• 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

Deuce said:
The state doesn't try to keep absolutely every living human being alive for as long as possible, especially if they don't want to be. Where did you get this idea? Why is this a black and white issue for you? Because it sure isn't black and white for me, or for the state.
Click to expand...

Then what is the vested interest in keeping this girl alive, especially when the girl and her parents don't want her to be? Please explain.
 
Cephus said:
Then what is the vested interest in keeping this girl alive, especially when the girl and her parents don't want her to be? Please explain.
Click to expand...

I have read several different articles about this case and the father was never mentioned.

Do you have a link where her father says he doesn't want his daughter to receive treatment?

To answer your question ...the state took an interest because
In November, the teen had said under oath that she would get treatment, but she ran away and failed to appear at chemotherapy appointments. This, the court ruled, was an indication of Cassandra's lack of maturity.

She has been undergoing chemotherapy against her wishes for three weeks. After she missed follow-up appointments, the hospital contacted the Connecticut Department of Children and Families (DCF) out of concern that this was a situation of medical neglect.

After an investigation, DCF requested temporary custody of Cassandra. She was removed from her mother's home and placed with a relative.
Click to expand...

Read more:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/07/justice/connecticut-teen-chemo/
 
Last edited:
Cephus said:
Then what is the vested interest in keeping this girl alive, especially when the girl and her parents don't want her to be? Please explain.
Click to expand...

1) The girl is a minor and every state has provisions to protect the health and welfare of minors.
2) The mother is proving herself to be incapable of making responsible medical decisions on her daughter's behalf, per the opinion of the judges plural who have heard this case and judged it on the merits, based on the evidence in front of them.
3) Once she reaches the age of 18, she can eat shelled pistachios and drink lime flavored sparkling water and pretend that it's a natural treatment for cancer, and the state will not intervene.
 
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...

The day she turns 18 she has the right to refuse treatment until then she's a minor in the state connect in her best interest on her behalf because she's obviously too dumb to know better.

My prediction is a year from now when she's in remission, she'll probably be looking back at her life thinking was I that much of a dumb ass
 
Henrin said:
From the sounds of it she is a prisoner of the state, but instead of being housed in a prison she is being housed in a hospital and having unethical doctors do treatment to her against her will.
Click to expand...

Well she wouldn't be a prisoner if she had just went to the chemo therapy appointments like she agreed to, and if her mom wasn't some hippie anti-science freak. The day she turns 18 she can tear off the chemo tubes and walk right out the door and tell then she's a minor in the state has to protect her interests
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Well she wouldn't be a prisoner if she had just went to the chemo therapy appointments like she agreed to, and if her mom wasn't some hippie anti-science freak. The day she turns 18 she can tear off the chemo tubes and walk right out the door and tell then she's a minor in the state has to protect her interests
Click to expand...
Anyone with children ought to be frightened of that statement there, poor decision in this case or not.
 
Let us put this case in perspective, it is very rare for a state to take to over custody of minor for medical treatment.
It is so rare that is news worthy.

We were not witness to the court case and do not know all the information that was presented.
Apparently there was good reason why the State Supreme Court felt she was incompetent to make her own decision and why she was temporally removed from her mother's custody
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
Anyone with children ought to be frightened of that statement there, poor decision in this case or not.
Click to expand...

Why? You think parents have a right to neglect their children?
 
minnie616 said:
Let us put this case in perspective, it is very rare for a state to take to over custody of minor for medical treatment.
It is so rare that is news worthy.

We were not witness to the court case and do not know all the information that was presented.
Apparently there was good reason why the State Supreme Court felt she was incompetent to make her own decision and why she was temporally removed from her mother's custody
Click to expand...
So, do you think all state action is proper?
 
I think the girl had her day in court.
She was represented by her lawyers.

She probably went through a psychological test since she deemed incompetent to make her own health care choice as a minor.

Once she turns 18 she can make her own choice regarding medical treatment.
 
minnie616 said:
I think the girl had her day in court.
She was represented by her lawyers.

She probably went through a psychological test since she deemed incompetent to make her own health care choice as a minor.

Once she turns 18 she can make her own choice regarding medical treatment.
Click to expand...
At what point do you draw the line concerning state authority over an individual right to make their own decisions?
 
j-mac said:
At what point do you draw the line concerning state authority over an individual right to make their own decisions?
Click to expand...

I would consider it on a case case by basis but generally when the individual is a minor who is not competent enough to make her/ her own health care decisions.
 
minnie616 said:
I would consider it on a case case by basis but generally when the individual is a minor who is not competent enough to make her/ her own health care decisions.
Click to expand...
What is the age of self amancipation in CT?
 
j-mac said:
What is the age of self amancipation in CT?
Click to expand...

I don't know but even she became emancipated that would not make her an adult.
It would only mean her parents would no longer be her legal guardians and she would have a new one appointed to her by the court.
Courts review the evidence presented by petitioners and grant emancipation in cases where sufficient proof of circumstances and conduct determines emancipation as a best interest of a child. Factors such as the child's age; the mental and physical welfare of the child; the ability of the parents to provide basic material support to the child in the form of food, shelter, clothing and medical care; and the mental and physical welfare of the parents all play an important role in establishing a child's best interest. The courts require petitioners submit substantial evidence of emancipation's necessity before deciding to terminate parental rights and responsibilities because emancipation of a minor by judicial decree represents a significant juridical decision that in most cases irreversibly transforms the common law mandate of providing custody and care for their minor children that parents bear.
Click to expand...

Read more:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/emancipation_of_minors
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Well she wouldn't be a prisoner if she had just went to the chemo therapy appointments like she agreed to, and if her mom wasn't some hippie anti-science freak. The day she turns 18 she can tear off the chemo tubes and walk right out the door and tell then she's a minor in the state has to protect her interests
Click to expand...

I'm not saying I agree with their decision but if she waits until she's 18, her system has already been poisoned by the chemo.
 
minnie616 said:
I don't know but even she became emancipated that would not make her an adult.
It would only mean her parents would no longer be her legal guardians and she would have a new one appointed to her by the court.


Read more:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/emancipation_of_minors
Click to expand...
Let me just tell you, lots of 17 yr olds living on their own right now in America without a court appointed minder. I moved out of my dad's house at 17. I'm just fine thanks.
 
j-mac said:
Let me just tell you, lots of 17 yr olds living on their own right now in America without a court appointed minder. I moved out of my dad's house at 17. I'm just fine thanks.
Click to expand...

Of course there are a lot 17 year olds living on their own.
But if a minor goes through the emancipation process they are assigned a guardian unless the court deems them competent enough to be considered an adult.
 
minnie616 said:
I have read several different articles about this case and the father was never mentioned.

Do you have a link where her father says he doesn't want his daughter to receive treatment?
Click to expand...

I don't know if the father is involved or alive or whatever to be honest. Certainly we haven't seen stories saying he objects.

However, that still doesn't answer why the state took any interest in this particular case. Who cares if she's immature? For a lot of people, simply saying she'd rather die is a sign of immaturity. The thought of suicide terrifies a lot of people and any suggestion that death is better than life for a particular individual is a sign of a mental problem. I reject that idea.
 
JasperL said:
1) The girl is a minor and every state has provisions to protect the health and welfare of minors.
Click to expand...

Which is fine but the state rarely involves itself in other cases where the health and welfare of a minor is harmed by a parent's religious beliefs, for instance. Is it just because this isn't a religious case?

2) The mother is proving herself to be incapable of making responsible medical decisions on her daughter's behalf, per the opinion of the judges plural who have heard this case and judged it on the merits, based on the evidence in front of them.
Click to expand...

Define "responsible medical decisions". Is that any medical decision where the daughter is not forced to remain alive at any cost?

3) Once she reaches the age of 18, she can eat shelled pistachios and drink lime flavored sparkling water and pretend that it's a natural treatment for cancer, and the state will not intervene.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that. I guess we'll find out once she's 18.
 
minnie616 said:
Of course there are a lot 17 year olds living on their own.
But if a minor goes through the emancipation process they are assigned a guardian unless the court deems them competent enough to be considered an adult.
Click to expand...
Not if she had simply moved out.
 
Cephus said:
I don't know if the father is involved or alive or whatever to be honest. Certainly we haven't seen stories saying he objects.

However, that still doesn't answer why the state took any interest in this particular case. .......
Click to expand...

This article has some good info about the case including why the state took interest in this cae.

3) Why would the state intervene?

DCF, acting on behalf of the state, says it's obligated to intervene in this case. It's their duty to act when a child would die if medical decisions were left up to the parent. DCF's decision is based on experts — in this case, the doctors who diagnosed and are treating Cassandra who all agree she needs the chemo. To step in, DCF had to win temporary custody of Cassandra.

"Even if the decision might result in criticism; we have an obligation to protect the life of the child when there is consensus among the medical experts," DCF said in a recent statement.
Click to expand...

Why a 17-year-old with cancer is being forced to undergo chemo against her will - Vox
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
This article has some good info about the case including why the state took interest in this cae.
Click to expand...

Kids die all the time. Why this particular case? Why should the state care at all? There are lots of kids. They don't pay attention to all of them. They ignore religious parents who kill their kids with faith healing most of the time, it's only on rare occasions that they get involved, usually after they've killed a bunch of kids in the past.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom