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

JasperL · Jan 12, 2015

Ockham said:
Which is fine - I'm all for people having and expressing their choice without interference. Do children really belong to parents or are they really pseudo-wards of the state where the state can intercede because (using an extreme example) that the child is not eating enough leafy greens, therefore the child is removed from the home, made a ward of the state and fed spinach salad?

I understand drawing that mythical line is difficult, but it's easy to go to the other extreme - should the state be able to intercede if a child is being raised in a house where they're cooking meth and poisoning the child on a daily basis? Of course.

Bottom line is we'd all come to a case where the choice is difficult, but here we disagree on the line, but as far as I can tell not about whether there is one, or that there are cases where the state CAN/SHOULD intercede.

Ockham · Jan 12, 2015

JasperL said:
I understand drawing that mythical line is difficult, but it's easy to go to the other extreme - should the state be able to intercede if a child is being raised in a house where they're cooking meth and poisoning the child on a daily basis? Of course.

Bottom line is we'd all come to a case where the choice is difficult, but here we disagree on the line, but as far as I can tell not about whether there is one, or that there are cases where the state CAN/SHOULD intercede.

Agreed.

Deuce · Jan 12, 2015

Ockham said:
Which is fine - I'm all for people having and expressing their choice without interference. Do children really belong to parents or are they really pseudo-wards of the state where the state can intercede because (using an extreme example) that the child is not eating enough leafy greens, therefore the child is removed from the home, made a ward of the state and fed spinach salad?

You are conflating "unhealthy diet" with "she must have this treatment for a fatal illness or she will die."

Really, dude?

tres borrachos · Jan 12, 2015

minnie616 said:
Minors cannot consent to medical treatments.

Some schools will not even allow teens to take a Tylenol without a note/prescription from their doctor.

An abortion is a medical treatment. As a 17 year old she could have an abortion without her parents' consent.

Hatuey · Jan 12, 2015

Ockham said:
Which is fine - I'm all for people having and expressing their choice without interference. Do children really belong to parents or are they really pseudo-wards of the state where the state can intercede because (using an extreme example) that the child is not eating enough leafy greens, therefore the child is removed from the home, made a ward of the state and fed spinach salad?

Interesting question. However, I think it can be answered with a more serious question. What does the state do when parents are starving a child? Are the children kept in the home? Or is it determined that the parent's have a right to starve the child because children belong to them? It is clear that if in the end, the parent's proposed plan of action will lead to the child's death (like not going through chemo would), then the state must step in and do what is necessary to save that child's life as the parent's demonstrate they don't have the best interest. Do you disagree?

I edited: Please respond to reflect that.

tres borrachos · Jan 12, 2015

JasperL said:
But when did she gain this ability to determine her own fate. In NJ, the law says at age 18. What age are you using?

The other problem specific to this case is she had an opportunity to convince a judge she was making responsible decisions, and she failed. I guess skipping doctors' appointments, running away from home, and not having any plan of treating the cancer will tend to do that.....

I'm using her age. 17. NJ isn't CT so I'm not sure what the law in NJ has to do with anything?

Ockham · Jan 12, 2015

Deuce said:
You are conflating "unhealthy diet" with "she must have this treatment for a fatal illness or she will die."

Really, dude?

But it's not about an unhealthy died or treatment for a fatal disease, it's about the reach of government to take children away from parents. Bleat on about bad comparisons though - that topic is right up your alley.

JasperL · Jan 12, 2015

tres borrachos said:
I'm using her age. 17. NJ isn't CT so I'm not sure what the law in NJ has to do with anything?

Should have been completely obvious I made a mistake/typo and was referring to the law that applied to this person in this case.

tres borrachos · Jan 12, 2015

Deuce said:
You could try not oversimplifying the situation.

Of course not.

:roll:

tres borrachos · Jan 12, 2015

JasperL said:
Should have been completely obvious I made a mistake/typo and was referring to the law that applied to this person in this case.

No, it wasn't obvious that you made a typo. NJ and CT aren't even the same letters. I asked you why you referenced NJ.

So what was your post about now that we cleared up that this teen is in CT? What were you asking me what "age I was using" for?

Ockham · Jan 12, 2015

Hatuey said:
Interesting question. However, I think it can be answered with a more serious question. What does the state do when parents are starving a child? Are the children kept in the home? Or is it determined that the parent's have a right to starve the child because children belong to them?

As with anything what is the definition of "starving" that the state is using? It's difficult to answer but let's take it to the extreme for the sake of your question: The state can take a child away due to extreme neglect such as starvation. In my state, NJ Law Sec 9:6-1 states:

Neglect of a child shall consist in any of the following acts, by anyone having the custody or control of the childa) willfully failing to provide proper and sufficient food, clothing, maintenance, regular school education as required by law, medical attendance or surgical treatment, and a clean and proper home, or (b) failure to do or permit to be done any act necessary for the child's physical or moral well-being.

However, in the non-extreme case, section 9:6-1(d) states Abuse of a child can be:

(d) the habitual use by the parent or by a person having the custody and control of a child, in the hearing of such child, of profane, indecent or obscene language;

So a child can be considered "abused" when Daddy uses the F word too often. For example section (c) of that same law states:

(c) habitually tormenting, vexing or afflicting a child;

So badgering a child (ie., tormenting) them about doing their homework is considered "cruelty".

http://www.nj.gov/dcf/reporting/links/

Hatuey said:
It is clear that if in the end, the parent's proposed plan of action will lead to the child's death (like not going through chemo would), then the state must step in and do what is necessary to save that child's life as the parent's demonstrate they don't have the best interest. Do you disagree?

I do disagree. If the parent and the child do not want to have the chemo, then the responsibility of that child's welfare falls on the parent, not the state. If the state wishes to bring charges against the parent - why didn't they? They had no problem taking the kid away and forcing her to have chemo. To me that's stepping over the line. If the kid believes what she says, when she turns 18 she will stop the chemo and may die anyway --- then again, she may not die.

I do not see shared responsibility of a child as being the states obligation unless clear and immediate harm or death is involved. I agree mostly with obvious situations where children are neglected, abandoned, are beaten, starved, etc... That is not present in this case.

Hatuey · Jan 12, 2015

tres borrachos said:
I'm using her age. 17. NJ isn't CT so I'm not sure what the law in NJ has to do with anything?

I looked this up because I know you're a bit of a stickler for these kinds of arguments. Connecticut laws for consent for under 18s are pretty murky and the state does decide when consent is necessary and when it isn't. The court had the power to remove her from her household as the mother's argument for denying her daughter's life saving treatment went against ... well.. the facts presented by her doctors. If the daughter had lived by herself, and had shown she had made this judgement based on something other than her opinion, the state wouldn't have had much of a case. This is just based on what is in these links:

Medical Treatment for Minors
Can Connecticut Force A Teenage Girl To Undergo Chemotherapy? : Shots - Health News : NPR

What is clear is that minors in Connecticut can't consent/deny any medical procedure they wish. CT law even goes as far as saying that the minor's consent isn't always required.

Deuce · Jan 12, 2015

Ockham said:
But it's not about an unhealthy died or treatment for a fatal disease, it's about the reach of government to take children away from parents. Bleat on about bad comparisons though - that topic is right up your alley.

This thread is very much about treatments for fatal illnesses.

You are saying parents should be allowed to let their child die.

tres borrachos · Jan 12, 2015

Hatuey said:
I looked this up because I know you're a bit of a stickler for these kinds of arguments. Connecticut laws for consent for under 18s are pretty murky and the state does decide when consent is necessary and when it isn't. The court had the power to remove her from her household as the mother's argument for denying her daughter's life saving treatment went against ... well.. the facts presented by her doctors. If the daughter had lived by herself, and had shown she had made this judgement based on something other than her opinion, the state wouldn't have had much of a case. This is just based on what is in these links:

Medical Treatment for Minors
Can Connecticut Force A Teenage Girl To Undergo Chemotherapy? : Shots - Health News : NPR

What is clear is that minors in Connecticut can't consent/deny any medical procedure they wish. CT law even goes as far as saying that the minor's consent isn't always required.

Minors in Connecticut can get an abortion over the age of 15 without their parents' consent. Abortion is a medical procedure (and a very protected one):

http://www.ct.gov/dcf/lib/dcf/child_welfare_services/pdf/legal_rights_of_teens.pdf

Page 18.

j-mac · Jan 12, 2015

JasperL said:
I think it's reasonable for a court to examine those parental decisions and step in when they're clearly irresponsible, as is the case here from the facts we know.

Or to take if from another direction, it's clearly a case with important principles in opposition to one another, and a very difficult balancing act. There are CLEAR liberty issues at stake, and issues of parental rights, but I think we all also recognize that parents can't be immune from having their decisions nullified - say, a mother feeding pot brownies to a toddler, or cooking meth in the kitchen next to the baby's crib. The state has a clear interest in removing the child from that environment and protecting her from harm.

Here, the court weighed those important principles and decided to try to save the life of a minor, over her and her mother's objections. I understand those who think the court's ruling was overbroad, but the ruling has the advantage of being consistent with ALL the medical evidence that the decision is clearly in the best interests of the minor child. If she had a plan of treatment not involving chemo that had a reasonable chance of success, the court might have decided differently, and I might agree. But from what we know, and it's not all, her alternative treatment 'plan' is 'no poison' - that's it. So I suspect the judge lost very little sleep on this one, and rightly so IMO.

That was well stated Jasper....Thank you...And from what I know, I would tend to agree, but I remain skeptically critical....But I do hope she ends up ok.

Hatuey · Jan 12, 2015

Ockham said:
As with anything what is the definition of "starving" that the state is using?

Depriving them of food. No specific food groups in question, just food in general. Go.

It's difficult to answer but let's take it to the extreme for the sake of your question: The state can take a child away due to extreme neglect such as starvation. In my state, NJ Law Sec 9:6-1 states:

However, in the non-extreme case, section 9:6-1(d) states Abuse of a child can be:

So a child can be considered "abused" when Daddy uses the F word too often. For example section (c) of that same law states:

So badgering a child (ie., tormenting) them about doing their homework is considered "cruelty".

http://www.nj.gov/dcf/reporting/links/[/quote]

I think you're actually ignoring the fact that these acts must be taken towards the child and a history of abuse must be demonstrated, not just the fact that the parent drops the F bomb around the child every now and then.

I do disagree. If the parent and the child do not want to have the chemo, then the responsibility of that child's welfare falls on the parent, not the state.

So then when the parent fails to ensure the welfare of that child through their actions, should there be no penalty? I mean, after all, they had "a right" to do so.

If the state wishes to bring charges against the parent - why didn't they? They had no problem taking the kid away and forcing her to have chemo. To me that's stepping over the line. If the kid believes what she says, when she turns 18 she will stop the chemo and may die anyway --- then again, she may not die.

I do not see shared responsibility of a child as being the states obligation unless clear and immediate harm or death is involved. I agree mostly with obvious situations where children are neglected, abandoned, are beaten, starved, etc... That is not present in this case.

So for example: a parent who takes 5 years to starve their child to death, should the state not step in because there is "immediate death" involved? Why is "immediacy" an issue when reality is that refusing the treatment guarantees she will die?

Deuce · Jan 12, 2015

j-mac said:
That was well stated Jasper....Thank you...And from what I know, I would tend to agree, but I remain skeptically critical....But I do hope she ends up ok.

With treatment, she'll very likely live a long and healthy life.

Hatuey · Jan 12, 2015

tres borrachos said:
Minors in Connecticut can get an abortion over the age of 15 without their parents' consent. Abortion is a medical procedure (and a very protected one):

http://www.ct.gov/dcf/lib/dcf/child_welfare_services/pdf/legal_rights_of_teens.pdf

Page 18.

This really has nothing to do with what I stated. The state of Connecticut makes it clear that they don't always need parental consent or for that matter that the minor doesn't get to deny/consent as he wishes. Consent/denial is dependent on the issue at hand. In this case, the court sided with doctors and child services.

JasperL · Jan 12, 2015

tres borrachos said:
No, it wasn't obvious that you made a typo. NJ and CT aren't even the same letters. I asked you why you referenced NJ.

Yes, it's so confusing, so I'll quote myself: "I made a mistake/typo." Clear?

So what was your post about now that we cleared up that this teen is in CT? What were you asking me what "age I was using" for?

Try here http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...hell-die-without-chemo-17.html#post1064187090

And substitute 'CT' for 'NJ' in my response.

You said this: "It's her body and it should be her choice what medical procedures she decides her body will endure." Obviously a 3 year old toddler doesn't get that choice, and the law in CT says she becomes an adult at age 18. So there is some age at which she gains the right to deny herself lifesaving treatment. The question is what is that age, if not 18 per the law in her state?

j-mac · Jan 12, 2015

Deuce said:
With treatment, she'll very likely live a long and healthy life.

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?

tech30528 · Jan 12, 2015

Hard Truth said:
Facts have to be considered. Research shows that alternative treatments don't work. The facts are that she will almost certainly enjoy many more years of good health after enduring a few months of the chemo ordeal. Young people are not good at deciding wisely between short term sacrifice and long term gain versus short term gain and long term consequences. Since she is a minor I support the mandatory treatment.

If she wanted to commit suicide to avoid a six month prison sentence would you also support her right to make that decision?

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rZRanTFcuks

Henrin · Jan 12, 2015

How can you be pro-choice and against this girl making choices towards her own body and life? I mean, how can you say in the abortion debate that forcing a woman to have an abortion is wrong, but in this debate say it is OK for the state to force this girl to have medical treatment?

tres borrachos · Jan 12, 2015

Hatuey said:
This really has nothing to do with what I stated. The state of Connecticut makes it clear that they don't always need parental consent or for that matter that the minor doesn't get to deny/consent as he wishes. Consent/denial is dependent on the issue at hand. In this case, the court sided with doctors and child services.

It had to do with what I was saying. I've been asking what happened to "her body, her choice". Abortion is a medical procedure she is granted the choice to make. She should be granted the same right in this case. Just like nobody can force her to carry a pregnancy to term, nobody should be able to force her to inject chemo into her body.

Henrin · Jan 12, 2015

Furthermore, how can we say the government is protecting body sovereignty when they force people to take medical treatments? Did the government not assume control over this girls body by their actions? What right of hers is actually being protected here?

tres borrachos · Jan 12, 2015

JasperL said:
Yes, it's so confusing, so I'll quote myself: "I made a mistake/typo." Clear?

Try here http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...hell-die-without-chemo-17.html#post1064187090

And your post was in response to my post to Minnie about abortion. What is it you didn't understand? I wasn't talking about her legal right to sign a contract or buy a house. I was taking about abortion. So what are you confused about that you need me to clarify for you?

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

Noblesse oblige

Outer space potato man

HoHoHo

Rule of Two

HoHoHo

Noblesse oblige

HoHoHo

HoHoHo

Noblesse oblige

Rule of Two

Outer space potato man

HoHoHo

Rule of Two

Outer space potato man

Rule of Two

HoHoHo

HoHoHo

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency