• 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!

Connecticut girl forced to go under chemotherapy

Reformedfindlay

Reformedfindlay

cynical class clown
DP Veteran
Joined
May 2, 2014
Messages
10,761
Reaction score
3,412
Location
CONNECTICUT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Can Connecticut Force A Teenage Girl To Undergo Chemotherapy? : Shots - Health News : NPR

A Connecticut girl named Cassandra was required to undergo chemotherapy by the Connecticut supreme court. The ruling by the CSC was unanimous and she was taken from her mother as she was then put into the custody of the state (who then forced her to go through chemotherapy sessions).

I don't know man... I think they should make it so that if she can prove that she is mature, then goddamn, let her make that decision. But to force her no matter what to undergo chemotherapy just doesn't feel right to me.
 
Luftwaffe said:
Can Connecticut Force A Teenage Girl To Undergo Chemotherapy? : Shots - Health News : NPR

A Connecticut girl named Cassandra was required to undergo chemotherapy by the Connecticut supreme court. The ruling by the CSC was unanimous and she was taken from her mother as she was then put into the custody of the state (who then forced her to go through chemotherapy sessions).

I don't know man... I think they should make it so that if she can prove that she is mature, then goddamn, let her make that decision. But to force her no matter what to undergo chemotherapy just doesn't feel right to me.
Click to expand...

Y'know, chemo sucks by all accounts...but a 17 y.o. is still a kid, and has little or no real clue about life. The chemo for her cancer has an 85% survival rate. I think that if she lives, we should talk to her five years from now and then ask her if she thinks we should have let her die.
 
Luftwaffe said:
Can Connecticut Force A Teenage Girl To Undergo Chemotherapy? : Shots - Health News : NPR

A Connecticut girl named Cassandra was required to undergo chemotherapy by the Connecticut supreme court. The ruling by the CSC was unanimous and she was taken from her mother as she was then put into the custody of the state (who then forced her to go through chemotherapy sessions).

I don't know man... I think they should make it so that if she can prove that she is mature, then goddamn, let her make that decision. But to force her no matter what to undergo chemotherapy just doesn't feel right to me.
Click to expand...

Well obviously they can. They should keep in mind when deciding if they will, that they themselves will eventually die, and forcing competent people to undergo injurious (even if also beneficial) procedures against their will, could cause them (the forcers) to burn.
 
While I think not getting the treatment is foolish, I think 17 is old enough to decide. Hell, you can join the military with parental consent at 17.
 
As it turns out, it's religious brainwashing that made her seek to turn down life-saving medical treatment. That is not the mark of an intelligent or rational person who can make decisions like an adult. She did not make a choice for herself. She parroted back the choice that her parents and her religion made for her.
 
Paschendale said:
As it turns out, it's religious brainwashing that made her seek to turn down life-saving medical treatment. That is not the mark of an intelligent or rational person who can make decisions like an adult. She did not make a choice for herself. She parroted back the choice that her parents and her religion made for her.
Click to expand...

That may not be the most important thing to consider here. If the courts support the idea that the government can force potentially life saving procedure then over religious objection, it is only a matter of time when that bar is lowered and the government can force any procedure for any reason. That seems to be the general concern on how far the government can go on the determination that the individual does not get a say so in their outcome.
 
OrphanSlug said:
That may not be the most important thing to consider here. If the courts support the idea that the government can force potentially life saving procedure then over religious objection, it is only a matter of time when that bar is lowered and the government can force any procedure for any reason. That seems to be the general concern on how far the government can go on the determination that the individual does not get a say so in their outcome.
Click to expand...

No, that's a silly slippery slope argument. This does not create a precedent for adults being required to undergo treatment. It does not create a precedent for other reasons. This ruling simply means that a minor can't make the decision to commit suicide by refusing treatment, and religiously deluded parents can't opt to kill their child by refusing treatment on their behalf. This is not "government force". This is protecting a child from being killed by the stupidity of her parents.
 
Paschendale said:
As it turns out, it's religious brainwashing that made her seek to turn down life-saving medical treatment. ... She did not make a choice for herself. She parroted back the choice that her parents and her religion made for her.
Click to expand...
Really? You got a link to that?
I ask because what has been reported from their lawyer is that religion was not involved.

Michtom said the daughter and mother's objection to treatment does not involve religion.

Connecticut Court to Hear Case of Teen Refusing Chemotherapy - ABC News​

So what do you have to make such allegation?
 
Last edited:
:shrug: I hope it saves her life.
 
Excon said:
Really? You got a link to that?
I ask because what has been reported from their lawyer is that religion was not involved.

Michtom said the daughter and mother's objection to treatment does not involve religion.

Connecticut Court to Hear Case of Teen Refusing Chemotherapy - ABC News​

So what do you have to make such allegation?
Click to expand...

Because many other news sources accurately discussed the motivation for these actions, including from statements made by the people involved. Spend 5 minutes doing some research that isn't cherry picking for a quote to absolve these people's absurd ideas and you'll know this yourself.
 
Paschendale said:
Because many other news sources accurately discussed the motivation for these actions, including from statements made by the people involved. Spend 5 minutes doing some research that isn't cherry picking for a quote to absolve these people's absurd ideas and you'll know this yourself.
Click to expand...
I searched before asking, so stop trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes.
Provide these supposed details.
So far nothing you have failed top provide anything that refutes what the family's lawyer said.
The daughter and mother's objection to treatment does not involve religion.
 
Paschendale said:
No, that's a silly slippery slope argument. This does not create a precedent for adults being required to undergo treatment. It does not create a precedent for other reasons. This ruling simply means that a minor can't make the decision to commit suicide by refusing treatment, and religiously deluded parents can't opt to kill their child by refusing treatment on their behalf. This is not "government force". This is protecting a child from being killed by the stupidity of her parents.
Click to expand...

No, it is a reasonable concern to have. The decision in this case comes down to "Cassandra C" sought the power to override the state's wishes with the full knowledge and approval of her mother. Now that we have gone down this road, the state has control over the health of the child no matter what the parent's wishes are. It is only a matter of time before the state has more weight in making healthcare decisions for minors than the parents do, no matter the severity of a healthcare professional's opinion on that procedure not being done.
 
Paschendale said:
No, that's a silly slippery slope argument. This does not create a precedent for adults being required to undergo treatment. It does not create a precedent for other reasons. This ruling simply means that a minor can't make the decision to commit suicide by refusing treatment, and religiously deluded parents can't opt to kill their child by refusing treatment on their behalf. This is not "government force". This is protecting a child from being killed by the stupidity of her parents.
Click to expand...

this is simply not true. there are plenty of religious objections to certain procedures that the court does not override even though it could save a patients life.
to override this is a violation of the first amendment.

the court is wrong in this case. they violated the constitution.

there are several groups that do not believe in blood transfusions etc ...
other groups have religious objections to other various medical procedures.

in this case the court not only ignored the constitution but illegally took the child away from her parents.

this should be appealed to the federal court system and she will win hands down.
 
ludin said:
this is simply not true. there are plenty of religious objections to certain procedures that the court does not override even though it could save a patients life.
to override this is a violation of the first amendment.

the court is wrong in this case. they violated the constitution.

there are several groups that do not believe in blood transfusions etc ...
other groups have religious objections to other various medical procedures.

in this case the court not only ignored the constitution but illegally took the child away from her parents.

this should be appealed to the federal court system and she will win hands down.
Click to expand...
I don't know what state you live in, but in WA life saving care is given to children over parents objections all the time. If a kid needs a transfusion the JW parents are told to go fish, they do the transfusion
 
EMNofSeattle said:
I don't know what state you live in, but in WA life saving care is given to children over parents objections all the time. If a kid needs a transfusion the JW parents are told to go fish, they do the transfusion
Click to expand...

Then the hospital and or doctor is liable.

Constitution trumps state law. The government cannot interfere with the practice of religion
the court messed up. whether you agree with their view or not.
 
Personally, I oppose the move by the Connecticut Supreme Court to force this treatment on a 17 year old young lady. Unless the young lady is mentally incompetent, the decision should be hers and hers alone. Not even a parent should be able to overrule her decision at the age of 17.

17 is considered an adult for a host of activities and rights in society today. What appreciable difference could there be between this 17 yr old now and a few months from now when she'd be 18 and considered competent to make the decision herself, legally?

And for those who believe the state should take over such decisions, I'll remind you that some of the very same people who support the Connecticut court here were adamant that Florida shouldn't have gotten involved in the Terri Shivo case.
 
ludin said:
Then the hospital and or doctor is liable.

Constitution trumps state law. The government cannot interfere with the practice of religion
the court messed up. whether you agree with their view or not.
Click to expand...
No, the court did not mess up. No part of the constitution Grant you the right to kill people as part of your religious practice. Your religious rights and where someone else's right to life begins, and a 17-year-old is not mature enough to make the decision to commit medicinal suicide. Really need there is an 18-year-old, but that's the arbitrary age we selected for adulthood so when she's 18 she can make whatever choice she wants until then the state has their interest in protecting her life
 
EMNofSeattle said:
No, the court did not mess up. No part of the constitution Grant you the right to kill people as part of your religious practice. Your religious rights and where someone else's right to life begins, and a 17-year-old is not mature enough to make the decision to commit medicinal suicide. Really need there is an 18-year-old, but that's the arbitrary age we selected for adulthood so when she's 18 she can make whatever choice she wants until then the state has their interest in protecting her life
Click to expand...

And yet, if I'm not mistaken, this same state believes that this immature child of 17 would be perfectly mature and competent to decide to have an abortion without her parent's approval and/or knowledge. Why only competent to make medical decisions for herself when the decision meets the progressive agenda of the state?
 
ludin said:
this is simply not true. there are plenty of religious objections to certain procedures that the court does not override even though it could save a patients life.
to override this is a violation of the first amendment.
Click to expand...

The court doesn't override it when it's not life threatening or when it's an adult. This is a child who is being pushed to commit suicide because of her parents' religion.
 
Paschendale said:
The court doesn't override it when it's not life threatening or when it's an adult. This is a child who is being pushed to commit suicide because of her parents' religion.
Click to expand...

there is nothing in the article that suggests that.
 
Paleocon said:
Well obviously they can. They should keep in mind when deciding if they will, that they themselves will eventually die, and forcing competent people to undergo injurious (even if also beneficial) procedures against their will, could cause them (the forcers) to burn.
Click to expand...

Would you rather your child dies than get treatment that has an 85% survival rate?


I just really can't understand as a parent what kind of parent that wouldn't do anything and everything they possibly could to help their child survive.
 
CanadaJohn said:
And yet, if I'm not mistaken, this same state believes that this immature child of 17 would be perfectly mature and competent to decide to have an abortion without her parent's approval and/or knowledge. Why only competent to make medical decisions for herself when the decision meets the progressive agenda of the state?
Click to expand...

Who said I agree with that either? Two wrongs don't make a right
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom