• 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

Verax said:
She's 17. When she turns 18 she can decide if she wants to let herself die, until then matured minds make her decisions for her.
Click to expand...

Her mother is a mature mind. Her mother supports her choice. Her mother is her legal guardian. Not everyone needs the "mature minds" of their state government to do the thinking for them.
 
tres borrachos said:
What the **** happened to "her body, her choice"?
Click to expand...

Oh no... that doesn't apply here. It's only her body her choice when there's an unwanted pregnancy. In this case it would be very inconvenient indeed for her to have a choice. (Good point out of the hypocrisy though!) :peace
 
mak2 said:
She certainly will be without treatment, probably not if treated.
Click to expand...

So since she's not dead, there's no abuse. Interesting that you're willing to have the state revoke a parents rights to their child on something that may happen in the future, based on an assumption.
 
Ockham said:
The mature minds in this case are her parents, not the state. This is less about this particular person and more about when does a state have the right to decide what is best for a child without the consent of the parents. Do children belong to their legal parent/guardian or do they really belong to the state. Obviously in cases where there is neglect or abuse it's one thing.... but there was no neglect or abuse in this case, at least none identified so far.
Click to expand...

The determination has been made that the parents are not acting in the child's best interest by letting her die. It's kind of a grey area and perhaps it should be up to the parents and 17 year old since she is close to being an adult. However I think the problem is that the parents' judgement is being deemed unsound. In a more extreme case this would seem more appropriate but is kind of funny here.
 
mak2 said:
Are you pro Euthanasia? I am just thinking this thru, professionally I am interested in medical ethics.
Click to expand...

Yes. I am of the view that right to life also means right to die. It's not a simple determination, one must prove mental competency first.

But that's not the base issue here. Do patients have the right to refuse medical treatment (or to go against medical advice). How far are the courts going to take this considering this decision that she must have involuntary chemo? If a doctor advises, "quit smoking or you will die", can the doctor then order the state to compel you to quit smoking?
 
You cant wait till she is dead then treat her for cancer.
Ockham said:
So since she's not dead, there's no abuse. Interesting that you're willing to have the state revoke a parents rights to their child on something that may happen in the future, based on an assumption.
Click to expand...
 
Verax said:
The determination has been made that the parents are not acting in the child's best interest by letting her die. It's kind of a grey area and perhaps it should be up to the parents and 17 year old since she is close to being an adult. However I think the problem is that the parents' judgement is being deemed unsound. In a more extreme case this would seem more appropriate but is kind of funny here.
Click to expand...

I'm very uncomfortable with that.... there is no abuse there is no neglect.
 
I think this is an interesting case because she is not in pain, it is not a risk v benefits issue, there is almost always a good outcome and almost always fatal without treatment. To simply not take the treatment, as far as I can see, is exactly the same as someone who is not in pain and has no terminal illness taking enough morphine ot kill himself. I am trying to figure out the difference here. The gooberment bad thing I dont think should enter the medical ethics question. Is it right or wrong to let a minor kill themselves with parental concent?
clownboy said:
Yes. I am of the view that right to life also means right to die. It's not a simple determination, one must prove mental competency first.

But that's not the base issue here. Do patients have the right to refuse medical treatment (or to go against medical advice). How far are the courts going to take this considering this decision that she must have involuntary chemo? If a doctor advises, "quit smoking or you will die", can the doctor then order the state to compel you to quit smoking?
Click to expand...
 
mak2 said:
So you are all for letting children kill themselves? Cause that is exactly what you are saying. Get off the gooberment bad thing for a minute and think. Do you really want to let this girl die for no reason?
Click to expand...

"I" am not doing anything of the sort....I personally, if she were my daughter would talk to her about getting the treatments, however, it seems that the parents are for giving her the say so, and it is her body....And no I won't get off the "government" thing....This is what happens when you give up your rights to big government...Tell me, when the IPAB gets rolling, and they deny treatments will you be saying that's a good thing too?
 
mak2 said:
If you are almost certain to live if you take the chemo and almost certain to die without it, and you can take it and refuse, what do you call it? Its suicide.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. So the 10% chance she will die even if she follows the doctors proscribed course of action is what? Bad luck?
 
Ok, gooberment bad, let her die...
j-mac said:
"I" am not doing anything of the sort....I personally, if she were my daughter would talk to her about getting the treatments, however, it seems that the parents are for giving her the say so, and it is her body....And no I won't get off the "government" thing....This is what happens when you give up your rights to big government...Tell me, when the IPAB gets rolling, and they deny treatments will you be saying that's a good thing too?
Click to expand...
 
tres borrachos said:
Her mother is a mature mind. Her mother supports her choice. Her mother is her legal guardian. Not everyone needs the "mature minds" of their state government to do the thinking for them.
Click to expand...

Couple problems though. IMO the only person who should decide if they can die should be the person themselves. However in this case that person is legally a minor and may not be mentally matured enough to decide for themselves. So sure it goes to the parents, but that presents a problem as well. Should a parent be allowed to make a decision for her child to let them die when a viable alternative exists?

Think of this in more extreme terms and it would sound ridiculous. Lets say a 6 year old has a blood infection and will die without antibiotics. The parents say they don't believe in it so no, don't do it. This would not be allowed, so why is this case so much different? The state and or medical team would step in and make the right decision because the parents were deemed of unsound judgement.
 
clownboy said:
Yes. I am of the view that right to life also means right to die. It's not a simple determination, one must prove mental competency first.

But that's not the base issue here. Do patients have the right to refuse medical treatment (or to go against medical advice). How far are the courts going to take this considering this decision that she must have involuntary chemo? If a doctor advises, "quit smoking or you will die", can the doctor then order the state to compel you to quit smoking?
Click to expand...

Thankfully not. Today, anyway. The way things are going, I can see that changing too.
 
Yes, but a very small one, I beleive the survival rate is very very good. I have not looked it up but I do know someone personally that had exactly the same disease and treatment at about her age. The stats I quoted was from her. She says her odds of living to a ripe old age are about the same as anyone else her age etc.
ocean515 said:
No it isn't. So the 10% chance she will die even if she follows the doctors proscribed course of action is what? Bad luck?
Click to expand...
 
What parent would give their child permission to die, when it almost certainly not necessary?
Verax said:
Couple problems though. IMO the only person who should decide if they can die should be the person themselves. However in this case that person is legally a minor and may not be mentally matured enough to decide for themselves. So sure it goes to the parents, but that presents a problem as well. Should a parent be allowed to make a decision for her child to let them die when a viable alternative exists?

Think of this in more extreme terms and it would sound ridiculous. Lets say a 6 year old has a blood infection and will die without antibiotics. The parents say they don't believe in it so no, don't do it. This would not be allowed, so why is this case so much different? The state and or medical team would step in and make the right decision because the parents were deemed of unsound judgement.
Click to expand...
 
Verax said:
Couple problems though. IMO the only person who should decide if they can die should be the person themselves. However in this case that person is legally a minor and may not be mentally matured enough to decide for themselves. So sure it goes to the parents, but that presents a problem as well. Should a parent be allowed to make a decision for her child to let them die when a viable alternative exists?

Think of this in more extreme terms and it would sound ridiculous. Lets say a 6 year old has a blood infection and will die without antibiotics. The parents say they don't believe in it so no, don't do it. This would not be allowed, so why is this case so much different? The state and or medical team would step in and make the right decision because the parents were deemed of unsound judgement.
Click to expand...

She isn't 6. She's 17. Her body...her choice. The state also gives her the right to marry, drive, terminate a pregnancy, and a host of other things without her parents' consent.

The state is out of line here. It's up to her and her parents. I do not care for big government and this is an example of why and when.
 
And you are for euthanasia at will too then I take it?
tres borrachos said:
She isn't 6. She's 17. Her body...her choice. The state also gives her the right to marry, drive, terminate a pregnancy, and a host of other things without her parents' consent.

The state is out of line here. It's up to her and her parents. I do not care for big government and this is an example of why and when.
Click to expand...
 
mak2 said:
You cant wait till she is dead then treat her for cancer.
Click to expand...

Is there a threat of imminent death? Hodgkins Lymphoma, which is what I believe she has, is not a very fast killing cancer.
 
mak2 said:
I think this is an interesting case because she is not in pain, it is not a risk v benefits issue, there is almost always a good outcome and almost always fatal without treatment. To simply not take the treatment, as far as I can see, is exactly the same as someone who is not in pain and has no terminal illness taking enough morphine ot kill himself. I am trying to figure out the difference here. The gooberment bad thing I dont think should enter the medical ethics question. Is it right or wrong to let a minor kill themselves with parental concent?
Click to expand...

Except it's not that cut and dried. The patient and her guardian are not seeking no treatment but to use alternate treatment. The doctors say the odds are against this, but they cannot accurately say it will not be a successful route for her to take.

In short, the doctors and the state want to treat her their way, she and her guardian want to go another way. Neither the doctor nor the state should have the power to compel a specific treatment in the first place.

To answer your last as a standalone question - it's not a matter of right or wrong. It's a matter of whose interests are served, the state's or the patient's. I fall on the side of the patient.
 
mak2 said:
And you are for euthanasia at will too then I take it?
Click to expand...

It isn't up to me to tell someone who wants to kill himself that he can't kill himself, especially if it isn't one of my minor children. If it's another adult, do what you will.
 
mak2 said:
What parent would give their child permission to die, when it almost certainly not necessary?
Click to expand...

Doesn't really make any sense to me either.
 
I am really not sure how long she has to get treatment, but that confusion does not help me think this through.
Ockham said:
Is there a threat of imminent death? Hodgkins Lymphoma, which is what I believe she has, is not a very fast killing cancer.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom