• 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

People see value in life. I'm sorry this concept is so foreign to you.

Then they should live their own lives and leave other people alone.
 
People see value in life. I'm sorry this concept is so foreign to you.
Really? You see value on life? Are you pro life then? How about the Terry Schivo case? Where'd you fall on that?...hmm?...yeah, i thought so.
 
What she wants to do is equivilant to suicide.

No it's not. Words have meanings. If were going to redefine words, then why not just call it pumpkin?
 
Obviously she doesn't have a right to die without treatment or this wouldn't be a story.

So you support forcing people to undergo dangerous medical procedures?
 
So you support forcing people to undergo dangerous medical procedures?

The government does and that is all that matters (though drinking soy-mango juice instead of chemo is more dangerous in the mind of someone who heard this case).
 
The government does and that is all that matters (though drinking soy-mango juice instead of chemo is more dangerous in the mind of someone who heard this case).

Why do you refuse to state your opinion?
 
Why do you refuse to state your opinion?

I have stated it multiple times in multiple ways. Until she turns 18 she has no rights, and even then, she only has the rights the government says she has. Even beyond that, she and her parents are idiots to think there is some herbal cure out there.
 
I have stated it multiple times in multiple ways. Until she turns 18 she has no rights, and even then, she only has the rights the government says she has. Even beyond that, she and her parents are idiots to think there is some herbal cure out there.

So you are advocating state control in a case where even I admit the need for free choice. That should give you pause.

And that a right is unjustly unrecognized by civil tyrants does not mean it is not a right under natural law.
 
I have stated it multiple times in multiple ways. Until she turns 18 she has no rights, and even then, she only has the rights the government says she has. Even beyond that, she and her parents are idiots to think there is some herbal cure out there.

I hope I never live in that US...Although seems we do get closer to that every day, and the willing blind encourage it.
 
So you are advocating state control in a case where even I admit the need for free choice. That should give you pause.

And that a right is unjustly unrecognized by civil tyrants does not mean it is not a right under natural law.

Natural Law doesn't have handcuffs. Nothing gives me pause any more in politics. As for this issue, I have encountered people who have had their children taken away for lesser health conditions and I will tell them to their face they are idiots for seeing medicines as "poisons" when they are not the ones who are suffering the effects of not being properly managed on medicine.
 
I hope I never live in that US...Although seems we do get closer to that every day, and the willing blind encourage it.

You have always lived in that US if you have always lived in the US.
 
Natural Law doesn't have handcuffs. Nothing gives me pause any more in politics. As for this issue, I have encountered people who have had their children taken away for lesser health conditions and I will tell them to their face they are idiots for seeing medicines as "poisons" when they are not the ones who are suffering the effects of not being properly managed on medicine.

1. She is the one suffering the effects.

2. Chemotherapy is harmful. It is also beneficial, but it is most certainly harmful.
 
You have always lived in that US if you have always lived in the US.

Nope..That is not true at all...It is only I would say in the last 20 years or so that this has been rising...
 
Nope..That is not true at all...It is only I would say in the last 20 years or so that this has been rising...

I was a child in the late 50s /early 60s when I heard on the news the state stepped in because a Christian Scientist family who lived in our area would not get medical care for their sick child.
 
I have stated it multiple times in multiple ways. Until she turns 18 she has no rights, and even then, she only has the rights the government says she has. Even beyond that, she and her parents are idiots to think there is some herbal cure out there.

That's not true. How can you not know that?

All people in the U.S. have rights. Even children. If you don't think so, try not getting your child health care when he's seriously ill. The govt will step in (as in this case), and make sure he gets it.. Try beating up your child. You'll find out fast that the child has rights as to his own body. A child has the right to an education in this country. No parent has the right to prevent a child from receiving an education. A child has the right to support from his parents. Try not feeding and providing some sort of shelter for your child. Try not paying child support. Children also have freedom of speech rights. Not sure about freedom of worship.

Children do have rights. Maybe not the right to refuse care that would string his death out longer. Not sure. But if I understand, the care being forced won't save the kid's life. The girl is terminally ill. It will merely extend the inevitable for a while. I think I read it'd extend it for about 6 months, but I'm not sure.
 
1. She is the one suffering the effects.

2. Chemotherapy is harmful. It is also beneficial, but it is most certainly harmful.

She is not an adult. It doesn't matter if chemo has harmful side effects or not. She is on it and that is how it will be until she turns 18.
 
Natural Law doesn't have handcuffs.

Worse. It has hellfire.

She is not an adult. It doesn't matter if chemo has harmful side effects or not. She is on it and that is how it will be until she turns 18.

It's how it is, and it is grievously immoral.
 
I was a child in the late 50s /early 60s when I heard on the news the state stepped in because a Christian Scientist family who lived in our area would not get medical care for their sick child.

In Cruzan v Director MDH, 497 US 261 (1990) The US Supreme Court said:

"A competent person has a liberty interest under the Due Process Clause in refusing unwanted medical treatment."

