• 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

tres borrachos said:
Show me the CT law that says a minor is required to accept any medical treatment that he/she/the parents don't want.
Click to expand...

Why would I? My contention is that parental/minor's consent in order to carry out a medical procedure is not always required. That much is proven true by this ruling. :shrug:

So in other words, strangers are making a decision for this young woman, opposing her wishes and her parents' wishes, arbitrarily. And at the same time taking away her right to do with her body what she wishes.

You think that's fine. I don't.
Click to expand...

There is no arbitrary decision making here. Unless of course, you believe there are other medical procedures with an 85% success rate? Do you believe that?
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
A seventeen year old is not a child, really.
Click to expand...

Some 10 year olds are probably entirely capable of making excellent adult decisions, and many 22 year olds still behave as children, so the law makes an arbitrary dividing line that, in this case, appears to be a wise one.

Why is it different? Because you say it is?
Click to expand...

Not me, the state of CT, but they just are different decisions with different risks. The medical evidence here is clear - treatment gives her an excellent shot at recovery and a long life, and no-treatment almost guarantees her early death.

There is very little risk of permanent physical harm with an abortion, and some small risk of death as a result of carrying a baby to term. For many pregnant minors, getting consent might mean getting consent to abort from their abuser, or they may be subject to abuse should the parents learn of the pregnancy. I'm sure those involved in drafting the relevant laws considered other factors.

But I don't need to justify or defend the abortion law in CT to consider or comment on this case. If this was an abortion thread, the rules for abortion in CT would be relevant. I'm not sure why they are critical to this case that doesn't involve abortion.
 
tres borrachos said:
I'm wondering too, based on his post....does he think every adult who skips doctor's appointments (there are a lot of them), "runs away from home" (get mad and go back to mother's house, skip town for a few days), and fails to present "viable alternative treatments" for their medical conditions (without medical training, of course) should also be deemed to incompetent to make their own decisions, and become wards of the state?
Click to expand...

You highlighted the key word - ADULT. She's not one - she is a minor child.
 
Hatuey said:
Why would I? My contention is that parental/minor's consent in order to carry out a medical procedure. That much is proven true by this ruling. :shrug:



There is no arbitrary decision making here. Unless of course, you believe there are other medical procedures with an 85% success rate? Do you believe that?
Click to expand...

You think it's okay because of the ruling.

I'm not like you. I don't have an opinion on it because some judge tells me what my opinion should be. Do you agree with all judges all the time - did you think Citizen's United was the right decision because it was proven true that corporations are people? Rhetorical question and OT but if you're as smart as I think you are, you get my point.

The arbitrary decision was that there is no rule that says a minor in CT must have medical treatment that may or may not keep her alive, and her parents' wishes (and hers) didn't matter. Yes it was arbitrary. That's what these cases usually are. The success rate isn't relevant. It should be her choice - it's her life and her body.
 
tres borrachos said:
You think it's okay because of the ruling.
Click to expand...

Nope, I think the ruling is based on existing CT law otherwise, it wouldn't have gotten all the way up to the CT Supreme Court. Do you have a problem with CT's state laws now? Don't move there. Isn't that your usual counterargument for laws a person may not agree with? Look, it's simple, this mother is a new age wacko who REALLY didn't make a good case for why her decision had the child's best interest at hand. It's no different than Ockham trying to play off the belief that "starving a child" could be in a child's best interest under the right circumstances. That simply doesn't work in the adult world. She is putting her child's life at risk and the state ruled - WITHOUT LOOKING AT OTHER LAWS ON CONSENT - on this matter. That you continue to argue that abortion is important in this case, when it really has no relevance is your issue. Maybe you should become a CT lawyer and defend this girl? I'm sure you're close to proving that CT law was understood wrongly by the various courts this case has gone through. :)
 
Last edited:
tres borrachos said:
Her parents made the decision as well. They are not children. They are adults. This isn't just about her. Do you know what this story is about?
Click to expand...

Sure I know what the story is about. If the parents were cooking meth in the kitchen next to the crib, the state can't intervene because "They are adults." Of course they can and will.

What responsible decision has the mother made here? What was the alternative treatment plan? If I'm missing something and the two had consulted an alternative medicine provider, had this person show up in court to testify about the efficacy of the proposed treatments, sure, we should give the family all kinds of due deference to make informed medical choices, backed by medical professionals, traditional or otherwise. But I see no slippery slope in the state intervening when the case between responsible decision versus reckless decision with irreversible, deadly consequences for a child are so clear cut. Like I said, I doubt the judge had a difficult time here.
 
JasperL said:
The medical evidence here is clear - treatment gives her an excellent shot at recovery and a long life, and no-treatment almost guarantees her early death.
Click to expand...

So what right does anyone else have to decide what "shot" she has and how long she's supposed to live? This is like a Death Panel in reverse. Instead of deciding who dies, the government decides who lives.

That doesn't bother Liberals apparently. It should. The government shouldn't be playing God and they shouldn't be playing doctor. You approve of them doing both.
 
JasperL said:
Sure I know what the story is about. If the parents were cooking meth in the kitchen next to the crib, the state can't intervene because "They are adults." Of course they can and will.

What responsible decision has the mother made here? What was the alternative treatment plan? If I'm missing something and the two had consulted an alternative medicine provider, had this person show up in court to testify about the efficacy of the proposed treatments, sure, we should give the family all kinds of due deference to make informed medical choices, backed by medical professionals, traditional or otherwise. But I see no slippery slope in the state intervening when the case between responsible decision versus reckless decision with irreversible, deadly consequences for a child are so clear cut. Like I said, I doubt the judge had a difficult time here.
Click to expand...

What does cooking meth have to do with this?

And why do you demand an alternative medical treatment? It isn't your daughter. And the daughter herself made her own decision about what was best for her. Some people are smart like that. Even some women.
 
tres borrachos said:
So what right does anyone else have to decide what "shot" she has and how long she's supposed to live? This is like a Death Panel in reverse. Instead of deciding who dies, the government decides who lives.

That doesn't bother Liberals apparently. It should. The government shouldn't be playing God and they shouldn't be playing doctor. You approve of them doing both.
Click to expand...

So parents get to decide whether their children live or die? Is that what you're getting at here?
 
Hatuey said:
Nope, I think the ruling is based on existing CT law otherwise, it wouldn't have gotten all the way up to the CT Supreme Court. Do you have a problem with CT's state laws now? Don't move there. Isn't that your usual counterargument for laws a person may not agree with? Look, it's simple, this mother is a new age wacko who REALLY didn't make a good case for why her decision had the child's best interest at hand. It's no different than Ockham trying to play off the belief that "starving a child" could be in a child's best interest under the right circumstances. That simply doesn't work in the adult world. She is putting her child's life at risk and the state ruled - WITHOUT LOOKING AT OTHER LAWS ON CONSENT - on this matter. That you continue to argue that abortion is important in this case, when it really has no relevance is your issue. Maybe you should become a CT lawyer and defend this girl? I'm sure you're close to proving that CT law was understood wrongly by the various courts this case has gone through. :)
Click to expand...

I lived in CT and left because of idiots like these judges.

We aren't talking about starving a child was is abuse (there are laws against that) and which means the difference between life and death. There is no evidence that 100% states that she will live after having chemo. If you can't see the difference, I can't help you.

I'm not trying to prove CT law is wrong. I'm pointing out the fact that some of you are applauding the government thinking for other adults and their almost-adult child. You think it's great. I find it disturbing. When I'm interested in the government's opinion on how long I should live, I'll ask them. Until then, they shouldn't assume it's their right to decide when I live and when I die. This isn't communist Russia.
 
Hatuey said:
So parents get to decide whether their children live or die? Is that what you're getting at here?
Click to expand...

We are talking about a medical procedure. There is no guarantee that she will die without it, and there is no guarantee that she will live with it. So there is and was no reason to force the decision other than the state deciding it wanted to control her life and her body.

Yes, the parents have the right to make the decision on this big old "maybe" that is otherwise known as chemotherapy. And the patient had the right to have her wishes granted.
 
tres borrachos said:
So all the rhetoric about abortion being a "choice" and a woman's right to Privacy being important ...
Click to expand...

As I said before the right to privacy only applies to a few zones of privacy,

such as marriage, child rearing, contraception, and abortion among a few other zones.

I do not use the term " my body, my choice" because that is not what Roe vs Wade ruled on.
The Supreme Court decided in 1965 that women/couples had a right to privacy regarding the use contraceptives.
The Supreme Court ruled that the right to privacy could extend to abortions before viability in the Roe vs Wade decision in 1973.
 
tres borrachos said:
And her parents are her legal guardians. Adult legal guardians. And unlike you, I don't believe that judges and politicians are more equipped to raise my children than I am. Let them raise yours and decide what's best for your kids. I side with the parents here.
Click to expand...

In your case, you'd probably be correct, but I have a feeling you'd have a bit of faith in medical science and medical evidence, and even if you had doubts about the incredibly good chances of chemo here, you'd only consider alternatives with a higher chance of saving your child's life. That would be the rational and adult approach to this issue. Where is that approach in evidence from this mother?

But sometimes parent's are irresponsible and the state has an obligation to intervene. It's your view this isn't one of those cases, but I think you'd accept that where we disagree isn't that you believe there is NO line - the parent is always right, even if it involves a meth kitchen next to the crib - but where the line should be drawn.

I don't think the case is hard, but understand reasonable minds can differ. What I don't see, however, is the principle involved. If the mother was buying crack for her, and that was the 'treatment,' is that OK? I doubt it would be even for you. If the kid was 2? Surely you'd recognize the state's right to intervene. So what's the principle here - if the person is almost an adult and the treatment is unpleasant? I really don't know.
 
minnie616 said:
As I said before the right to privacy only applies to a few zones of privacy,

such as marriage, child rearing, contraception, and abortion among a few other zones.

I do not use the term " my body, my choice" because that is not what Roe vs Wade ruled on.
The Supreme Court decided in 1965 that women/couples had a right to privacy regarding the use contraceptives.
The Supreme Court ruled that the right to privacy could extend to abortions before viability in the Roe vs Wade decision in 1973.
Click to expand...

Okay, then we'll call this a privacy issue.

And this young lady has a right to her privacy. That's what I think. Apparently many others don't think a woman really does have a right to her privacy because they are not extending the courtesy to this woman. I see that as a problem. You don't. That's okay that we disagree but I find it oddly contradictory, and pretty hypocritical.
 
tres borrachos said:
I lived in CT and left because of idiots like these judges.
Click to expand...

Then don't go back. Simple solution.

We aren't talking about starving a child was is abuse (there are laws against that) and which means the difference between life and death. There is no evidence that 100% states that she will live after having chemo. If you can't see the difference, I can't help you.
Click to expand...

Can you tell us the success rates of "alternative treatments"? Here is all we need to know this case:

APNewsBreak: Girl Says She Knows She'll Die Without Chemo - ABC News

She said by text she understands "death is the outcome of refusing chemo" but believes in "the quality of my life, not the quantity."
Click to expand...

When the child admits that refusing chemo leads to death, and the parent pushes that chemotherapy is poison, one must come to the conclusion that neither of these people have a clue what it is they're discussing. More importantly, neither of these people understand that the parent's "choice" is guaranteed to lead to the child's death.

I'm not trying to prove CT law is wrong.
Click to expand...

Eh, apparently you are as you seem to believe that the CT Court ruled based on something other than the law. Do you believe it did? I mean, if you're right and the state doesn't have the right to determine whether a minor can receive certain treatments, then why did the CT Court rule this way? ****s and giggles?
 
JasperL said:
In your case, you'd probably be correct, but I have a feeling you'd have a bit of faith in medical science and medical evidence, and even if you had doubts about the incredibly good chances of chemo here, you'd only consider alternatives with a higher chance of saving your child's life. That would be the rational and adult approach to this issue. Where is that approach in evidence from this mother?

But sometimes parent's are irresponsible and the state has an obligation to intervene. It's your view this isn't one of those cases, but I think you'd accept that where we disagree isn't that you believe there is NO line - the parent is always right, even if it involves a meth kitchen next to the crib - but where the line should be drawn.

I don't think the case is hard, but understand reasonable minds can differ. What I don't see, however, is the principle involved. If the mother was buying crack for her, and that was the 'treatment,' is that OK? I doubt it would be even for you. If the kid was 2? Surely you'd recognize the state's right to intervene. So what's the principle here - if the person is almost an adult and the treatment is unpleasant? I really don't know.
Click to expand...

Come on....crack isn't a medical treatment, and it isn't legal. And we aren't talking about a baby - she's 17 and can verbalize what she wants for her body.

I personally have a lot of faith in doctors. But that's my choice. That doesn't mean I demand that other parents have the same mindset I do.

I didn't breastfeed any of my children. Against my doctors' recommendations, no less. That was my choice. Would it have been better if I had? All of the experts say so. But what right would anyone have to compel me to do it because it was a better alternative than Similac? I listen to doctors but they don't dictate everything. And I don't expect everyone to do or think as I do.
 
tres borrachos said:
We are talking about a medical procedure.
Click to expand...

Yes, a medical procedure with a higher chance of saving her life than alternative medicine. Again, you fail to see the fact that the parent couldn't make even an informed argument on this matter. Her case was basically dependent on a misapplied slogan, and "alternative treatment". Whatever the hell that is when it comes to cancer. What the hell was she talking about anyways? Coffee enemas a-la-Steve McQueen?

There is no guarantee that she will die without it, and there is no guarantee that she will live with it. So there is and was no reason to force the decision other than the state deciding it wanted to control her life and her body.

Yes, the parents have the right to make the decision on this big old "maybe" that is otherwise known as chemotherapy. And the patient had the right to have her wishes granted.
Click to expand...

Lmao, that's not what I asked you. I asked you whether a parent has the right to decide whether a child lives or dies. It's a simple question and completely relevant to this issue. Unlike abortion.
 
Hatuey said:
Then don't go back. Simple solution.



Can you tell us the success rates of "alternative treatments"? Here is all we need to know this case:

APNewsBreak: Girl Says She Knows She'll Die Without Chemo - ABC News



When the child admits that refusing chemo leads to death, and the parent pushes that chemotherapy is poison, one must come to the conclusion that neither of these people have a clue what it is they're discussing. More importantly, neither of these people understand that the parent's "choice" is guaranteed to lead to the child's death.



Eh, apparently you are as you seem to believe that the CT Court ruled based on something other than the law. Do you believe it did? I mean, if you're right and the state doesn't have the right to determine whether a minor can receive certain treatments, then why did the CT Court rule this way? ****s and giggles?
Click to expand...

Until the chemo success rate is 100%, your claim that refusing it "leads to death" is false, coupled in with the fact that not every case of cancer is fatal.

No, I'm not saying the Curt rules on something other than the law. No clue where that came from. I said I'm not trying to prove the CT law is wrong because there is no specific law that can be proven wrong, and that isn't what interests me in this thread. I'm interested in all of the posts cheering judges for playing God and doctor.

By the way, what "alternative treatments" and their success rates am I supposed to tell "us" about? I don't know anything about the alternative treatments, nor would they have anything to do with what I've been posting about. I don't suggest she seek alternative treatments. I don't suggest she seek anything. It isn't my call to interfere with her life and her choices. And I'm not a doctor. Are you?
 
Hatuey said:
Yes, a medical procedure with a higher chance of saving her life than alternative medicine. Again, you fail to see the fact that the parent couldn't make even an informed argument on this matter. Her case was basically dependent on a misapplied slogan, and "alternative treatment". Whatever the hell that is when it comes to cancer. What the hell was she talking about anyways? Coffee enemas a-la-Steve McQueen?



Lmao, that's not what I asked you. I asked you whether a parent has the right to decide whether a child lives or dies. It's a simple question and completely relevant to this issue. Unlike abortion.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you're talking about alternative medicine. I'm not.

Does a parent have a right to decide if a child lives or not? You have to ask me that question? My sister delivered a baby that was being kept alive by machines and she & my brother in law signed the order to turn off the machines and let their daughter die. So yes, they decided that baby would not live. If I were a mother in that situation I would have made the same decision. And Karen Ann Quinlan's parents were not allowed to make the same decision initially when their daughter was declared brain dead, and had to wait years for the NJ Court to rule in their favor. So there isn't really an answer to that, is there?
 
tres borrachos said:
Until the chemo success rate is 100%, your claim that refusing it "leads to death" is false
Click to expand...

My claim? That's HER claim. The RULING is based on whether she has the capacity to determine what is best for herself given the evidence she has. Given that she made the "false" statement that refusing chemo will lead to death, do you believe her opinion should be taken into consideration on this matter? Here it is again:

APNewsBreak: Girl Says She Knows She'll Die Without Chemo - ABC News

She said by text she understands "death is the outcome of refusing chemo"
Click to expand...

Again, her words not mine. Now that you can't avoid the fact that she's making false claims about her condition, is she still capable of making this decision anymore than a 9 year old saying the same things would be?
 
minnie616 said:
There is a guarantee that she will die without treatment.
Click to expand...

And it's our business...why again? And there's a guarantee that she is going to die anyway. We all do. What right does someone else have to decide that she can't die on her terms and when she chooses to.

Will she die in a year? 2? 5? 7? The fact is, nobody knows. Nobody can predict cancer.
 
tres borrachos said:
And it's our business...why again? And there's a guarantee that she is going to die anyway. We all do. What right does someone else have to decide that she can't die on her terms and when she chooses to.

Will she die in a year? 2? 5? 7? The fact is, nobody knows. Nobody can predict cancer.
Click to expand...

Never said it was my business.

But I do know that dying from Hodgkins is a very painful death.
 
Hatuey said:
My claim? That's HER claim. The RULING is based on whether she has the capacity to determine what is best for herself given the evidence she has. Given that she made the "false" statement that refusing chemo will lead to death, do you believe her opinion should be taken into consideration on this matter? Here it is again:

APNewsBreak: Girl Says She Knows She'll Die Without Chemo - ABC News



Again, her words not mine. Now that you can't avoid the fact that she's making false claims about her condition, is she still capable of making this decision anymore than a 9 year old saying the same things would be?
Click to expand...

Her words, her thoughts, her body, her life. I can't make it any more clear than that. You applaud strangers deciding what she should force into her body that she doesn't want and that her parents don't want. I don't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom