Really? You see value on life? Are you pro life then? How about the Terry Schivo case? Where'd you fall on that?...hmm?...yeah, i thought so.People see value in life. I'm sorry this concept is so foreign to you.
What she wants to do is equivilant to suicide.
Obviously she doesn't have a right to die without treatment or this wouldn't be a story.
So you support forcing people to undergo dangerous medical procedures?
The government does and that is all that matters (though drinking soy-mango juice instead of chemo is more dangerous in the mind of someone who heard this case).
Why do you refuse to state your opinion?
I have stated it multiple times in multiple ways. Until she turns 18 she has no rights, and even then, she only has the rights the government says she has. Even beyond that, she and her parents are idiots to think there is some herbal cure out there.
I have stated it multiple times in multiple ways. Until she turns 18 she has no rights, and even then, she only has the rights the government says she has. Even beyond that, she and her parents are idiots to think there is some herbal cure out there.
So you are advocating state control in a case where even I admit the need for free choice. That should give you pause.
And that a right is unjustly unrecognized by civil tyrants does not mean it is not a right under natural law.
I hope I never live in that US...Although seems we do get closer to that every day, and the willing blind encourage it.
Natural Law doesn't have handcuffs. Nothing gives me pause any more in politics. As for this issue, I have encountered people who have had their children taken away for lesser health conditions and I will tell them to their face they are idiots for seeing medicines as "poisons" when they are not the ones who are suffering the effects of not being properly managed on medicine.
You have always lived in that US if you have always lived in the US.
Nope..That is not true at all...It is only I would say in the last 20 years or so that this has been rising...
I have stated it multiple times in multiple ways. Until she turns 18 she has no rights, and even then, she only has the rights the government says she has. Even beyond that, she and her parents are idiots to think there is some herbal cure out there.
1. She is the one suffering the effects.
2. Chemotherapy is harmful. It is also beneficial, but it is most certainly harmful.
Natural Law doesn't have handcuffs.
She is not an adult. It doesn't matter if chemo has harmful side effects or not. She is on it and that is how it will be until she turns 18.
I was a child in the late 50s /early 60s when I heard on the news the state stepped in because a Christian Scientist family who lived in our area would not get medical care for their sick child.
In Cruzan v Director MDH, 497 US 261 (1990) The US Supreme Court said:
"A competent person has a liberty interest under the Due Process Clause in refusing unwanted medical treatment."
This doesn't say that it has to be an adult, or on some wacky religious grounds, but simply puts the standard at "A competent person".... That the CT decided this case without considering the "mature minor doctrine" is a violation of this girls Due Process rights under the 5th and 14th amendments of the Constitution...At least that is how I see it, as heartbreaking as this case is.
...
The court ruled Cassandra's lawyers had the opportunity to prove she's mature enough to make that decision during a Juvenile Court hearing in December and failed to do so.
According to the yahoo article in the OP Cassandra's lawyers had the opportunity to prove she was mature enough to make that decision and they failed to do so.
APNewsBreak: Girl says she knows she'll die without chemo
Yes, That is what one judge on the panel argued, and they refused to hear the argument, because if they had, it is likely that they would have had to determine that Cassy was a "mature minor" and allow her to refuse treatment. But, because that is NOT what they wanted to do, they ignored evidence, and thus violated her rights....Thanks for proving my argument.
...
Some articles she says she knows will die without chemo but in the most recent article since the Supreme Court ruling
Cassandra says wants treatment for the Hodgkins but she wants to cure it without Chemo.
She wrote that she wants to cure her Hodgkins with, vitamins, diet and exercise.
It seems she still has not faced up to the reality that without chemo she will die within a couple of years.
She wrote she’s not looking to avoid treating her Hodgkin’s lymphoma altogether.
“I always tell people I do want treatment for my cancer, I just don’t believe in the chemotherapy,” wrote Cassandra. “I want something more natural, something that’s not drugs. If the court decided to let me go, I would look into natural remedies that would stop the growth of the cancer. I would take vitamins and remedies that fight inflammation. I would eat healthy and go to the gym, and I would still monitor the cancer with regular scans.”
I disagree.
From everything I have read on this case ( several articles from several different sources ... I already posted links to a few of those ) it seems Cassandra has not faced reality.
Some articles she says she knows will die without chemo but in the most recent article since the Supreme Court ruling
Cassandra says wants treatment for the Hodgkins but she wants to cure it without Chemo.
She wrote that she wants to cure her Hodgkins with, vitamins, diet and exercise.
It seems she still has not faced up to the reality that without chemo she will die within a couple of years.
Link to article:Teen opens up about forced chemotherapy, death
That's fine, we can disagree on that, but I am basing it on an article YOU posted, and you confirmed yourself that they refused to take into account the "Mature Minor Doctrine".... That she is rather misguided in what she wants to treat it with is not of consequence here...I agree that she needs the chemo, but the state no more has the right to force her to take it, then it does, to deny her from getting it.