• 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

j-mac said:
No, Of course there isn't....This is just a teenage girl that doesn't want to experience the discomfort of the treatment, and a mom who can't be adult enough to step in and get her to see the consequences of her decisions....I notice also that an article posted earlier (hat tip Minnie) said that the remission rate was 85% for 5 years....What about after that? What is the success rate after that? In the end I agree that she should get the chemo, but I just don't agree that the State should be forcing her at the point of a gun to do it.
Click to expand...

10 year survival rates is 80 percent.

After 10 years they consider the patient as cured.

My good friend who was in his 20s and in med school ( now a retired MD ) diagnosed himself as having Hodgkins.
He had the Chemo over 45 years ago and is now enjoying his retirement.

Here are some stats

The American Cancer Society’s estimates for Hodgkin disease in the United States for 2014 are:

About 9,190 new cases (4,120 in females and 5,070 in males)
About 1,180 deaths (510 females, 670 males) from this cancer
Hodgkin disease can occur in both children and adults. It is most common in early adulthood (ages 15 to 40, especially in a person’s 20s), where it is mostly of the nodular sclerosis subtype, and in late adulthood (after age 55), where the mixed cellularity subtype is more common. Hodgkin disease is rare in children younger than 5 years of age. About 10% to 15% of cases are diagnosed in children and teenagers.

Because of advances in treatment, survival rates have improved in the past few decades.

The 1-year relative survival rate for all patients diagnosed with Hodgkin disease is now about 92%; the 5-year and 10-year survival rates are about 85% and 80%, respectively.

Certain factors such as the stage (extent) of Hodgkin disease and a person’s age affect these rates. For more detailed survival rates based on the stage of disease, as well as a discussion of other factors that affect survival, see the section “Survival rates for Hodgkin disease by stage.”
Click to expand...

What are the key statistics about Hodgkin disease?
 
Hatuey said:
So what you're saying is that you'd be okay with paying a few more hundred bucks in taxes for say the... "40 million" supposedly aborted fetuses? Correct?
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that we already do...So you're premise is a strawman.
 
j-mac said:
No, I'm saying that we already do...So you're premise is a strawman.
Click to expand...

We're paying for 40 million fetuses that have been aborted? :lol:
 
minnie616 said:
10 year survival rates is 80 percent.

After 10 years they consider the patient as cured.

My good friend who was in his 20s and in med school ( now a retired MD ) diagnosed himself as having Hodgkins.
He had the Chemo over 45 years ago and is now enjoying his retirement.

Here are some stats



What are the key statistics about Hodgkin disease?
Click to expand...

Thanks Minnie....I should have looked it up myself....sorry to have you do my research, but you do such a good job with it.....:lol: Anyway...Doesn't really change my position....Let's look at it like this....What if we flipped the actual scenerio....What if we said that this girl needed chemo, and the State stepped in and ordered that she was NOT to receive any treatment at all....And that her parents were barred from seeking chemo in her case....Would you then consider it a proper role for the government?
 
tres borrachos said:
This most certainly is "her body, her choice" Minnie. It's her body and it should be her choice what medical procedures she decides her body will endure. You don't get to pick and choose the application of that thinking.
Click to expand...

Minors cannot consent to medical treatments.

Some schools will not even allow teens to take a Tylenol without a note/prescription from their doctor.
 
Hatuey said:
We're paying for 40 million fetuses that have been aborted? :lol:
Click to expand...

Glad you're amused chuckles....Read this....

"For decades, Congress has upheld a policy preventing the use of federal tax dollars to fund elective abortion. Specifically, every year since 1976, Congress has attached the Hyde Amendment to the appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services.

The Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funding of abortion or health benefits plans that cover abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger.[1] Other provisions of current law, like the annual Smith Amendment governing insurance plans available to federal workers under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), bar the government from incurring any costs in connection with administering a health insurance plan that covers abortions beyond the limits established by the Hyde Amendment.

However, because Congress failed to apply Hyde amendment or similar language to the totality of the health care law, Obamacare potentially allows large taxpayer subsidies to flow to health plans that cover elective abortion.

Federal Dollars for Health Plans that Cover Elective Abortion. For the first time, the federal government will provide an “affordability tax credit” to millions of low-income and middle-income individuals and families to help subsidize the purchase of health plans on the exchanges.[2] By allowing health insurers that sell plans on many state exchanges to cover abortion while remaining eligible for federal subsidies, Obamacare opens new avenues for federal funding of abortion coverage. These federal tax credits could facilitate the purchase of health plans that cover elective abortion for millions of Americans who did not have such coverage previously."

Obamacare and Abortion: Forcing Individuals to Fund Elective Abortion Coverage
 
j-mac said:
Thanks Minnie....I should have looked it up myself....sorry to have you do my research, but you do such a good job with it.....:lol: Anyway...Doesn't really change my position....Let's look at it like this....What if we flipped the actual scenerio....What if we said that this girl needed chemo, and the State stepped in and ordered that she was NOT to receive any treatment at all....And that her parents were barred from seeking chemo in her case....Would you then consider it a proper role for the government?
Click to expand...


The state has a right to a compelling interest in the health/welfare of the minor.

Banning Chemo in this case would not be in the best interest of the minor.
 
minnie616 said:
The state has a right to a compelling interest in the health/welfare of the minor.

Banning Chemo in this case would not be in the best interest of the minor.
Click to expand...

So that's a no?
 
From MEDscape.com

Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health
Minor's Rights Versus Parental Rights: Review of Legal Issues in Adolescent Health Care

Laws that Limit Minors' Rights

Governments have an obligation to protect all citizens and particularly their young people from harm.[13] States, in the interest of protecting public safety, have the authority to limit individual rights. The protective notion of the state, known as parens patriae, assumes that minors are unable to understand fully and consent to the consequences of certain decisions.[14] Parens patriae is possessed by the state, thereby allowing the state to protect its minors health, safety, and welfare. The state, acting in the interest of protecting the minor against her own immature decisions, may impose considerable constraints.[15] All states have codes limiting minors' rights (e.g., the age allowing a minor to obtain a driver's license, the age requirement to attend school, and the legal drinking age) and exerting parens patriae.[16]...



Constitutionally, the rights of minors are protected; however, their rights are not protected to the same degree as an adult. There are three reasons that minors do not have the same constitutional rights as an adult: the vulnerability of children, their limited decision-making capacity, and the important role parents play in making decisions for their children.[17]
Click to expand...
 
mak2 said:
Big difference in 97 year old and a 17 year old, I have no problem with DNR's for people who rationally reach that decision due to medical problmes, quality of life, etc. But I do have a problem with unnecssary suicide.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and as I said, in this particular case that threshold may not be there. But there are cases where it's probably OK to let go.

Personal story that relates somewhat: Toward the end of his life, my 92 year old grandfather basically stopped eating. My mother thought he was "committing suicide" and was going to send him to an eating disorder clinic. Finally the nursing home and hospice people explained to her that he wasn't dying from not eating. He wasn't eating because he was dying. He'd had a good long life, and it was over. It was hard for my mother to admit but she finally did understand.
 
tres borrachos said:
This most certainly is "her body, her choice" Minnie. It's her body and it should be her choice what medical procedures she decides her body will endure. You don't get to pick and choose the application of that thinking.
Click to expand...

The decision to avoid treatment is not reversible, she will almost certainly die a slow painful death. With the decision as to whether to have a child or an abortion the consequences are not as significant and are somewhat reversible. She give can give the child up for adoption if she regrets her decision to have it, and she can have another child later if she regrets the abortion.
 
Last edited:
tres borrachos said:
This most certainly is "her body, her choice" Minnie. It's her body and it should be her choice what medical procedures she decides her body will endure. You don't get to pick and choose the application of that thinking.
Click to expand...

But when did she gain this ability to determine her own fate. In NJ, the law says at age 18. What age are you using?

The other problem specific to this case is she had an opportunity to convince a judge she was making responsible decisions, and she failed. I guess skipping doctors' appointments, running away from home, and not having any plan of treating the cancer will tend to do that.....
 
j-mac said:
Thanks, and I understand....But I guess we are saying that the unalienable right to liberty, is now controlled by the State....
Click to expand...

But only in a very limited sense - she's a minor, making an irreversible decision that will likely cost her her life. When she becomes an adult, the state will let her be the idiot she so wants to be now.
 
JasperL said:
But only in a very limited sense - she's a minor, making an irreversible decision that will likely cost her her life. When she becomes an adult, the state will let her be the idiot she so wants to be now.
Click to expand...

Ok, but it is still as I say...And not necessarily the girl's liberty, but the parents....unless you think that parents have no rights to make decisions for their kids, regardless how stupid they can be.
 
j-mac said:
Ok, but it is still as I say...And not necessarily the girl's liberty, but the parents....unless you think that parents have no rights to make decisions for their kids, regardless how stupid they can be.
Click to expand...

I think it's reasonable for a court to examine those parental decisions and step in when they're clearly irresponsible, as is the case here from the facts we know.

Or to take if from another direction, it's clearly a case with important principles in opposition to one another, and a very difficult balancing act. There are CLEAR liberty issues at stake, and issues of parental rights, but I think we all also recognize that parents can't be immune from having their decisions nullified - say, a mother feeding pot brownies to a toddler, or cooking meth in the kitchen next to the baby's crib. The state has a clear interest in removing the child from that environment and protecting her from harm.

Here, the court weighed those important principles and decided to try to save the life of a minor, over her and her mother's objections. I understand those who think the court's ruling was overbroad, but the ruling has the advantage of being consistent with ALL the medical evidence that the decision is clearly in the best interests of the minor child. If she had a plan of treatment not involving chemo that had a reasonable chance of success, the court might have decided differently, and I might agree. But from what we know, and it's not all, her alternative treatment 'plan' is 'no poison' - that's it. So I suspect the judge lost very little sleep on this one, and rightly so IMO.
 
tres borrachos said:
Same here. On the one hand people support her right to make decisions regarding her body. On the other hand, those same people don't support her right to make decisions regarding her body. How do you reconcile that?
Click to expand...

You could try not oversimplifying the situation.
 
j-mac said:
Ok, but it is still as I say...And not necessarily the girl's liberty, but the parents....unless you think that parents have no rights to make decisions for their kids, regardless how stupid they can be.
Click to expand...

I don't think parents have the right to kill their child, no.
 
JasperL said:
I think it's reasonable for a court to examine those parental decisions and step in when they're clearly irresponsible, as is the case here from the facts we know.
Click to expand...
If there is an immediate and urgent chance of injury or death - yes. Any other reason, no. The state I think interferes too often with parental decisions especially in this type of a case. This isn't a toddler being abused or living in a meth house. All too often, the state believes they are the guardian of children under 18 when that should not be the case.

JasperL said:
Or to take if from another direction, it's clearly a case with important principles in opposition to one another, and a very difficult balancing act. There are CLEAR liberty issues at stake, and issues of parental rights, but I think we all also recognize that parents can't be immune from having their decisions nullified - say, a mother feeding pot brownies to a toddler, or cooking meth in the kitchen next to the baby's crib. The state has a clear interest in removing the child from that environment and protecting her from harm.

Here, the court weighed those important principles and decided to try to save the life of a minor, over her and her mother's objections. I understand those who think the court's ruling was overbroad, but the ruling has the advantage of being consistent with ALL the medical evidence that the decision is clearly in the best interests of the minor child. If she had a plan of treatment not involving chemo that had a reasonable chance of success, the court might have decided differently, and I might agree. But from what we know, and it's not all, her alternative treatment 'plan' is 'no poison' - that's it. So I suspect the judge lost very little sleep on this one, and rightly so IMO.
Click to expand...

I don't think the court should have the option to rule in such a case as the girl will be 18 in months. I'm all for education about medications and treatments but the alternative here is she will get chemo or a few months and possibly - when she turns 18, decide to end it. What then? The court forces an age legal adult to finish the chemo? No. If a parent says no chemo and they are on board with it and the 17 year old girl also agrees with it - the state should not have the option to over rule. If the parent is irresponsible, why then are charges not being brought against the parent?
 
Ockham said:
If there is an immediate and urgent chance of injury or death - yes. Any other reason, no. The state I think interferes too often with parental decisions especially in this type of a case. This isn't a toddler being abused or living in a meth house. All too often, the state believes they are the guardian of children under 18 when that should not be the case.
Click to expand...

But there is an immediate chance of injury - you can only treat cancer in its early stages when it's in its early stages.

I don't think the court should have the option to rule in such a case as the girl will be 18 in months. I'm all for education about medications and treatments but the alternative here is she will get chemo or a few months and possibly - when she turns 18, decide to end it. What then? The court forces an age legal adult to finish the chemo? No. If a parent says no chemo and they are on board with it and the 17 year old girl also agrees with it - the state should not have the option to over rule. If the parent is irresponsible, why then are charges not being brought against the parent?
Click to expand...

I guess I'm not much moved by the fact she's an immature 17 years old versus 12 or 4. I understand your point, but we just disagree, which is fine.
 
JasperL said:
But there is an immediate chance of injury - you can only treat cancer in its early stages when it's in its early stages.
Click to expand...
I thought in reading this story that she was diagnosed with hodgkins lymphoma, which isn't a very fast moving cancer. I don't believe she was in imminent danger of death.

JasperL said:
I guess I'm not much moved by the fact she's an immature 17 years old versus 12 or 4. I understand your point, but we just disagree, which is fine.
Click to expand...

Ok
 
Ockham said:
I thought in reading this story that she was diagnosed with hodgkins lymphoma, which isn't a very fast moving cancer. I don't believe she was in imminent danger of death.
Click to expand...

8 percent die within the first year , usually because they did not start treatment in time.
 
minnie616 said:
8 percent die within the first year , usually because they did not start treatment in time.
Click to expand...

Which is fine - I'm all for people having and expressing their choice without interference. Do children really belong to parents or are they really pseudo-wards of the state where the state can intercede because (using an extreme example) that the child is not eating enough leafy greens, therefore the child is removed from the home, made a ward of the state and fed spinach salad?
 
Ockham said:
Which is fine - I'm all for people having and expressing their choice without interference. Do children really belong to parents or are they really pseudo-wards of the state where the state can intercede because (using an extreme example) that the child is not eating enough leafy greens, therefore the child is removed from the home, made a ward of the state and fed spinach salad?
Click to expand...

Yes, your example is extreme.
Will the child die without leafy greens?

By the way
I think you were confusing
Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma with Hodgkin Lymphoma when you said you thought it was not a fast moving cancer.
 
minnie616 said:
Yes, your example is extreme.
Will the child die without leafy greens?
Click to expand...
Perhaps not as quickly as hodgkins lymphoma but yes... Obese Kids' Artery Plaque Similar To Middle-aged Adults -- ScienceDaily

minnie616 said:
By the way
I think you were confusing
Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma with Hodgkin Lymphoma when you said you thought it was not a fast moving cancer.
Click to expand...
I may be. I haven't been keeping up on the medical side of the issue - more on the political side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom