http://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-court-ruling-on-connecticut-teen-forced-into-chemo/ I think it's ridicilous. It's almost like theyre trying to punish the mother for supporting her decision to not want chemo. Even if you could argue she must have chemo, there's no reason for the courts, in my opinion, to ban her mother from visiting her, in this case. But most of all, I think this whole case is ridicilous. I know many people who have had alternative treatments (like vitamins and minerals-which helps with cancer very good by putting good chemistry in the body-some alternative treatment is just as crappy as chemo). The fact that courts are forcing kids to endure toxic cancer treatment shows that even smart and powerful people are deceived by mainstream medicine into thinking it works best. Any thoughts? Anybody think otherwise and support the court forcing chemo in this case?
Yes, I think there should be legal intervention if a parent refuses their child a widely accepted life saving treatment for a lethal disease. When the child turns 18 and they wish to refuse it, then fine. But if the child hasn't reached the age of majority, society deems that they are not intellectually and emotional mature enough to make such a determination for themselves, which is why parents are supposed to fulfill the role of decision maker. It is the moral and legal obligation of the parent to protect the child's life first and foremost. When a parent makes a medically irresponsible decision that would result in the child's death without such treatment, the state should intervene on the child's behalf.
Hodgkin's has become a very treatable condition, with many successes. It would be foolish not to take advantage of this progress through ignorance. There are probably some good psychological reasons for the Order that the mother not see the child right now; among them, the psychological stress it could cause could make the treatments less effective, since the mother appears to not believe in them.
Obviously as the article states, the young girl changed her mind after she realized the chemo saved her life. Im going to take a middle stance here, I believe the state did the right thing in insisting the youth take the chemo but I do believe after all was said and done the mother should be allowed to visit her daughter.
The child doesnt believe in them either.. I guess the childs mental state in that regard doesnt matter... That "child" also in a few months would be able to serve in the military.. But that same "child" according to some can not think on their own until that magically can on their 18th birthday..
It seems that what you are really asking is, should the daughter be allowed to commit medical suicide, and should the child's mother be allowed to aid and abet her in that? In all but the most extraordinary cases, involving a person of this age, my answer would be "No". What I have difficulty accepting is extraordinary means medical care being imposed on anyone that is already profoundly disabled and retarded, and in pain, etc etc of any age. It is as inhumane and as cruel as intentional torture, IMO.
I am saying she was old enough to make up with mind about her medical choices. Simple. Instead she was forced to do it.
Suicide is illegal in many cultures, including ours. Failed suicides often lead to people unnecessarily becoming public, taxpayer burdens. I am against this. You be what you want to be.
I agree. I think forcing her was awful. At her age, she can legally marry - have kids - etc., but she can't make a decision as to whether she wants a treatment. I think the doctors were well within their rights to educate her and strongly counsel her - but I don't think they did the right thing by forcing the treatment.
I am pro abortion and do not believe that a fetus is a child until it develops sufficiently to become viable outside the womb. But that is tangential to the OP.
I understand why the state forced her to take the meds and it seems it was the right decision, but in general I believe the state should not force people to take medication. Even though I think it's right to save lives I feel people should the final say even if the outcome is their own demise as long as it affects no one else.
The daughter is in state custody. It is no different than saying you have to remain in jail or that your family cannot walk in and out of the prison when they want to visit. While we do not know the exact particulars, my guess is that the Judge does not want the mother rabble rousing. Yes I think the Court was right in forcing chemo in this case.
In earlier articles, they said they allowed her to talk to other friends and family on the phone-just not her mom. This isnt like a prison case where they dont want her to communicate with anybody at all.
Why? Chemo is big buisness for pharmaceutical companies. Each cancer patient is worth at least tens of thousands of dollars. some of those companies even give doctors gifts.
The legal line is 18. The courts really had no option once they determined that not giving chemotherapy was a form of child abuse. While the age of 17 creates with us the image of an adult, they aren't in the eyes of the law. I disagreed with this decision initially because of the "child's" age but in thinking it through I came to the same conclusion as the court. It helps if we look at this with a different set of circumstances. Let's say that the child was 8 and had fallen on the playground swing set cutting a 10" gaping wound in her forearm. Of course the child won't want stitches but as a parent we've got to make her undergo the pain in closing the wound. Same applies to a chemo therapy that has a success rate in the 90% range. As to mom not being able to see the daughter. There must be some issues or past acts that suggest that mom would cause serious problems. Cheers Labour
as someone that had Chemo, I think it is wrong for the gov to make someone get Chemo, it's a hard enough choice for one to make on their own, it's not the government place to decide this chemo can ruin quality of life and is not 100%, I would much prefer the gov offer to pay for experimental options to give patients more options.... that is if the gov really cares Chemo can kill you... Chemo is a gamble.... the gov should not be gambling with our lives, we have to make those choices ourselves .
Hodgkin's lymphoma is successfully treated with Chemo. The five year success rates are over 90+% for stage one and two, 80% for stage three and 65% for stage four. The life span of a hodgkin's lymphoma patient, untreated, is about 16 months, patients surviving for three years is 16% and only 6% survive to five years. Cheers Labour
