do. He decided to go that route and did it himself. That was about 6 months ago, he just returned from a trip from north Georgia to Texas and back with no problems.

Now if I had a badge and a title, would it be OK for me to take this car away from this guy and repair it as I saw fit, then charge him for the repair? Granted my intentions are noble, and I would probably go the route of the used engine, accepting the relatively small possibility of repeat failure against the higher cost of the other methods considering the age of the car. In my judgment the block sealer is a risky repair and I certainly would not have trusted it to Texas and back. But I am the professional and he is a retired salesman. Surely my opinion is superior in this case.

You see, this is precisely what happens when government is allowed to make these decisions for you. It would not matter that this guy accepted the risks and was willing and prepared to abandon the car on the trip should it fail. That he has no time constraints and saw it as part of an adventure and enjoyed beating the odds. Or that he has now had time to research suitable replacement and has a good idea what he wants and what it will cost. No, if allowed I could have assured him a safe trip (well almost, there are no absolutes that there wouldn't be some other problem) and he would have been better off in the long run. At least that is my professional opinion. Shouldn't that be enough reason?
 
I have a customer with a Cadillac with a Northstar engine. They are known for a problem with the threads for the cylinder head studs that causes reducd sealing pressure and presents as a head gasket failure. Technically it is not the gasket that failed. To repair it you have to remove and disassemble the engine, then machine and install threaded inserts before reassembly. A lot of labor involved, overall nearly 40 hours of work. It is usually cheaper and faster to buy a used engine a couple of years newer (after the problem had been corrected) and install it. The most expensive option is to buy a remanufactured engine and install that. We're talking about 3 different approachs, each of which would correct the problem, and range between $3500 to almost $7000.

There is another option, an additive you can put in the radiator to seal the leak. It is a method often used by people looking to sell a car they know to have a serious problem. It does not always work, and when it does it is only a matter of time before the base problem progresses and it fails again. But it is cheap and quick to do. He decided to go that route and did it himself. That was about 6 months ago, he just returned from a trip from north Georgia to Texas and back with no problems.

Now if I had a badge and a title, would it be OK for me to take this car away from this guy and repair it as I saw fit, then charge him for the repair? Granted my intentions are noble, and I would probably go the route of the used engine, accepting the relatively small possibility of repeat failure against the higher cost of the other methods considering the age of the car. In my judgment the block sealer is a risky repair and I certainly would not have trusted it to Texas and back. But I am the professional and he is a retired salesman. Surely my opinion is superior in this case.

You see, this is precisely what happens when government is allowed to make these decisions for you. It would not matter that this guy accepted the risks and was willing and prepared to abandon the car on the trip should it fail. That he has no time constraints and saw it as part of an adventure and enjoyed beating the odds. Or that he has now had time to research suitable replacement and has a good idea what he wants and what it will cost. No, if allowed I could have assured him a safe trip (well almost, there are no absolutes that there wouldn't be some other problem) and he would have been better off in the long run. At least that is my professional opinion. Shouldn't that be enough reason?

Bad analogy.

If a persons body dies he/she cannot abandon it beside the road and buy a new body.
 
Bad analogy.

If a persons body dies he/she cannot abandon it beside the road and buy a new body.

(Sigh) You've missed the point. The state will kill you with no recourse (capital punishment, send you to war, drone strike, no knock raid), condone your death (abortion, refusal to investigate actions of the state), or force it's judgement on you such as in this case. Death is not the worst situation for some. It is not the government's choice to make, or at least it shouldn't be. This is kidnapping and torture plain and simple. Everybody dies. It shouldn't be up to the state how and when.
 
(Sigh) You've missed the point. The state will kill you with no recourse (capital punishment, send you to war, drone strike, no knock raid), condone your death (abortion, refusal to investigate actions of the state), or force it's judgement on you such as in this case. Death is not the worst situation for some. It is not the government's choice to make, or at least it shouldn't be. This is kidnapping and torture plain and simple. Everybody dies. It shouldn't be up to the state how and when.

She is a minor.
States can and often do take a compelling interest in the health/welfare of a minor.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure what you mean by "individual sovereignty," it is not a term that I would use. I may support the concept depending on how it is defined and used. I might have expressed approval of the idea in the context of a thread that defined it, but I don't recall doing so.

In this particular issue, the fact that she is a minor is my deciding factor in supporting the government in this situation.

Ok, like I said I may have that wrong....But, she is 17, and I know that according to many parts of the law she is a minor, but just as many count her as able to make her own decisions as well...How many times over the years in these boards have I heard the argument that girls as young as 16 are capable according to law to make their own sexual decisions, and abortion decisions, and then told that I should keep government out of a girl's, like her out of her private life? Well, now all of the sudden you, (not just you) want to tell me that this is appropriate....I think you have to do better than situational ethics in this.
 
Ok, like I said I may have that wrong....But, she is 17, and I know that according to many parts of the law she is a minor, but just as many count her as able to make her own decisions as well...How many times over the years in these boards have I heard the argument that girls as young as 16 are capable according to law to make their own sexual decisions, and abortion decisions, and then told that I should keep government out of a girl's, like her out of her private life? Well, now all of the sudden you, (not just you) want to tell me that this is appropriate....I think you have to do better than situational ethics in this.

According to the law she is a minor.
States have the right to decide at what age girls can make sexual or abortion decisions.
Many states require girls under 18 ( which includes 17 year olds ) have parental consent to obtain an abortion.
In certain cases such as those where a family member might be the bio father a minor can take her case to the state courts to act in her best interest.
 
If that were the case I'd agreed with you. But in this case the daughter and mother agreed. The state overstepped the mother's decision to support her daughter's decision. A more apt comparison would have been if you had decided chemo was your best alternative but the state insisted you be subjected to some other clinical treatment instead.

Facts have to be considered. Research shows that alternative treatments don't work. The facts are that she will almost certainly enjoy many more years of good health after enduring a few months of the chemo ordeal. Young people are not good at deciding wisely between short term sacrifice and long term gain versus short term gain and long term consequences. Since she is a minor I support the mandatory treatment.

If she wanted to commit suicide to avoid a six month prison sentence would you also support her right to make that decision?
 
Last edited:
If she wanted to commit suicide to avoid a six month prison sentence would you also support her right to make that decision?

If that was her choice, that's up to her. There is no "right" to do anything, if she wanted to do it and went ahead and did it, I would accept it as her choice. Rights don't enter into it.
 
Ok, like I said I may have that wrong....But, she is 17, and I know that according to many parts of the law she is a minor, but just as many count her as able to make her own decisions as well...How many times over the years in these boards have I heard the argument that girls as young as 16 are capable according to law to make their own sexual decisions, and abortion decisions, and then told that I should keep government out of a girl's, like her out of her private life? Well, now all of the sudden you, (not just you) want to tell me that this is appropriate....I think you have to do better than situational ethics in this.

This a life or death decision. The statistics show that the treatment will almost certainly be effective and she will be healthy after recovery. She can always choose to die later, but she will not have the option to get rid of her cancer in the future if it isn't effectively treated in time.
 
According to the law she is a minor.
States have the right to decide at what age girls can make sexual or abortion decisions.
Many states require girls under 18 ( which includes 17 year olds ) have parental consent to obtain an abortion.
In certain cases such as those where a family member might be the bio father a minor can take her case to the state courts to act in her best interest.

Sorry, but I think that is a cop out...Like I said situational ethics....Either she is in control of her own person, or she's not...Now for what its worth, I too think that the parents in this case are abdicating their responsibility to parent this girl. If it were me, and I do have a daughter, she's 25 now, but at 17, I would have had to sit her down and tell her that she was getting the treatment, but also that I would be there every step with her, but that a choice between life and certain death? Life wins....All I am saying is that I have had it up to my finely sculpted ass with the hypocrisy today....
 
This a life or death decision. The statistics show that the treatment will almost certainly be effective and she will be healthy after recovery. She can always choose to die later, but she will not have the option to get rid of her cancer in the future if it isn't effectively treated in time.

Agreed, but as I explained to Minnie, If I were the parent here, I wouldn't need the State to step in, because she'd be there for her treatment...But I am also not for the Government stepping in for me. You want to say I did something wrong after the fact, then arrest me, and send me to trial, short of that where does it stop?
 
The Court reviewed the case.

The Court is acting as her guardian until she turns 18.

Once she is 18 she can make her own choice.
 
The Court reviewed the case.

The Court is acting as her guardian until she turns 18.

Once she is 18 she can make her own choice.

Ok....I think the report was that she turns 18 in a couple of months....What is the ramifications of starting chemo, then stopping it?
 
Agreed, but as I explained to Minnie, If I were the parent here, I wouldn't need the State to step in, because she'd be there for her treatment...But I am also not for the Government stepping in for me. You want to say I did something wrong after the fact, then arrest me, and send me to trial, short of that where does it stop?

Its a tough call, and I agree that it could be a bad precedent, but keeping her alive is the lesser evil in this particular case.
 
The Court deemed the minor girl was not mentally competent to make her own decision.

17-year-old Connecticut girl with a highly curable cancer is not mentally competent to make her own medical decisions and will continue to receive the chemotherapy treatments she's battled to halt, the Connecticut Supreme Court ordered Thursday.

Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers ruled that the teen — listed only as Cassandra C. in legal records — is not mature by any standard.

That means Cassandra will remain at a Hartford hospital, in the temporary custody of child-welfare workers, and will receive her full course of chemotherapy to treat Hodgkin lymphoma. Doctors have said her odds at recovery are 80 to 85 percent with chemo, but that she will die without it.

Connecticut Teen With Curable Cancer Must Continue Chemo: Court - NBC News
 
Ok....I think the report was that she turns 18 in a couple of months....What is the ramifications of starting chemo, then stopping it?

Probably still death, sadly.
 
Facts have to be considered. Research shows that alternative treatments don't work. The facts are that she will almost certainly enjoy many more years of good health after enduring a few months of the chemo ordeal. Young people are not good at deciding wisely between short term sacrifice and long term gain versus short term gain and long term consequences. Since she is a minor I support the mandatory treatment.

What's missing in the story, and I suspect in the court proceedings, is ANY indication that the mother or patient have proposed any kind of an alternative treatment plan that they can demonstrate has any chance of working. There's no evidence of alternative medicine practitioners testifying that protocol Z (all natural of course!) will work. When the court stacks that (no plan at all in the record we've seen) against chemo with an 85% chance of long term success, it's a pretty easy decision.

And it doesn't bother me that she's 17 either. If she was 3 and her mother was too bull headed/stupid to approve this kind of treatment, few of us would object (I think) because the abuse or neglect is pretty obvious. The law says 18 in NJ, and the actions of the minor here don't indicate she's responsible enough to make this decision, nor is her mother stepping in with other responsible plans to get this treated. It's not a very steep slippery slope from where I'm looking at it.
 
Grumble - I think the real question is she mature enough to decide her own medical treatment. Her state's laws seem
To dicate that age is the primary deciding factor. I haven't thought much about this until now - but in general I err on the side of less government/more family intervention in these types of matters. It sounds as though her parents support her decision to refuse the treatment. I am going to check to see how many states have these mature minor statues. I wonder if there has been a case yet where the minor wants to refuse treatment, the parents disagree, and the court issues an opinion?
 
Here are a few <SNIPS> by a Bioethicist who agrees the minor should have Chemo.

...

Cassandra has Hodgkin lymphoma, a cancer of the lymphatic system, the body's immune system. The National Cancer Institute says that more than 85 percent of those with this form of the disease and who get chemo will survive a minimum of five years. If the cancer is found early and treated quickly, outcomes are even better.

So a child would need to have one hell of a reason for not wanting treatment given that this is a type of cancer for which a cure exists.

Cassandra is not invoking a religious belief in saying no. Nor is she claiming she believes in some form of alternative medicine.


According to the teen's mother, Cassandra is refusing chemo because she hates the miserable treatment — hair loss, feeling sick, nausea, and being really tired. Her mother says she backs her daughter's decision. The state of Connecticut does not. Neither do I.

Find her a doc, social worker or counselor with whom she can bond and trust, who can guide her through the hell of chemo.
Indeed, Cassandra is close to being an adult but not quite there. She is also a teenager — a group not known for always making the best judgments. I would hope her mom would be pushing her to get chemo rather than trying to honor her emerging autonomy.

The primary goal in this case is to save a young life. This is a disease where medicine can do that. Admittedly, the treatment sucks, but it works. I hope when judges hear this case Thursday, they tell Cassandra that she needs to get the chemo. But she also needs support. A lot of it.

Let her meet others her age who have been through chemo and lived. Find her a doc, social worker or counselor with whom she can bond and trust, who can guide her through the torment of chemo. Bring her mom around and get her to help her daughter through the treatment.

Respecting choice is important. Not burying a young teenage girl who would have lived is far more important.

Read more

Bioethicist: Why Connecticut Teen Can't Say No to Chemo - NBC News
 
Ok....I think the report was that she turns 18 in a couple of months....What is the ramifications of starting chemo, then stopping it?

If her intent is to kill herself, very little other than the discomfort she's being forced to go through for those months.
 
That's where her mother and others who love her must step in and tell her to fight because she has so much to live for. I agree with Caplan; Cassandra should be encouraged to talk to teens who've gone through chemo. It's not fun, but it is do-able. She has youth on her side.

From a NY Times piece:

Outlook (Prognosis)
Hodgkin lymphoma is one of the most curable cancers. Cure is even more likely if it is diagnosed and treated early. Unlike other cancers, Hodgkin lymphoma is also curable in its late stages. Hodgkin Lymphoma - Symptoms, Diagnosis, Treatment of Hodgkin Lymphoma - NY Times Health Information
 
So the court is backing up the State....Shocking.

No, it's not really shocking that a court deemed a minor incompetent to decide on suicide after having her head filled with hippie bull****.
 
No, it's not really shocking that a court deemed a minor incompetent to decide on suicide after having her head filled with hippie bull****.

Yup. Was going to be my reply. I'm all for allowing terminal patients to commit suicide and/or seek medical assistance in doing so humanely. But I'm totally willing to trample on the ostensible rights of a parent or minor to prevent a child from committing suicide when they could otherwise live a full and healthy life.
 
Back
Top Bottom