• 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

Was the court's decision correct?

  • Yes

    Votes: 9 36.0%
  • No

    Votes: 13 52.0%
  • Don't know / Not sure

    Votes: 3 12.0%

  • Total voters
    25
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.

Did the girl herself not state that she (herself) doesn't want chemo? That was how I understood the article. It sounds to me as if the parents are supporting her own wish. Minor or not, she seems to be capable of self-directing, and if her parents are simply supporting her decision, I have no problem with that at all.
 
:shrug: you responded satirically. I pointed out only that your satire did contain faults - Obama did push to give government this power.

You still havent pointed this out.... What does the ACA have to do with this, especially when the decision was made by the Supreme Court of Connecticut?
 
Did the girl herself not state that she (herself) doesn't want chemo? That was how I understood the article. It sounds to me as if the parents are supporting her own wish. Minor or not, she seems to be capable of self-directing, and if her parents are simply supporting her decision, I have no problem with that at all.
She is going to die without the treatment. And I just dont see rational parents supporting a decision that is essentially suicide. As long as I am my childs guardian, those sorts of decisions will be mine. Once she is 18, that decision is hers.
 
Did the girl herself not state that she (herself) doesn't want chemo? That was how I understood the article. It sounds to me as if the parents are supporting her own wish. Minor or not, she seems to be capable of self-directing, and if her parents are simply supporting her decision, I have no problem with that at all.

OK, let me play devil's advocate here. Assuming that the girl wanted to commit suicide by putting a bullet in her head, and the mother was such a sicko that she supported it, would it be the government's right to step in and stop it? If the answer is yes, then what is different about this case that the government has no right to step in.?
 
Did the girl herself not state that she (herself) doesn't want chemo? That was how I understood the article. It sounds to me as if the parents are supporting her own wish. Minor or not, she seems to be capable of self-directing, and if her parents are simply supporting her decision, I have no problem with that at all.

She will attain her majority in under a year. This isn't about a little child; it's about a 17-year old. That's troubling.
 
OK, let me play devil's advocate here. Assuming that the girl wanted to commit suicide by putting a bullet in her head, and the mother was such a sicko that she supported it, would it be the government's right to step in and stop it? If the answer is yes, then what is different about this case that the government has no right to step in.?

With suicide, it's not something that a parent is going to support. If this girl is sick enough to need chemo, then that's an entirely different scenario than a teenager who is suicidal. With suicide, though, no, it is NOT the government's business to step in and force someone not to kill themselves.
 
She will attain her majority in under a year. This isn't about a little child; it's about a 17-year old. That's troubling.

At what age should a child be considered an adult?
 
Could this chemotherapy shorten her life, could it kill her too ?

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

:confused: when did I make up anything about this case?
 
With suicide, it's not something that a parent is going to support. If this girl is sick enough to need chemo, then that's an entirely different scenario than a teenager who is suicidal. With suicide, though, no, it is NOT the government's business to step in and force someone not to kill themselves.

OK, I disagree with you here, especially when it is a minor that we are talking about.
 
She is going to die without the treatment. And I just dont see rational parents supporting a decision that is essentially suicide. As long as I am my childs guardian, those sorts of decisions will be mine. Once she is 18, that decision is hers.

If my child is old enough to understand the ramifications of her actions, and I believe she has a full grasp of the situation, then I will most likely support her decision. Frankly, she's old enough to leave home if she really wants to, so I would have no problem with her making her own decisions. I lived away from my parents at that age, as I had graduated from high school a year early, and was already working and supporting myself. I would have expected to make my own decisions regarding my own life at that point.
 
You still havent pointed this out.... What does the ACA have to do with this, especially when the decision was made by the Supreme Court of Connecticut?

:roll: and why did you bring up Obama?
 
How in the world could they be right? Forcing someone to undergo medical care against their will is not ok. The whole, well, she is a minor argument is bull**** and depends entirely on an imaginary line in the sand. To think you just magically became an adult the day of your eighteenth birthday is idiotic.
 
:confused: when did I make up anything about this case?

You began with this....

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

And then began talking about government panels, as if it applied here.

And now you have the gall to ask what facts you made up?

I'll be blunt. This is not a discussion about Obamacare. It is about a court decision that forced a teenaged girl to get medical treatment. Please do not attempt to derail the discussion. Instead, why don't you join it?
 
If nothing else, my life experiences have taught me that life and time are the most precious things we have.

At the end of the day it's up to each individual what they do with that.

doctors said would give her an 85 percent chance of survival. Without it, they said, there was a near certainty of death within two years.

Pretty good odds right there. I know people right now and some who have already passed that are fighting for their lives with everything they have that would love to have odds as good as that.
 
Chemo is a sorry excuse for a medical treatment. Treating cancer by destroying the body is pathetic.
 
You began with this....

And then began talking about government panels, as if it applied here.

No, I didn't. I explicitly and exclusively pointed to the IPAB as it pertained to the notion of whether or not government belonged in these kinds of decisions.

In case you need to reference.

You want to get your panties in a wad because someone nationalized it? :shrug: Go talk to DemSocialist.
 
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.

Chemo doesn't cure cancer. It basically a treatment that works by causing massive amounts of harm to the body. In fact, I imagine it actually causes more harm than it acts to fix.
 
She's a minor. She has an extremely treatable cancer.

Her mother is apparently unstable, because she wants her to be treated irrationally. This isn't like some rare, tough to treat cancer....

People are free to be stupid. But people are not free to sentence minors to a death sentence because they insist on being stupid.
 
Chemo doesn't cure cancer. It basically a treatment that works by causing massive amounts of harm to the body. In fact, I imagine it actually causes more harm than it acts to fix.

You imagine wrong.

Hodgkins is commonly completely curable.
 
:roll: and why did you bring up Obama?

So it didnt? Because in reality the ACA had nothing to do with this..... And to answer your question "why I brought up Obama", is because I was being sarcastic.
 
Chemo doesn't cure cancer. It basically a treatment that works by causing massive amounts of harm to the body. In fact, I imagine it actually causes more harm than it acts to fix.

It is part of the established treatment regimen. Yes chemo and radiation have side effects, sometimes grave ones, but this girl didn't even have an alternate treatment plan. She just assumes there is something herbal out there that will help her, undoubtedly because that is what he mother has mislead her into believing.
 
No, I didn't. I explicitly and exclusively pointed to the IPAB as it pertained to the notion of whether or not government belonged in these kinds of decisions.

In case you need to reference.

You want to get your panties in a wad because someone nationalized it? :shrug: Go talk to DemSocialist.
No. The Independent Payment Advisory Board, which was created under the Affordable Care Act, has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. Her treatment has absolutely nothing to do with "Nationalization" of health care, as you put it. This case was decided entirely by courts in the State of Connecticut, after doctors filed a complaint with the state's Child Welfare Agency.

And please, one last time, stop derailing the discussion, and please stop the baiting too.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom