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

[danarhea]

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — A 17-year-old girl being forced by state officials to undergo chemotherapy for her cancer says she understands she'll die if she stops treatment but it should be her decision.

The state Supreme Court ruled Thursday state officials aren't violating the rights of the girl, Cassandra C., who has Hodgkin lymphoma.

Cassandra told The Associated Press in an exclusive text interview from her hospital that it disgusts her to have "such toxic harmful drugs" in her body and she'd like to explore alternative treatments.

In essence, the government is confining a 17 year old girl in a hospital room, and forcing her to undergo chemotherapy. With the chemo, she has an 85 percent chance of a cure. Without the chemo, she will likely be dead within 2 years.

I have posted a poll with this thread, since I would like to know what everybody thinks of this. This is a very tough issue. Does the government have a right to mandate a life and death decision when the wrong choice is probably death? What about for adults? What about for children? Does the government have the right to take over a parenting function from the parent in some circumstances? Is the government acting in the child's interest, or is the government going overboard? Is this big government at work, or should government be a little big at times? There are a lot of angles to this issue, and I would like to hear as many as possible.

Thank you.

Article is here.

 

[Thom Paine]

The gov has absolutely no business in this... why, the next thing they'll be telling people that they aren't worth the cost of medical procedures ... and must die...

 

[danarhea]

The gov has absolutely no business in this... why, the next thing they'll be telling people that they aren't worth the cost of medical procedures ... and must die...

But she will die if not given the chemo. How does that translate to a "death panel", where the government would mandate a death?

 

[TheDemSocialist]

I blame Obamacare.

 

[lizzie]

In essence, the government is confining a 17 year old girl in a hospital room, and forcing her to undergo chemotherapy. With the chemo, she has an 85 percent chance of a cure. Without the chemo, she will likely be dead within 2 years.

I have posted a poll with this thread, since I would like to know what everybody thinks of this. This is a very tough issue. Does the government have a right to mandate a life and death decision when the wrong choice is probably death? What about for adults? What about for children? .

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.

 

[cpwill]

I blame Obamacare.

:shrug: The ACA does give power over these decisions to an unelected, unaccountable board.

 

[Thom Paine]

But she will die if not given the chemo. How does that translate to a "death panel", where the government would mandate a death?

See post #5

I did NOT equate to death panel.

 

[Thom Paine]

I blame Obamacare.

I blame socialism

eace

 

[TheDemSocialist]

:shrug: The ACA does give power over these decisions to an unelected, unaccountable board.

C'mon.... This again?

 

[TheDemSocialist]

I blame socialism

eace

Me too! It scares me!

 

[Jack Fabulous]

Freedom of choice has no stipulation that the choice made must be deemed "the correct choice" by some government body.

 

[Declan]

In essence, the government is confining a 17 year old girl in a hospital room, and forcing her to undergo chemotherapy. With the chemo, she has an 85 percent chance of a cure. Without the chemo, she will likely be dead within 2 years.

I have posted a poll with this thread, since I would like to know what everybody thinks of this. This is a very tough issue. Does the government have a right to mandate a life and death decision when the wrong choice is probably death? What about for adults? What about for children? Does the government have the right to take over a parenting function from the parent in some circumstances? Is the government acting in the child's interest, or is the government going overboard? Is this big government at work, or should government be a little big at times? There are a lot of angles to this issue, and I would like to hear as many as possible.

Thank you.

Article is here.

Under these facts, yes. The girl's comments, indications, and prior representations to the Court add up to yes she wants to live, so if she is not wanting to pursue a realistic path for that, then yes. Sometimes it is unfortunate, but it is really no different than force feeding an anorexic just to keep her alive until she has recovered enough physically to allow the mental health therapy a chance. I feel that she does not fully appreciate what the end will be like for her because she is a lot healthier and more energetic today than she would be a year from now with cancer taking its toll on her. If her chances were 15% I might would see it differently, but at 85%, there is no time to dick around because that number will drop drastically the longer treatment is delayed.

 

[danarhea]

See post #5

I did NOT equate to death panel.

You said that the next thing the government would do would be to tell people that they are not worth the cost of medical procedures, and must die. If that isn't the same thing as a death panel, I don't know what is.

What the government is doing is forcing a life saving treatment on a teenaged girl, not denying treatment and letting her die. This is why I asked you my previous question, because what you posted makes no sense to me.

 

[cpwill]

C'mon.... This again?

:raises eyebrow: It does.

Agreeably, the likely movement is in the opposite direction, as the boards' mandate is cost control rather than ensuring the extension of the life of minors.

But if you think government has no business "making these kinds of decisions".... well..... :shrug:

 

[danarhea]

Under these facts, yes. The girl's comments, indications, and prior representations to the Court add up to yes she wants to live, so if she is not wanting to pursue a realistic path for that, then yes. Sometimes it is unfortunate, but it is really no different than force feeding an anorexic just to keep her alive until she has recovered enough physically to allow the mental health therapy a chance. I feel that she does not fully appreciate what the end will be like for her because she is a lot healthier and more energetic today than she would be a year from now with cancer taking its toll on her. If her chances were 15% I might would see it differently, but at 85%, there is no time to dick around because that number will drop drastically the longer treatment is delayed.

Shouldn't that decision, right or wrong, be in the hands of the girl? And, if the girl is judged to be a child, and not able to make that decision, then shouldn't the decision, right or wrong, be in the hands of the mother?

 

[danarhea]

:raises eyebrow: It does.

Agreeably, the likely movement is in the opposite direction, as the boards' mandate is cost control rather than ensuring the extension of the life of minors.

But if you think government has no business "making these kinds of decisions".... well..... :shrug:

Let me correct you here. This decision was not made by any board. It was made by a judge.

 

[Thom Paine]

You said that the next thing the government would do would be to tell people that they are not worth the cost of medical procedures, and must die. If that isn't the same thing as a death panel, I don't know what is.

What the government is doing is forcing a life saving treatment on a teenaged girl, not denying treatment and letting her die. This is why I asked you my previous question, because what you posted makes no sense to me.

The gov. should not be allowed the position to dictate this decision.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

:raises eyebrow: It does.

Agreeably, the likely movement is in the opposite direction, as the boards' mandate is cost control rather than ensuring the extension of the life of minors.

But if you think government has no business "making these kinds of decisions".... well..... :shrug:

I dont think they do, especially when she is considered a minor (i know 17 is questionable) and her mother doesnt want her to have chemo either... But please share how the ACA has something to do with this.

 

[danarhea]

The gov. should not be allowed the position to dictate this decision.

OK, that was a reasonable response. Thanx.

 

[cpwill]

Let me correct you here. This decision was not made by any board. It was made by a judge.

...... Do you see a strong point of relevance there to the discussion of whether or not government belongs in those decisions?

 

[Thom Paine]

Shouldn't that decision, right or wrong, be in the hands of the girl? And, if the girl is judged to be a child, and not able to make that decision, then shouldn't the decision, right or wrong, be in the hands of the mother?

yes and yes

 

[cpwill]

I dont think they do, especially when she is considered a minor (i know 17 is questionable) and her mother doesnt want her to have chemo either... But please share how the ACA has something to do with this.

:shrug: you responded satirically. I pointed out only that your satire did contain faults - Obama did push to give government this power.

 

[Fletch]

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.

I would agree completely if the person in question wasn't a minor. Normally the decision would fall to the parents. As the guardians of this child, I cant imagine why the parents aren't insisting that she undergo the treatment. That a guardian would allow their child to die when treatment is available might be why the court stepped in in the first place.

 

[danarhea]

...... Do you see a strong point of relevance there to the discussion of whether or not government belongs in those decisions?

There is no point of relevance to discuss when you make up facts that don't exist in this case.

 

[Declan]

Shouldn't that decision, right or wrong, be in the hands of the girl? And, if the girl is judged to be a child, and not able to make that decision, then shouldn't the decision, right or wrong, be in the hands of the mother?

Why does the mother have more of a right than the government--both of them are telling the girl what she has to do whether she agrees or not?

No the decision should not be in the hands of the girl. Eating grass juice isn't going to slow or cure her cancer and she is foolish to think it will. When she is 18 she can legally decide for herself, but by then, perhaps she will be on the home stretch. I really do not know what stage she is in, but it sounds like she is very early on and is highly treatable.