• 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

So, just as I suspected. Saying a judge ruled her incompetent was not true. The judge refused to consider the mature minor doctrine as a loophole to take over. Simply on emotional grounds.

It was the Supreme Court that ruled her mentally incompetent.

17-year-old Connecticut girl with a highly curable cancer is not mentally competent to make her own medical decisions and will continue to receive the chemotherapy treatments she's battled to halt, the Connecticut Supreme Court ordered Thursday.

Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers ruled that the teen — listed only as Cassandra C. in legal records — is not mature by any standard.


That means Cassandra will remain at a Hartford hospital, in the temporary custody of child-welfare workers, and will receive her full course of chemotherapy to treat Hodgkin lymphoma. Doctors have said her odds at recovery are 80 to 85 percent with chemo, but that she will die without it.[/B]

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/cance...able-cancer-must-continue-chemo-court-n282421
 
Last edited:
Which is fine but the state rarely involves itself in other cases where the health and welfare of a minor is harmed by a parent's religious beliefs, for instance. Is it just because this isn't a religious case?

I can't comment on cases we're only speculating about. If you have an example, we can discuss that example.

Define "responsible medical decisions". Is that any medical decision where the daughter is not forced to remain alive at any cost?

As a start, a responsible medical decision would be to have an alternative treatment backed by medical professional (traditional or otherwise) lined up as an alternative to chemo. Saying "no poison" isn't a treatment plan, and without some treatment she is killing her daughter or doing nothing to prevent her certain death from untreated cancer.

I'm not so sure about that. I guess we'll find out once she's 18.

Yes, we will. Hopefully, when she's 18 she's in remission and this will fade into the background. But the legal questions are premised on her being a MINOR and when this MINOR can make her own medical decisions.
 
The girl will turn 18 in 9 months.
Then she will be able to make her own health care decisions.
 
I can't comment on cases we're only speculating about. If you have an example, we can discuss that example.



As a start, a responsible medical decision would be to have an alternative treatment backed by medical professional (traditional or otherwise) lined up as an alternative to chemo. Saying "no poison" isn't a treatment plan, and without some treatment she is killing her daughter or doing nothing to prevent her certain death from untreated cancer.



Yes, we will. Hopefully, when she's 18 she's in remission and this will fade into the background. But the legal questions are premised on her being a MINOR and when this MINOR can make her own medical decisions.
Yes, wothout the CT panel of state supreme court judges even considering the "mature minor doctrine" for emotional reasons instead of considering ALL the facts such as her ability to understand the consequences and the parents wishes...this was the state saying 'we know better'... Any rational person that respects freedom should see this as dangerous.
 
The girl will turn 18 in 9 months.
Then she will be able to make her own health care decisions.

Great point. And at that time she can refuse treatment and/or look for alternative treatment. We have a responsibility to our young to protect them until they can make decisions on their own. We have deemed as a society that is somewhere between 18 and 21. Right now, she is getting her medicine. When I was a child, I didn't like taking my medicine either.
 
Which is fine but the state rarely involves itself in other cases where the health and welfare of a minor is harmed by a parent's religious beliefs, for instance. Is it just because this isn't a religious case?
...

There have been cases where Christian Scientist parents and others have been required to provide their children with medical care despite their religious beliefs against doing so.
 
Yes, wothout the CT panel of state supreme court judges even considering the "mature minor doctrine" for emotional reasons instead of considering ALL the facts such as her ability to understand the consequences and the parents wishes...this was the state saying 'we know better'... Any rational person that respects freedom should see this as dangerous.

I see the danger very clearly, but it originates in the idea that the state has an interest in the health and welfare of minors, and when those interests are being threatened by the parents, the state can intervene. I don't have a problem with that principle, and so we have to evaluate instances when the state exercises that power on the merits. Here, the merits aren't close for me - "you know, like, I don't like poison in my body so, like, maybe I'll try alternatives" is a decision of an immature child given the fact that chemo works for 80-85% of patients with this disease. And the mother isn't making any kind of alternative treatment decision that, from what we know, is remotely responsible.

Let's put it this way - if we knew of any medical provider of any sort (a naturopath for example, who I have a great deal of respect for dealing with many conditions including my own arthritis) that was going to guide this treatment and could or did testify that it was a legitimate treatment option of this condition, I'd be all over giving them the respect that decision deserves. But that's just not in the record anywhere. If I'm missing it, then I'm basing a decision on ignorance. But that seems to me - a legitimate alternative plan to deal with deadly disease - sort of a VERY low bar that this family did not step over. As such, I don't see a problem of the slippery slope here.
 
There have been cases where Christian Scientist parents and others have been required to provide their children with medical care despite their religious beliefs against doing so.

There have been cases where they have gone to prison after seeing their children die because they refused. This is rare outside of cases where the parents have already had children die, or if they belonged to churches where this is a long-standing problem and other people have had children die because of their refusal.

Still, this doesn't address my basic question which has nothing to do with this case at all, that if we're going to accept bodily autonomy, then whether someone lives or dies is entirely up to them, yet there are a lot of people out there who are so terrified of death that they're willing to assert that anyone who isn't just as terrified as they are has something wrong with them.
 
There have been cases where they have gone to prison after seeing their children die because they refused. This is rare outside of cases where the parents have already had children die, or if they belonged to churches where this is a long-standing problem and other people have had children die because of their refusal.

Still, this doesn't address my basic question which has nothing to do with this case at all, that if we're going to accept bodily autonomy, then whether someone lives or dies is entirely up to them, yet there are a lot of people out there who are so terrified of death that they're willing to assert that anyone who isn't just as terrified as they are has something wrong with them.

Whether that's true or not isn't the key issue IMO - in this case the patient is a minor child. If YOU want to eat raisins soaked in gin as "cancer drugs," great, best of luck. It's different if you recommend that as treatment for your minor child with cancer when very EFFECTIVE alternatives exist and have proven to work.
 
Whether that's true or not isn't the key issue IMO - in this case the patient is a minor child. If YOU want to eat raisins soaked in gin as "cancer drugs," great, best of luck. It's different if you recommend that as treatment for your minor child with cancer when very EFFECTIVE alternatives exist and have proven to work.

I think it is an important issue, it reared it's ugly head immediately in this thread when people started tossing around insults, like anyone who didn't want to live was a mental case.
 
I think it is an important issue, it reared it's ugly head immediately in this thread when people started tossing around insults, like anyone who didn't want to live was a mental case.

I do not think that is the issue in this case.
The issue is she is a minor and has been deemed by the court to not be mature enough to legally decide her health care choice.

She never said she wants to die.
She just said she did not want the treatments even though she knows she will die without the treatments.
 
I do not think that is the issue in this case.
The issue is she is a minor and has been deemed by the court to not be mature enough to legally decide her health care choice.

She never said she wants to die.
She just said she did not want the treatments even though she knows she will die without the treatments.

According the OP Cassandra said she knows she will die without the chemo.

Yet in another article she opens up and writes that she wants treatment for her cancer just not chemo.

She wrote she’s not looking to avoid treating her Hodgkin’s lymphoma altogether.

“I always tell people I do want treatment for my cancer, I just don’t believe in the chemotherapy,” wrote Cassandra. “I want something more natural, something that’s not drugs. If the court decided to let me go, I would look into natural remedies that would stop the growth of the cancer. I would take vitamins and remedies that fight inflammation. I would eat healthy and go to the gym, and I would still monitor the cancer with regular scans.”


While Cassandra doesn’t want the toxic chemicals in her body, she acknowledges they may be doing more good than bad.

“The side effects I’ve had are mild to none so far, besides hair loss, acne, and tiredness,” wrote Cassandra. “My oncologist believes I am responding well. That doesn’t mean as the chemo continues things won’t get worse, but I’m more concerned about the long-term side effects, and also the fact that I don’t want these drugs in my body, but they are and it disgusts me.”

It sounds to me like Cassandra wants live.
She is just scared of the chemo treatments.

Cancer is very scary.
But as far as cancer goes Hodgkins is one of the cancers with the highest cure rate when treated early.
 
I'm not saying I agree with their decision but if she waits until she's 18, her system has already been poisoned by the chemo.

Which makes what difference?

Either she'll be in remission by then and 30 years later When she's holding her grandchild she'll wonder why she was so silly, or she won't have had enough chemo walk away from treatment and whither away and die suffering from cancer.

This is not really a controversial case, if she were standing in the street with a pistol to her head no one would be talking about the police trying to talk her down or get her to turn herself in for Suicide watch. We need to see it this way, she will recover with treatment and will not without it, this is attempted suicide just like leaning over a bridge or sticking a gun in her mouth
 
There have been cases where they have gone to prison after seeing their children die because they refused. This is rare outside of cases where the parents have already had children die, or if they belonged to churches where this is a long-standing problem and other people have had children die because of their refusal.

Still, this doesn't address my basic question which has nothing to do with this case at all, that if we're going to accept bodily autonomy, then whether someone lives or dies is entirely up to them, yet there are a lot of people out there who are so terrified of death that they're willing to assert that anyone who isn't just as terrified as they are has something wrong with them.

The problem with choosing death is that it is not a reversible decision. That is why I have no problem with limiting that option to adults.
 
The problem with choosing death is that it is not a reversible decision. That is why I have no problem with limiting that option to adults.


So what? It isn't the problem of anyone but the one making the decision. Even among adults, attempting suicide is still illegal in most states. Why does the state concern itself over who wants to die and who does not?
 
In this case Cassandra does not want to die.
She just fantisizes that there is cure for Hodkins without Chemo.
She wants a natural remedy using vitamins , exercise and healthy eating to cure her Hodgkins.
 
Then what is the vested interest in keeping this girl alive, especially when the girl and her parents don't want her to be? Please explain.

She's a minor, and can easily live a healthy life after treatment. This isn't remotely similar to a 90 year old with a terminal condition. The state has a vested interest in protecting future generations. (Please don't expand this into some black and white bull**** again.)

She's a minor, and therefore not sole arbiter of her healthcare decisions.

Her parents are making a decision that will definitely kill her, and oddly enough parents aren't allowed to do that. You are not allowed to definitely kill your own child with hippie bull**** any more than you are allowed to do it with a knife.
 
Last edited:
So what? It isn't the problem of anyone but the one making the decision. Even among adults, attempting suicide is still illegal in most states. Why does the state concern itself over who wants to die and who does not?

People see value in life. I'm sorry this concept is so foreign to you.
 
So what? It isn't the problem of anyone but the one making the decision. .....

Individuals, society and government all have a moral responsibility to take care of children and teens.
 
I see the danger very clearly, but it originates in the idea that 1. the state has an interest in the health and welfare of minors, and when those interests are being threatened by the parents, the state can intervene. I don't have a problem with that principle, and so 2. we have to evaluate instances when the state exercises that power on the merits. 3. Here, the merits aren't close for me - "you know, like, I don't like poison in my body so, like, maybe I'll try alternatives" is a decision of an immature child given4. the fact that chemo works for 80-85% of patients with this disease. And the mother isn't making any kind of alternative treatment decision that, from what we know, is remotely responsible.

Let's put it this way - if we knew of any medical provider of any sort (a naturopath for example, who I have a great deal of respect for dealing with many conditions including my own arthritis) that was going to guide this treatment and could or did testify that it was a legitimate treatment option of this condition, I'd be all over giving them the respect that decision deserves. 5. But that's just not in the record anywhere. If I'm missing it, then I'm basing a decision on ignorance. But that seems to me - a legitimate alternative plan to deal with deadly disease - sort of a VERY low bar that this family did not step over. As such, 6.I don't see a problem of the slippery slope here.


Well aren't we a run of the mill arrogant liberal?

1. What exactly is "the States" interest?

2. "We" eh? And what makes you believe that anyone outside other like minded Statists agree with you?

3. And whom in the living hell do you think you are? No one has to prove a damned thing to you Jasper.

4. The 80 to 85% has that "likely" word in front of it, do you know why?

5. That has been reported anyway....Fact is we don't have the entire story, just that which the press wants to give to sell papers.

6. That's good to know when the state takes your rights away based on precedent set by cases like this one...But by then I am sure you'll just say that it was all the fault of some political opponents or some other such bull ****....So, you believe what you want, and I'll believe what I want, but I have the argument of freedom on my side, you preach an arrogant subservience to government that makes me sick.

Night now.
 
Well aren't we a run of the mill arrogant liberal?

1. What exactly is "the States" interest?

2. "We" eh? And what makes you believe that anyone outside other like minded Statists agree with you?

3. And whom in the living hell do you think you are? No one has to prove a damned thing to you Jasper.

4. The 80 to 85% has that "likely" word in front of it, do you know why?

5. That has been reported anyway....Fact is we don't have the entire story, just that which the press wants to give to sell papers.

6. That's good to know when the state takes your rights away based on precedent set by cases like this one...But by then I am sure you'll just say that it was all the fault of some political opponents or some other such bull ****....So, you believe what you want, and I'll believe what I want, but I have the argument of freedom on my side, you preach an arrogant subservience to government that makes me sick.

Night now.

I'm not trying to be insulting to you, so no idea why you need to insult me. But if you don't want to have a civil debate, your choice to be an a$$hole, not mine.

If you think, for example, that the state (which is WE) shouldn't for example remove a toddler from a crack den, then fine. We disagree. If you support that, then all we disagree on is when and where the state, which is we, exercise those powers.
 
I'm not trying to be insulting to you, so no idea why you need to insult me. But if you don't want to have a civil debate, your choice to be an a$$hole, not mine.

If you think, for example, that the state (which is WE) shouldn't for example remove a toddler from a crack den, then fine. We disagree. If you support that, then all we disagree on is when and where the state, which is we, exercise those powers.

No, you're right....Sorry...Look, if this girl were 10 yr old, and the mom was saying this due to some scared tantrum the girl was throwing then, I'd say yeah, someone needs to step in...But, she's not, hell, in less than 9 months she'll be 18.

It has been hammered into the American conscience over, and over again how in things like abortion it is "her body, her decision"... In the gay rights argument, "get the government out of the bedroom"... Yet now when the courts overstep, disregard all evidence, and rule based on emotion, something stinks here....

I think it sucks that this girl doesn't want to take the chemo, but I also respect her decision.
 
No, you're right....Sorry...Look, if this girl were 10 yr old, and the mom was saying this due to some scared tantrum the girl was throwing then, I'd say yeah, someone needs to step in...But, she's not, hell, in less than 9 months she'll be 18.

It has been hammered into the American conscience over, and over again how in things like abortion it is "her body, her decision"... In the gay rights argument, "get the government out of the bedroom"... Yet now when the courts overstep, disregard all evidence, and rule based on emotion, something stinks here....

I think it sucks that this girl doesn't want to take the chemo, but I also respect her decision.

And I also respect your opinion on it - there are clear dangers when we give the state the right to make these decisions. We just disagree on this case but I get where you're coming from. No hard feelings. :peace
 
And I also respect your opinion on it - there are clear dangers when we give the state the right to make these decisions. We just disagree on this case but I get where you're coming from. No hard feelings. :peace

Thanks.
 
Back
Top Bottom