This doesn't say that it has to be an adult, or on some wacky religious grounds, but simply puts the standard at "A competent person".... That the CT decided this case without considering the "mature minor doctrine" is a violation of this girls Due Process rights under the 5th and 14th amendments of the Constitution...At least that is how I see it, as heartbreaking as this case is.

However, unless they pursue this further, she will get the chemo, so rights or not we can all agree that is a good thing that she will live. She may have to just get the treatment and sue the state later for violating her rights.
 
In Cruzan v Director MDH, 497 US 261 (1990) The US Supreme Court said:

"A competent person has a liberty interest under the Due Process Clause in refusing unwanted medical treatment."

This doesn't say that it has to be an adult, or on some wacky religious grounds, but simply puts the standard at "A competent person".... That the CT decided this case without considering the "mature minor doctrine" is a violation of this girls Due Process rights under the 5th and 14th amendments of the Constitution...At least that is how I see it, as heartbreaking as this case is.

...

According to the yahoo article in the OP Cassandra's lawyers had the opportunity to prove she was mature enough to make that decision and they failed to do so.

The court ruled Cassandra's lawyers had the opportunity to prove she's mature enough to make that decision during a Juvenile Court hearing in December and failed to do so.

APNewsBreak: Girl says she knows she'll die without chemo
 
According to the yahoo article in the OP Cassandra's lawyers had the opportunity to prove she was mature enough to make that decision and they failed to do so.



APNewsBreak: Girl says she knows she'll die without chemo

Yes, That is what one judge on the panel argued, and they refused to hear the argument, because if they had, it is likely that they would have had to determine that Cassy was a "mature minor" and allow her to refuse treatment. But, because that is NOT what they wanted to do, they ignored evidence, and thus violated her rights....Thanks for proving my argument.
 
Yes, That is what one judge on the panel argued, and they refused to hear the argument, because if they had, it is likely that they would have had to determine that Cassy was a "mature minor" and allow her to refuse treatment. But, because that is NOT what they wanted to do, they ignored evidence, and thus violated her rights....Thanks for proving my argument.

I disagree.
From everything I have read on this case ( several articles from several different sources ... I already posted links to a few of those ) it seems Cassandra has not faced reality.
Some articles she says she knows will die without chemo but in the most recent article since the Supreme Court ruling
Cassandra says wants treatment for the Hodgkins but she wants to cure it without Chemo.
She wrote that she wants to cure her Hodgkins with, vitamins, diet and exercise.

It seems she still has not faced up to the reality that without chemo she will die within a couple of years.
 
...
Some articles she says she knows will die without chemo but in the most recent article since the Supreme Court ruling
Cassandra says wants treatment for the Hodgkins but she wants to cure it without Chemo.
She wrote that she wants to cure her Hodgkins with, vitamins, diet and exercise.

It seems she still has not faced up to the reality that without chemo she will die within a couple of years.

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.”


Link to article:Teen opens up about forced chemotherapy, death
 
Last edited:
I disagree.
From everything I have read on this case ( several articles from several different sources ... I already posted links to a few of those ) it seems Cassandra has not faced reality.
Some articles she says she knows will die without chemo but in the most recent article since the Supreme Court ruling
Cassandra says wants treatment for the Hodgkins but she wants to cure it without Chemo.
She wrote that she wants to cure her Hodgkins with, vitamins, diet and exercise.

It seems she still has not faced up to the reality that without chemo she will die within a couple of years.

That's fine, we can disagree on that, but I am basing it on an article YOU posted, and you confirmed yourself that they refused to take into account the "Mature Minor Doctrine".... That she is rather misguided in what she wants to treat it with is not of consequence here...I agree that she needs the chemo, but the state no more has the right to force her to take it, then it does, to deny her from getting it.
 

She sure doesn't sound like she is irrational, or immature at all in that article....In fact, she speaks kindly of the DCF agents that are working against her wishes, that to me signals maturity....But, take a look at some of the strong arm tactics here, her phone was locked up? Why? What are they afraid of? Social Media? Interesting. I guess add violating her 1st amendment right to the list.
 
That's fine, we can disagree on that, but I am basing it on an article YOU posted, and you confirmed yourself that they refused to take into account the "Mature Minor Doctrine".... That she is rather misguided in what she wants to treat it with is not of consequence here...I agree that she needs the chemo, but the state no more has the right to force her to take it, then it does, to deny her from getting it.

No , the article posted does not say the Supreme Court refused to take into account the "Mature Minor Doctrine." It just says her lawyers were given the opportunity to present evidence that Cassandra was mature and had failed to so.

Before a state Supreme Court makes a ruling in a case like this it reviews all of the evidence ,and testimonies from the lawyer/s and from the doctor/s( in this case several testified )the medical records including any psychological testing ). These are Supreme Court justices and usually they were judges in lower courts and federal courts before they were elected to Supreme Court.
They base their decisions on the evidence presented to them not on emotions.
 
Back
Top Bottom