• 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:
And that'll be a good thing....Like I said, if this is all the story, then you're right....But, I reserve the right to remain watchful...Certainly you have no problem with that?
Click to expand...

Yes, I hope you continue to be watchful for parents trying to kill their children with hippie bull****.
 
tres borrachos said:
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.
Click to expand...
She's a minor and therefore legally not sole decision maker in her own fate.

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.
Click to expand...

Judges aren't infallible but this one made a decision based on the best medical advice available, weighed carefully against the rights of the patient.

The patient was making an objectively bad decision based on her idiot mother filling her head with a bunch of hippie bull**** which put her in mortal danger.

You don't have a right to kill your child with hippie bull**** any more than you have a right to kill them with a knife.
 
Deuce said:
Yes, I hope you continue to be watchful for parents trying to kill their children with hippie bull****.
Click to expand...

Yep, and just remember that with your posting here you cement your true use for women...You don't give two ****s about them or their bodies as long as the political argument you're making can benefit from using their plights...The true "war on women" comes straight from those like you Deuce....You, and your progressive brethren have shown your ass..Congrats.
 
j-mac said:
Yep, and just remember that with your posting here you cement your true use for women...You don't give two ****s about them or their bodies as long as the political argument you're making can benefit from using their plights...The true "war on women" comes straight from those like you Deuce....You, and your progressive brethren have shown your ass..Congrats.
Click to expand...

Yo j-mac, can you tell us why a person supporting this woman's reproductive rights would necessarily have to apply those arguments to other cases that don't involve reproductive rights?
 
j-mac said:
Yep, and just remember that with your posting here you cement your true use for women...You don't give two ****s about them or their bodies as long as the political argument you're making can benefit from using their plights...The true "war on women" comes straight from those like you Deuce....You, and your progressive brethren have shown your ass..Congrats.
Click to expand...

:roll:

Yeah, "don't kill your own kid" is some evil political plot of mine.
 
Deuce said:
You are conflating "unhealthy diet" with "she must have this treatment for a fatal illness or she will die."

Really, dude?
Click to expand...

Who cares if she dies? Seriously, what vested interest does the state have in keeping absolutely every living human being alive for as long as possible, especially if they don't want to be. This is just the absurd and immature terror of death that most people have, that they don't want anyone to die, ever.
 
JasperL said:
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.
Click to expand...

She was ordered into the hospital to receive treatment. She was not removed from her mother's custody. Understand the difference.
 
Hard Truth said:
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.
Click to expand...

You can ask me the same question 2874 different ways and with different hypotheticals attached, and my answer will be the same. I would support allowing her to do whatever she wants with her body. It isn't my call - or yours - to decide who lives and who dies.
 
Gina said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, you understand completely, Gina. It's so hard to differentiate between where the cancer symptoms occur and where the chemo/radiation side effects occur, which was exactly my mother's frustration.

It's one of the most personal choices we as humans can make. We make the choices for our pets all of the time. When we develop cognitive thinking skills, we all seem to understand the concept of "quality of life". It's a deeply personal decision.
 
Deuce said:
She's a minor and therefore legally not sole decision maker in her own fate.



Judges aren't infallible but this one made a decision based on the best medical advice available, weighed carefully against the rights of the patient.

The patient was making an objectively bad decision based on her idiot mother filling her head with a bunch of hippie bull**** which put her in mortal danger.

You don't have a right to kill your child with hippie bull**** any more than you have a right to kill them with a knife.
Click to expand...

You're correct, she's a minor. And her mother, who is not a minor and is in fact her legal guardian, is the other decision maker in her life.

Hippies are free to do as they chose. You aren't the arbiter of what is "hippie bull****" and what isn't. Let the state raise your kids if that works for you, but don't expect other parents to be interested in your opinions.
 
tres borrachos said:
According to my mother's doctors, she would die in less than a year. She lived 4+ years.
Click to expand...

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.
 
tres borrachos said:
She was ordered into the hospital to receive treatment. She was not removed from her mother's custody. Understand the difference.
Click to expand...

Well, the state has temporary custody ("The child welfare agency investigated, and a trial court granted it temporary custody of Cassandra.") and she's being held in the hospital for what normally would be an outpatient treatment, where she could go home to her mother every day. So it looks exactly like what it would look like if she was removed from her mother's custody, but is only temporary?
 
JasperL said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ummm..that's the reason that arbitrary lines in the sand are bad idea. :/

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.
Click to expand...

We have already went over why it is critical in this case. The logic behind the choice arguments, besides privacy argument of course, is that it is the woman's right to choose what to do with her body and what medical treatments she wishes to have done to it. The only argument you seem to be able to muster is that the risk of abortion is low while the risk of not getting treatment here is very high. Logically however risk wouldn't come into the equation of body sovereignty arguments as the right itself gives all the authority to the individual owner of the body immaterial of risks.
 
JasperL said:
Well, the state has temporary custody ("The child welfare agency investigated, and a trial court granted it temporary custody of Cassandra.") and she's being held in the hospital for what normally would be an outpatient treatment, where she could go home to her mother every day. So it looks exactly like what it would look like if she was removed from her mother's custody, but is only temporary?
Click to expand...

How exactly is keeping her captive upholding any of her rights? How do you make someone your prisoner and your slave and uphold their rights? How do you assume control over another persons body and uphold any of their rights? How is the state not violating her rights?
 
JasperL said:
Well, the state has temporary custody ("The child welfare agency investigated, and a trial court granted it temporary custody of Cassandra.") and she's being held in the hospital for what normally would be an outpatient treatment, where she could go home to her mother every day. So it looks exactly like what it would look like if she was removed from her mother's custody, but is only temporary?
Click to expand...

From the sounds of it she is a prisoner of the state, but instead of being housed in a prison she is being housed in a hospital and having unethical doctors do treatment to her against her will.
 
Henrin said:
Ummm..that's the reason that arbitrary lines in the sand are bad idea. :/
Click to expand...

They may be a "bad idea" but all the alternatives are worse....

We have already went over why it is critical in this case. The logic behind the choice arguments, besides privacy argument of course, is that it is the woman's right to choose what to do with her body and what medical treatments she wishes to have done to it. The only argument you seem to be able to muster is that the risk of abortion is low while the risk of not getting treatment here is very high. Logically however risk wouldn't come into the equation of body sovereignty arguments as the right itself gives all the authority to the individual owner of the body immaterial of risks.
Click to expand...

My essential argument is they are different questions and there is no theoretical basis for requiring every medical decision to use an identical standard with regard to age and consent. And in fact, the state legislature in all its wisdom has a series of rules about medical procedures and those rules vary by procedure. This seems to be acceptable to the people of CT.

And your 'rights' argument is fine for adults, and I would wish this deluded young woman well if at age 19 she decides that dried figs and peppermint infused saunas will cure her cancer.
 
Hatuey said:
Oh, I believe in choices, as long as they don't harm the child. You seem to be supportive of them, because "choices" like depriving a child of food, can be interpreted be in the best interest of the child, given the right conditions. That you refused to answer the question is pretty telling.
Click to expand...
If it's a family's decision and the "child" is 17 and within a few months of being 18 - a legal adult under the law, yes I support the right of choices up to and including choices about serious illness and death. Yes it's very telling that I support individuals rights and not government intervention.

Hatuey said:
When their case is for "alternative medicines" and the labeling of "chemotherapy" as "poison", then it's clear that the parent doesn't have the child's best interest in mind and so the decision made by the child and parent is not in the child's best interest period.
Click to expand...
A very nice opinion, but not relevant - you are not the parent of that 17 year old "child".

Hatuey said:
If they had something along the lines of "we'll try radiotherapy" or "bone marrow transplant" or hell, any decision which could be clearly examined as them having an iota of what it is they're discussing, I would have been right by them. However, it's clear that they're not. They're simply spouting hippy anti-science nonsense. :shrug:
Click to expand...
Not sure why you're so uncomfortable with the thought of death - people make life and death decisions all the time. I support an individuals right to live or to die as they see fit. You don't.

Hatuey said:
And if you're unable to determine whether that injury/death is immediate, let the child die? Yes?
Click to expand...
It's up to the parent / guardian to make that decision. Were I the parent of that 17 year old I'd support the chemo/radiation. However, if the parent - like in this case - decided that chemo/radiation was not the best course of action and the 17 year old "child" refused chemo/radiation - I'd support that parent and 17 year old "child's" decision to do what they think is best - even if it's against the best known science and doctors advice. You keep asking the same question and I keep answering the same way - you hoping for something to change? Thought you'd know better by now but maybe you don't.
 
Henrin said:
How exactly is keeping her captive upholding any of her rights? How do you make someone your prisoner and your slave and uphold their rights? How do you assume control over another persons body and uphold any of their rights? How is the state not violating her rights?
Click to expand...

The state determines what your rights are. There are no "natural" or "inalienable" rights and there never has been. Welcome to the real world. Father Christmas doesn't exist.
 
Declan said:
The state determines what your rights are. There are no "natural" or "inalienable" rights and there never has been. Welcome to the real world. Father Christmas doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

So the reason she should be held captive by the state, according to the state no less, is because she made a decision towards her own person they deem as unacceptable. Just think people like you find their actions justified.

Btw, I like how you argue that you're a slave to the state. That's a real smart argument you have there, bro.
 
Henrin said:
So the reason she should be held captive by the state, according to the state no less, is because she made a decision towards her own person they deem as unacceptable. Just think people like you find their actions justified.
Click to expand...

So far the state is winning and your concept of "rights" isn't. It does not matter whether I think it is justified or not. That just is the reality of the situation.
 
Cephus said:
Who cares if she dies? Seriously, what vested interest does the state have in keeping absolutely every living human being alive for as long as possible, especially if they don't want to be. T
Click to expand...

The state doesn't try to keep absolutely every living human being alive for as long as possible, especially if they don't want to be. Where did you get this idea? Why is this a black and white issue for you? Because it sure isn't black and white for me, or for the state.
 
Henrin said:
So the reason she should be held captive by the state, according to the state no less, is because she made a decision towards her own person they deem as unacceptable. Just think people like you find their actions justified.

Btw, I like how you argue that you're a slave to the state. That's a real smart argument you have there, bro.
Click to expand...

She is having her life saved by the state because her mother is trying to kill her.
 
Deuce said:
She is having her life saved by the state because her mother is trying to kill her.
Click to expand...

Where is the evidence that her mother is trying to kill her? The last time I checked the young woman made a choice she didn't want treatment and when she made that desire clear the state imprisoned her in a hospital and forced treatment on her.
 
Henrin said:
Where is the evidence that her mother is trying to kill her? The last time I checked the young woman made a choice she didn't want treatment and when she made that desire clear the state imprisoned her in a hospital and forced treatment on her.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom