• 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

minnie616 said:
No , the article posted does not say the Supreme Court refused to take into account the "Mature Minor Doctrine." It just says her lawyers were given the opportunity to present evidence that Cassandra was mature and had failed to so.

Before a state Supreme Court makes a ruling in a case like this it reviews all of the evidence ,and testimonies from the lawyer/s and from the doctor/s( in this case several testified )the medical records including any psychological testing ). These are Supreme Court justices and usually they were judges in lower courts and federal courts before they were elected to Supreme Court.
They base their decisions on the evidence presented to them not on emotions.
Click to expand...

I think you need to re read your own article...
 
j-mac said:
Really? You see value on life? Are you pro life then?
Click to expand...

:roll: Abortion subforum is that way
|
|
|
V

How about the Terry Schivo case? Where'd you fall on that?...hmm?...yeah, i thought so.
Click to expand...

Her husband should have been the medical decision maker because Schiavo no longer had a functional brain.
She wasn't alive.
 
Deuce said:
:roll: Abortion subforum is that way
|
|
|
V



Her husband should have been the medical decision maker because Schiavo no longer had a functional brain.
She wasn't alive.
Click to expand...

Thought so, Statist to the end.
 
j-mac said:
Thought so, Statist to the end.
Click to expand...

"Husband should have been the decision maker" somehow translates to "statist" to this guy.

:lamo

Also, "statist" doesn't mean "authoritarian." It means "person who thinks there should be a state," basically.
 
Deuce said:
"Husband should have been the decision maker" somehow translates to "statist" to this guy.

:lamo

Also, "statist" doesn't mean "authoritarian." It means "person who thinks there should be a state," basically.
Click to expand...

Oh, excuse me, I should have said 'statist authortarian'.... Either way it is trash....Oh and it was the state that took up the cause to kill Schivo was it not?
 
j-mac said:
Oh, excuse me, I should have said 'statist authortarian'.... Either way it is trash....Oh and it was the state that took up the cause to kill Schivo was it not?
Click to expand...

And which part of "the husband should have been the decision maker" lead you to bring up all this?
 
j-mac said:
Certainly not the State.
Click to expand...

Ok. So when I said "the husband should have been the decision maker," you just decided I secretly wanted the state to decide that case? Help me out here, I'm having a hard time figuring out how you launched into this "statism" tirade.
 
Deuce said:
Ok. So when I said "the husband should have been the decision maker," you just decided I secretly wanted the state to decide that case? Help me out here, I'm having a hard time figuring out how you launched into this "statism" tirade.
Click to expand...

Figure it out...
 
minnie616 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The problem here is that maturity has nothing whatsoever to do with rights. When you turn 18, you get those rights whether you are mature or not. So why should maturity matter in this case, or in any case? That really makes no sense. If they're going to say she's under 18 and therefore has no rights, fine. Don't hold out the carrot of "if only she was mature enough..." because it has zero bearing on the case.
 
j-mac said:
Oh, excuse me, I should have said 'statist authortarian'.... Either way it is trash....Oh and it was the state that took up the cause to kill Schivo was it not?
Click to expand...

No, the state got involved in a high profile dispute between the husband and Terri Shiavo's parents because that's how the dispute had to be settled. It's what the courts are established in part to do.

It was an all time low for my own Senator Frist, who diagnosed her medical condition by watching a video. I thought he was a pretty good politician till that point, when he shamelessly exploited his former career as highly qualified physician to take a position that as a medical doctor was simply reckless and indefensible. Entirely changed my opinion of him as a person.
 
j-mac said:
Figure it out...
Click to expand...

Translation: "****, my wild partisan rant actually makes no sense I'll just put on a smug pretense of superiority and hope nobody notices."
 
We had a similar case here in Canada last year, an 11 yr old native girl with acute lymphoblastic leukemia, and her mother refused chemotherapy preferring traditional native remedies and the matter went to our Supreme Court and the mother was successful in being granted the right, as her parent, to follow methods not approved by doctors or the government.

It was reported today that she is steadily improving at this stage.
 
CanadaJohn said:
We had a similar case here in Canada last year, an 11 yr old native girl with acute lymphoblastic leukemia, and her mother refused chemotherapy preferring traditional native remedies and the matter went to our Supreme Court and the mother was successful in being granted the right, as her parent, to follow methods not approved by doctors or the government.

It was reported today that she is steadily improving at this stage.
Click to expand...

Thanks for bringing the case.

For those interested here is a little more info:

J.J., the First Nations girl with leukemia

In late September, an 11-year-old First Nations girl with leukemia found herself at the centre of an intense court battle between her family and Hamilton Health Sciences (HHS).

J.J., as she was known in court where a publication ban shielded her identity, was being treated with chemotherapy at McMaster Children’s Hospital in Hamilton this summer. In August, her mother removed her from the treatment, opting instead for alternative treatment at the Hippocrates Health Institute in Florida.

HHS sought a court order for the Brant Children’s Aid Society (CAS) to remove the girl from her family so she could resume chemotherapy, a treatment doctors testified would give her a 90 to 95 per cent chance of survival.

The CAS opposed the order, at one point saying it was “draconian” to separate the girl from her family.

On Nov. 14, after nine court sessions, Justice Gethin Edward ruled it was J.J.’s mother’s aboriginal right to treat her daughter with traditional medicine instead of chemotherapy. McMaster did not appeal the verdict.

Both J.J. and Makayla Sault — a 10-year-old New Credit First Nation girl who refused to be treated with chemotherapy at McMaster Children’s Hospital in the spring of 2014 — are still alive.

But a CBC News investigation into the Florida clinic where both sought treatment has raised worrisome questions about the quality of treatment they’ve received.
Click to expand...

Hamilton's top newsmakers of 2014 - Latest Hamilton news - CBC Hamilton
 
Deuce said:
Translation: "****, my wild partisan rant actually makes no sense I'll just put on a smug pretense of superiority and hope nobody notices."
Click to expand...
Or it could be that I'm tired of repeating myself to people that have no real interest in debate, or are just going to ignore it anyway...got it?
 
CanadaJohn said:
We had a similar case here in Canada last year, an 11 yr old native girl with acute lymphoblastic leukemia, and her mother refused chemotherapy preferring traditional native remedies and the matter went to our Supreme Court and the mother was successful in being granted the right, as her parent, to follow methods not approved by doctors or the government.

It was reported today that she is steadily improving at this stage.
Click to expand...

Here are a few <SNIPs>from a blog that helps explain why the Canadian court ruled the way it did.

These are the details of a case that was recently argued in the Ontario Court of Justice. There is precedent in the Canadian legal system for disregarding the express wishes of parents who are also a child’s surrogate decision maker. For example, children of Jehovah’s Witnesses will continue to receive blood transfusions despite the fact that the tenets of their parents’ faith prohibit such a procedure. Why not override the mother’s decision in this case then, which seems so similar?

J.J. and her mother, D.H., are both members of The Six Nations of the Grand River, the largest First Nation band in Canada. In Canada, the rights of aboriginal peoples are protected under Section 35 of the 1982 Canada Act. The text of this act states:

35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.

(2) In this Act, “Aboriginal Peoples of Canada” includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.

(3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) “treaty rights” includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.

35(1) has been understood to encompass all rights that existed prior to the creation of the Canada Act that can be demonstrated to be centrally important to the continued culture and lifestyle of aboriginal peoples. That is, those rights possessed before European settlement of Canada that are central to the traditions of aboriginal peoples are to be both recognized and affirmed. ...

D.H. withdrew J.J. from treatment in order to pursue a course of traditional aboriginal medicine [1]. Given that the use of traditional medicine is a centrally important and continuing practice, it was deemed to be protected under 35(1) of the Canada Act. For this reason, the case to have J.J.’s status changed to a child in need of protection was dismissed. No party in the dispute believes that D.H. is an unloving mother or that other aspects of J.J.’s life could warrant such a status. The only concern—and it is clearly a big one—is that the result of D.H.’s rejection of chemotherapy is the likely death of her child.

The obvious question is: Should the Ontario Court have ruled in the way it did? I think the answer is No, but it’s important to be careful. The history of Canada’s treatment of aboriginal peoples is abhorrent, and some feel that any other ruling would have been a step towards the erosion of rights that are justifiably protected under the Canada Act. It is easy to see why one might worry about this. The traditional medical practices of The Six Nations are centrally important to their culture. If the court had overridden the wishes of the mother, that might have been seen as a legal precedent for denying traditional medical practices more generally. That would surely be unjustified.

But it is important to acknowledge that we know how the Court would have responded if the cultural practices in question were those of any non-aboriginal group. The parents’ decision as a surrogate would not have been respected and the child would have been treated. The understandable caution taken in this case (if we want to call the judge’s reading of 35(1), which is undoubtedly an extension of previous interpretations, caution) is a result of the awareness of previous wrongdoing. But, the overriding of parents’ decisions in other cases doesn’t amount to some form of legal prohibition on the practice of the tradition the tenet of which was in conflict with the proposed treatment. Nor does it diminish the capacity of the parents to bring the child up in their faith or cultural tradition. Nor does it indicate any malice towards the group in question. Rather, overriding the parents’ decisions amounts to the state asserting that, in the case in question, it is the child’s wellbeing that matters most. And this is just as it should be.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
Here are a few <SNIPs>from a blog that helps explain why the Canadian court ruled the way it did.
Click to expand...

Good afternoon Minnie,

Thanks for filling in the details here. I didn't do so, not knowing if a Canadian case under different laws would be of interest to the predominantly American audience here on DP.

I'll be following the child's progress from a medical perspective. It was reported in one of the Toronto newspapers today that the family of the child claims she's now cancer-free. The family claims the traditional/alternative treatments have cured her whereas the oncologists who treated her claim that the two weeks of chemotherapy she received is the reason for her recovery. The child was apparently tested at our world renowned Sick Kids hospital, her spinal fluids and bone marrow, and reported no signs of any cancer.

Who knows what happened - I'm glad the child appears to be in full recovery. But the legal battle was also interesting. It might give some credence to the parents and patient in the case outlined in this OP who feel other methods may be better than chemotherapy.

Thanks again for filling in the details.
 
Deuce said:
She's a minor and isn't equipped to make that decision solo, and her mother filled her head with the hippie bull**** idea that some "alternative medicine" will make her life better.

Her mother is trying to kill her with hippie bull****. The fact that it's unintentional isn't terribly relevant.
Click to expand...

I don't care if the state views her as a minor and I don't care if they approve of anything. She is seventeen years old and made a decision towards her own person. She did hurt anyone by doing so and the state and the doctors involved are completely out of line to imprison her and violate her person. Period. If anyone should be imprisoned it the judge and the doctors that forced medical treatment on another human being.
 
Declan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Can she sue the doctors when she turns eighteen for what they did to her?
 
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...

Its kinda of funny how the government used to arrest people for selling a drug people were taking for AIDS because according to the government the treatment did nothing. Funny how that treatment became the backbone of AIDS treatment in the years to come.
 
minnie616 said:
First of all I would like to offer my deepest sympathy on the death of your mother and I am very sorry she suffered so much.

Perhaps the chemo did lengthen your moms life.

My very good friend had stage 4 breast cancer.

She went trough a round of chemo and radiation and had 3 good years.
In fact her doctor told her he thought she had been cured.
When she went back for her 6 months checkup the cancer showed up throughout her body.

Another round of chemo and within 6 months of the treatment she died.

In most late stage cancer cases I would agree that one round of chemo can usually give the patient some quality time but repeated chemo puts the patient though too much misery and suffering for the little amount of time they prolong their life. If my friend had asked for my opinion I would have told her not to do the second round.
Click to expand...

Good morning Minnie and thanks for your kind thoughts - I appreciate it.

Chemo most certainly did lengthen my mom's life. The problem is, it was a lousy life, in my mother's opinion, and in mine as well. There's a difference between being kept alive and actually living.
 
minnie616 said:
The girl will turn 18 in 9 months.
Then she will be able to make her own health care decisions.
Click to expand...

She is allowed to make some health care decisions already per state law.

When she turns 18, she will be able to make her own cancer treatment decisions is the correct sentence.
 
CanadaJohn said:
We had a similar case here in Canada last year, an 11 yr old native girl with acute lymphoblastic leukemia, and her mother refused chemotherapy preferring traditional native remedies and the matter went to our Supreme Court and the mother was successful in being granted the right, as her parent, to follow methods not approved by doctors or the government.

It was reported today that she is steadily improving at this stage.
Click to expand...

Makayla Sault, girl who refused chemo for leukemia, dies - Aboriginal - CBC

Makayla Sault, the 11-year-old Ontario First Nation girl who refused chemotherapy to pursue traditional indigenous medicine and other alternative treatments, has died.

The girl died Monday after suffering a stroke Sunday.

"Surrounded by the love and support of her family, her community and her nation … Makayla completed her course. She is now safely in the arms of Jesus," her family said in a statement published by the Two Row Times.
Click to expand...

Makayla was given a 75 per cent chance of survival when she was diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in March. She underwent 11 weeks of chemotherapy at McMaster Children’s Hospital in Hamilton.
Click to expand...

Although her family claims her death was due to chemotherapy, in September, a McMaster oncologist testified at a hearing on a similar case of a First Nations girl refusing cancer treatment that Makayla had suffered a relapse. The doctor also testified that there are no known cases of survival of this type of leukemia without a full course of chemotherapy treatment.
Click to expand...

:roll: - You really have to wonder just how stupid these parents are.
 
Here is the kicker people:

Makayla Sault, girl who refused chemo for leukemia, dies - Aboriginal - CBC

The girl's mother said her daughter received cold laser therapy, Vitamin C injections and a strict raw food diet, among other therapies at Hippocrates.
Click to expand...

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/12/20/when-false-hope-leads-well-meaning-people-astray/

After two rounds of chemotherapy, Stephanie decided to look into alternative medicine as an option. The brave young Limerick woman then discovered the Hippocrates Health Institute in Florida and was given hope by its director, Dr Brian Clement.
Click to expand...

Why did I highlight Dr. Brian Clement, well, here is the asshole in question:

BrianClement1.jpg


Who is he?

Florida spa that treated First Nations girls with cancer faces lawsuits from ex-staff - Aboriginal - CBC

A Florida health spa, popular with many Canadians battling cancer and other serious illnesses, is being sued by former staff who allege the company's president is operating "a scam under Florida law" and practising medicine without a licence.

....

He and his wife, Anna Maria, a co-director of the institute, are named in at least three separate lawsuits filed recently in Palm Beach County.
Click to expand...

Here is what he is selling:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/12/20/when-false-hope-leads-well-meaning-people-astray/

All you need to know about this particularly ridiculous form of quackery, I’ve written about before. Suffice to say, the “toxins” that such footbaths supposedly remove through the feet don’t exist, and the water would change color regardless of whether a mark customer has her feet in the water or not. Of course, detox footbaths aren’t all. There’s also intravenous vitamin therapy, cranial electrotherapy stimulation, combination infrared waves plus oxygen, acupuncture, colon hydrotherapy (apparently with or without wheatgrass) and lymphatic drainage. There’s so much there, that the über-quack Joe Mercola featured Dr. Clement on his website a mere three weeks ago:
Click to expand...

Stupid parents + scam artists pretending to be doctors + quack science = dead kids. I'll continue to post these as they come, no doubt, there will be a few more dead kids until asshole parents like these and the con artists who scam them disappear thanks to either Darwinism of their own sheer stupidity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom