• 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:
I don't know why you're talking about alternative medicine. I'm not.
Click to expand...

Because that's what the parent stated was what they were going with. I'm crazy like that, I talk about stuff in the thread, unlike abortion, which has nothing to do with the thread.

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.
Click to expand...

The child was being "kept alive" by machines? Do you know what clinically dead is or are you playing coy?

So yes, they decided that baby would not live.
Click to expand...

Still playing coy I see. Carry on.

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?
Click to expand...

You know, if you're going to take this to an extreme, suit yourself. What was asked was whether parents decided whether a child that has a perfectly fine chance to die or live, not whether some brain dead shadow of a person's parents get to decide whether to accept medical reality and keep a child on death support indefinitely.
 
tres borrachos said:
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.
Click to expand...

Still making this flawed claim after it has been proven that she is not old enough to make those decisions under CT law? Good.
 
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.
Click to expand...

She's a minor child - that's where the "right" originates, same as if this person was an infant living in a crack house. The principle is straightforward.

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...

If she was 18, it would bother me. She's not. And they're not "playing God" - they're protecting the interests of minor children in their state, which is, IMO, an entirely appropriate role of the state. What liberal philosophy would find otherwise? Libertarians would embrace your point of view....
 
Hatuey said:
Because that's what the parent stated was what they were going with. I'm crazy like that, I talk about stuff in the thread, unlike abortion, which has nothing to do with the thread.



The child was being "kept alive" by machines? Do you know what clinically dead is or are you playing coy?



Still playing coy I see. Carry on.



You know, if you're going to take this to an extreme, suit yourself. What was asked was whether parents decided whether a child that has a perfectly fine chance to lies dies or lives, not whether some brain dead shadow of a person's parents get to decide whether to accept medical reality and keep a child on death support indefinitely.
Click to expand...

My niece was not "clinically dead". And it's called "life support", not "death support". A conscious child born with a poor prognosis for a quality life. That isn't a child considered "clinically dead" nor was she brain dead.

You asked the question if a parent gets to decide if a child lives or dies. I said there was no answer because you can list situations where the parents most certainly do get to decide. My sister and her husband decided to let nature take its course. That is exactly what the parents of this young lady and also what she herself have decided.

You can talk about alternative medicine all you want. I have no idea why you brought it into a post exchange with me. I wasn't posting about alternative medicine. My posts and my opinion was clear.
 
Hatuey said:
Still making this flawed claim after it has been proven that she is not old enough to make those decisions under CT law? Good.
Click to expand...

No, because there is no law that says "A 17 year old is allowed to make her own medical decisions".

Unless that medical decision involves abortion.

In other words, she controls her own body, except when she doesn't and the state controls it.

You approve of that. I don't.
 
tres borrachos said:
What does cooking meth have to do with this?
Click to expand...

It is to demonstrate the point that there are obvious circumstances in which the parents would not be given deference as responsible parties, and putting their children at risk of death is one of those cases. Her mother is putting her child at risk of death by supporting her decision to forgo chemo. Sure, they're not equivalent, but the point is I think even YOU would concede that the state SHOULD under some circumstances intervene.

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.
Click to expand...

Because she's a child and in the absence of a viable alternative treatment, the parties are obviously not making responsible decisions with this minor child's life on the line.

As to that last comment, if you decide to eat dried plums as your cancer treatment, I'll wish you luck because as an adult you can make that decision. She's not an adult.
 
tres borrachos said:
So is dying while getting chemotherapy treatments. I saw it first hand with my mother.
Click to expand...

It's a horrible death. One family member passed 3 years ago in December and another is dying. Chemo made it much, much worse. The oncologist said it would and told us there is a field of study which is indicating that chemo may extend life a week, or two or a month. But honestly, I wished neither would have done more than a course. The subsequent courses took a greater and greater toll. I understand why they did. Neither wanted to "give up". Their last months were/have been hellacious and sad. The pain from the complications was/is awful.

My condolences for the passing of your mother, TB.
 
JasperL said:
She's a minor child - that's where the "right" originates, same as if this person was an infant living in a crack house. The principle is straightforward.



If she was 18, it would bother me. She's not. And they're not "playing God" - they're protecting the interests of minor children in their state, which is, IMO, an entirely appropriate role of the state. What liberal philosophy would find otherwise? Libertarians would embrace your point of view....
Click to expand...

You're right. Liberal philosophy seems to embrace the assumption that parents aren't capable of making decisions on their own behalf. The government needs to dictate what their kids eat, what movies they see, when they're allowed to have sex, when they're allowed to terminate pregnancies, what medical procedures they have to have, etc. That is why I'm not a Liberal. I don't care for politicians making parenting choices for me. Contrary to what Mrs. Clinton said, some of us can raise a child without needing other people to help.
 
tres borrachos said:
No, because there is no law that says "A 17 year old is allowed to make her own medical decisions".
Click to expand...

Good, I'm glad you finally understand that CT doesn't place abortion along with other medical procedures. Don't like it, don't live there. Isn't that the solution you usually give? :)
 
tres borrachos said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, crack isn't, but there is no evidence the mother and minor child had a treatment plan better than crack, which is a huge part of the problem.

And "Verbalization" isn't any kind of reasonable test as to when a minor can make her own medical decisions.

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.
Click to expand...

If you believe that parent's can make ANY decision with regard to their children, and the state has no right to intervene, then state that. If not, then our disagreement is on when and where the state SHOULD intervene. I understand differences here, but just don't believe they involve much in the way of principles about the proper role of the state, so much as where we'd personally draw some line that we all agree should be drawn.

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.
Click to expand...

OK, so on that line we'd agree.
 
Gina said:
It's a horrible death. One family member passed 3 years ago in December and another is dying. Chemo made it much, much worse. The oncologist said it would and told us there is a field of study which is indicating that chemo may extend life a week, or two or a month. But honestly, I wished neither would have done more than a course. The subsequent courses took a greater and greater toll. I understand why they did. Neither wanted to "give up". Their last months were/have been hellacious and sad. The pain from the complications was/is awful.

My condolences for the passing of your mother, TB.
Click to expand...

Thanks Gina, and happy new year hugs to you!

Before my mother passed away she told me and my sister that she wished she hadn't have done what she did (chemo and radiation). It didn't add to her life, the 4 years that she went through it were awful, and she wants us to think about that should we ever find ourselves where she was. My mom was a very vibrant woman and loved life, and when her quality of life went, well you know the rest. As much pain as she was in from the cancer (bone), the horrible retching, the sweats, the discomfort, the constant feeling of exhaustion, all of the side effects from the treatments were as awful as the cancer was.

That's another reason I think this is a very personal choice.

I'm so very sorry about your family member as well, and I will send good thoughts his/her way, as well as all of your family. It isn't easy on anyone who has to live it or see it. I'm also sorry about the one you already lost.
 
tres borrachos said:
My niece was not "clinically dead". And it's called "life support", not "death support".
Click to expand...

Potato, potato. If there was no chance of the child actually living, and the parents kept her hooked up to a machine because that's what they believed "life" was, it's definitely death support. It's holding off death for as long as you possibly can in hopes that something other than nature will take its course.

A conscious child born with a poor prognosis for a quality life. That isn't a child considered "clinically dead" nor was she brain dead.

You asked the question if a parent gets to decide if a child lives or dies. I said there was no answer because you can list situations where the parents most certainly do get to decide. My sister and her husband decided to let nature take its course. That is exactly what the parents of this young lady and also what she herself have decided. As opposed to you know, chemotherapy, which in her case had an 85% chance of actually saving her. Which again, last time: What chances did she have with "alternative treatments"?

You can talk about alternative medicine all you want. I have no idea why you brought it into a post exchange with me. I wasn't posting about alternative medicine. My posts and my opinion was clear.
Click to expand...

So the parents acted based on the rights provided by the state, you saw no problem with it, however, when it's clear that the state was acting within its rights, you oppose it. Is that what we're getting at here? Because that's REALLY something you should take up with the state of CT. :)
 
tres borrachos said:
You're right. Liberal philosophy seems to embrace the assumption that parents aren't capable of making decisions on their own behalf. The government needs to dictate what their kids eat, what movies they see, when they're allowed to have sex, when they're allowed to terminate pregnancies, what medical procedures they have to have, etc. That is why I'm not a Liberal. I don't care for politicians making parenting choices for me. Contrary to what Mrs. Clinton said, some of us can raise a child without needing other people to help.
Click to expand...

Oh come on, that's just ridiculous.

Don't you accept that there are cases where the state should intervene and remove a child from the care of her parents? If so we agree on the principle, just not on the circumstances in which this drastic step should be taken.
 
Hatuey said:
Good, I'm glad you finally understand that CT doesn't place abortion along with other medical procedures. Don't like it, don't live there. Isn't that the solution you usually give? :)
Click to expand...

I don't live there. I live in NH. I'm not debating the merits of living in CT. I'm debating whether the government should be applauded for deciding a young woman should have no control over her body.

I don't want to talk about abortion again, but if you don't think abortion is by definition a "medical procedure", I can't help you there either. It is.
 
JasperL said:
Oh come on, that's just ridiculous.

Don't you accept that there are cases where the state should intervene and remove a child from the care of her parents? If so we agree on the principle, just not on the circumstances in which this drastic step should be taken.
Click to expand...

Of course there are cases where a child should be removed. Abuse. Severe neglect. But what do they have to do with this situation? And this young lady wasn't removed from her parents' custody. She was forced into a medical treatment against her will. You'd be hard pressed to find children who are abused by their parents telling you that they enjoy being abused or that they want to continue being abused.
 
Hatuey said:
Potato, potato. If there was no chance of the child actually living, and the parents kept her hooked up to a machine because that's what they believed "life" was, it's definitely death support. It's holding off death for as long as you possibly can in hopes that something other than nature will take its course.



So the parents acted based on the rights provided by the state, you saw no problem with it, however, when it's clear that the state was acting within its rights, you oppose it. Is that what we're getting at here? Because that's REALLY something you should take up with the state of CT. :)
Click to expand...

It's called life support, not death support. Nobody supports the death of infants (that I know anyway). No, this also wasn't to "hold off death". It was about making a decision on the viability of a quality life.

And the young lady at the center of this story also wants nature to take its course.

Not sure what the state's rights have to do with this. Do you always agree with every ruling made by judges? I don't. I don't know anyone who is a bobblehead for the courts. They are humans - judges aren't infallible.
 
tres borrachos said:
Of course there are cases where a child should be removed. Abuse. Severe neglect. But what do they have to do with this situation? And this young lady wasn't removed from her parents' custody. She was forced into a medical treatment against her will. You'd be hard pressed to find children who are abused by their parents telling you that they enjoy being abused or that they want to continue being abused.
Click to expand...

Alright, we agree on the principle!! As to this case, it's an easy one IMO, but I certainly understand that reasonable minds can differ.

But in fact she was removed from her mother's custody and confined to a hospital.
 
tres borrachos said:
It's called life support, not death support.
Click to expand...

It's life support, if it's actually supporting a lie, I call it death support when it's just parents ignoring the inevitable. Considering you claim she was "kept alive" by these machines, then it was nothing more than death support. :shrug:

Not sure what the state's rights have to do with this. Do you always agree with every ruling made by judges? I don't.
Click to expand...

Nope, I agree with this ruling because neither the parent nor the child demonstrated that this decision was A) informed or B) had the child's best interest at hand. Do you agree that parents who can't demonstrate that they're making informed decisions on their child's welfare, should not be left to handle that child's welfare?
 
Gina said:
It's a horrible death. One family member passed 3 years ago in December and another is dying. Chemo made it much, much worse. The oncologist said it would and told us there is a field of study which is indicating that chemo may extend life a week, or two or a month. But honestly, I wished neither would have done more than a course. The subsequent courses took a greater and greater toll. I understand why they did. Neither wanted to "give up". Their last months were/have been hellacious and sad. The pain from the complications was/is awful.

My condolences for the passing of your mother, TB.
Click to expand...

There are many cases when chemo is likely to be futile and only makes the quality of life worse for someone who is probably dying. This case of 17 year old with a type of lymphoma know to be treatable with chemo is not one of those situations.
 
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...

If she wanted to commit suicide to avoid a six moth prison sentence would you support allowing her to do that?

You can't predict cancer with complete accuracy but you can use statistics to know what is most likely to happen.
 
tres borrachos said:
Thanks Gina, and happy new year hugs to you!

Before my mother passed away she told me and my sister that she wished she hadn't have done what she did (chemo and radiation). It didn't add to her life, the 4 years that she went through it were awful, and she wants us to think about that should we ever find ourselves where she was. My mom was a very vibrant woman and loved life, and when her quality of life went, well you know the rest. As much pain as she was in from the cancer (bone), the horrible retching, the sweats, the discomfort, the constant feeling of exhaustion, all of the side effects from the treatments were as awful as the cancer was.

That's another reason I think this is a very personal choice.

I'm so very sorry about your family member as well, and I will send good thoughts his/her way, as well as all of your family. It isn't easy on anyone who has to live it or see it. I'm also sorry about the one you already lost.
Click to expand...

You are welcome, and back at you, TB!

Your mother gave good advice and I would take it myself if I were to find myself in that position. I understand, no one wants to just give in, but chemo is so destructive and it doesn't only attack the cancer. They both were diagnosed at stage 4 lung cancer. It's hard to discern which are symptoms of cancer and which are side-effects of chemo because in addition to what you mentioned, they had/have sores in their mouths and couldn't eat and pre-existing health problems (in my still living family member) have been greatly exacerbated. Why radiate lung cancer when it eliminates good lung tissue with the bad making it even more difficult to breathe when it will not cure the cancer?

I agree. It is a very personal choice and one no one should be forced into, either way (in case euthanasia comes up).

Thank you, TB. I appreciate your kindness and good thoughts. It's a helpless position to be in, and not just for the suffering.
 
minnie616 said:
According to her doctors without the chemo she would die in 2 years.

Connecticut 17-Year-Old Cassandra Fights Over Forced Chemotherapy Under Mature Minor Doctrine - The Atlantic
Click to expand...

C'man, that's still not better than the uninformed parent's plea for "alternative medicine"! 2 years!? I mean, if she tried chemo she'd have a success rate of 85%, as opposed to no chemo... where she'd die in 2 years! The parent had the child's best interest in mind when she ignored that fact while making her case! I hope you realize how facetious I'm being here.
 
Hard Truth said:
There are many cases when chemo is likely to be futile and only makes the quality of life worse for someone who is probably dying. This case of 17 year old with a type of lymphoma know to be treatable with chemo is not one of those situations.
Click to expand...

20 years ago another family member had two forms of lymphoma (Hodgkins and non-Hodgkins). He laughed that, leave it to him, he got both. It was very difficult to live with the treatment which he did for years. I won't fault anyone, even a 17-year-old, for electing to fore go chemo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom