Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jan 8, 2015 20:28:18 GMT -5
How about if it were your 17 yr old daughter? you weren't asking me, but i would insist that she have chemo. Absolutely
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jan 8, 2015 20:30:43 GMT -5
Just a warning:
Stay on topic. This is NOT about abortion.
mmhmm, Administrator
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 20:54:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2015 21:03:04 GMT -5
This is why we need a federal right to die codified into law. Society and my doctor shouldn't get to dictate under what terms I'm willing to live. If she'd rather die in two years from a disease that could probably be cured by spending a year getting horribly painful treatments she should have the right to make that decision. The rest of us don't have to approve of it, or even understand it, but it should be her decision. Regardless of whether she's making the decision for religious reasons, fear, misinformation, unbridled optimism, or whatever. Her body, her life, her decision. Or it should have been anyway. I agree with this. If we don't have this basic right we really don't have any.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 20:54:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2015 21:05:02 GMT -5
This is why we need a federal right to die codified into law. Society and my doctor shouldn't get to dictate under what terms I'm willing to live. If she'd rather die in two years from a disease that could probably be cured by spending a year getting horribly painful treatments she should have the right to make that decision. The rest of us don't have to approve of it, or even understand it, but it should be her decision. Regardless of whether she's making the decision for religious reasons, fear, misinformation, unbridled optimism, or whatever. Her body, her life, her decision. Or it should have been anyway. How about if it were your 17 yr old daughter? The point is that it isn't. Do you want me making the decisions for your 17 year old daughter?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 8, 2015 22:48:22 GMT -5
How about if it were your 17 yr old daughter? you weren't asking me, but i would insist that she have chemo. What if you were opposed to chemo, or what if you just stood by your daughter's decision?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 8, 2015 23:35:55 GMT -5
you weren't asking me, but i would insist that she have chemo. What if you were opposed to chemo, or what if you just stood by your daughter's decision? i answered the question in the only way i could, Paul. i would not let anyone in my custody commit suicide like that. as a parent, i suspect that there will be a great deal my son will hate me for. if saving his life is among those things, i will just have to live with that.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jan 9, 2015 6:58:23 GMT -5
Why is this even an issue? If mom, who is her legal guardian, refuses on her behalf, then why does it go any further?
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jan 9, 2015 8:35:01 GMT -5
Why is this even an issue? If mom, who is her legal guardian, refuses on her behalf, then why does it go any further? I guess the simple answer is there just are too many times, parents do not make the right decision for their child. 80% recover rate is a strong argument.
Who knows, she could grow up to be President of the USA, or be another Charles Manson.. At seventeen there should be hope. imo
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 9, 2015 8:39:30 GMT -5
What if you were opposed to chemo, or what if you just stood by your daughter's decision? i answered the question in the only way i could, Paul. i would not let anyone in my custody commit suicide like that. as a parent, i suspect that there will be a great deal my son will hate me for. if saving his life is among those things, i will just have to live with that. I'm with you on that. This is about the power of the state.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 9, 2015 8:40:42 GMT -5
Why is this even an issue? If mom, who is her legal guardian, refuses on her behalf, then why does it go any further? This is the answer I was looking for. And it's the right answer. The state ought to have no power to intervene and force a medical course of treatment. That should be between a family and their doctor.
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,353
Member is Online
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Jan 9, 2015 8:51:11 GMT -5
Why is this even an issue? If mom, who is her legal guardian, refuses on her behalf, then why does it go any further? This is the answer I was looking for. And it's the right answer. The state ought to have no power to intervene and force a medical course of treatment. That should be between a family and their doctor. I think it is a tough spot for the Department of Children and Families. They are damned if they do, damned if they don't. I do agree with you, that the state should default to stay out of decisions like this. But I think the state does play a role. If the situation were that druggie parents were not taking their small children to the doctor to take care of basic health needs, I think the State does have a right and duty to step in and make sure the kids are having their basic needs met. The problem is, once you think that is ok then you have to decide where the line is. The, assumedly learned, supreme court of CT took a look at this and found it was the states right and duty to step in.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 9, 2015 9:04:42 GMT -5
This is the answer I was looking for. And it's the right answer. The state ought to have no power to intervene and force a medical course of treatment. That should be between a family and their doctor. I think it is a tough spot for the Department of Children and Families. They are damned if they do, damned if they don't. I do agree with you, that the state should default to stay out of decisions like this. But I think the state does play a role. If the situation were that druggie parents were not taking their small children to the doctor to take care of basic health needs, I think the State does have a right and duty to step in and make sure the kids are having their basic needs met. The problem is, once you think that is ok then you have to decide where the line is. The, assumedly learned, supreme court of CT took a look at this and found it was the states right and duty to step in. That is the problem with the whole notion of a state department of children and families. It's hard to imagine a less qualified entity than government to solve these kinds of difficult problems. I think in the event that parents are neglecting, or abusing children in the most objectively defined way (for example, I wouldn't regard an otherwise normal family making a controversial medical decision as abuse or neglect), then the state use of violence (because that's all the government is in the end is force- violence) is justified because it fulfills the ONLY legitimate role of government: protecting the natural rights of one human being from the abuse of another. The mother is competent, she brought her daughter to the doctor, she was given options, and she and her 17 year old (as in not 5) have made a decision which must be respected. Government is, as I've said, ultimately the use of violence against people to make them do involuntarily what they will not do on their own. Force must be used sparingly, and only in defense of other's rights. "The Market" is a term we use to mean 'HUMAN BEINGS INTERACTING VOLUNTARILY.' What it means when somebody says "in this realm I don't trust the market" what they're saying is "in this case (for protection or whatever it happens to be) I don't trust people interacting voluntarily to have a good outcome." Well, there's only one alternative to voluntary, which is: involuntary. The other word for involuntary is violence."~Larken Rose
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,353
Member is Online
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Jan 9, 2015 9:08:15 GMT -5
I think it is a tough spot for the Department of Children and Families. They are damned if they do, damned if they don't. I do agree with you, that the state should default to stay out of decisions like this. But I think the state does play a role. If the situation were that druggie parents were not taking their small children to the doctor to take care of basic health needs, I think the State does have a right and duty to step in and make sure the kids are having their basic needs met. The problem is, once you think that is ok then you have to decide where the line is. The, assumedly learned, supreme court of CT took a look at this and found it was the states right and duty to step in. That is the problem with the whole notion of a state department of children and families. It's hard to imagine a less qualified entity than government to solve these kinds of difficult problems. I think in the event that parents are neglecting, or abusing children in the most objectively defined way (for example, I wouldn't regard an otherwise normal family making a controversial medical decision as abuse or neglect), then the state use of violence (because that's all the government is in the end is force- violence) is justified because it fulfills the ONLY legitimate role of government: protecting the natural rights of one human being from the abuse of another. The mother is competent, she brought her daughter to the doctor, she was given options, and she and her 17 year old (as in not 5) have made a decision which must be respected. Government is, as I've said, ultimately the use of violence against people to make them do involuntarily what they will not do on their own. Force must be used sparingly, and only in defense of other's rights. "The Market" is a term we use to mean 'HUMAN BEINGS INTERACTING VOLUNTARILY.' What it means when somebody says "in this realm I don't trust the market" what they're saying is "in this case (for protection or whatever it happens to be) I don't trust people interacting voluntarily to have a good outcome." Well, there's only one alternative to voluntary, which is: involuntary. The other word for involuntary is violence."~Larken Rose Even you think the government plays a role, meaning that someone has to be the ones to draw the line. Who better than the supreme court to do so?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 9, 2015 9:22:36 GMT -5
Yes, government has "a" role. But it is not this role. I draw the line a little brighter than this. There's no evidence the girl is being abused and neglected. This is a medical decision pure and simple. The government shouldn't even be informed of the matter, let alone presume to insert itself between this family and their medical professionals. This isn't a slippery slope- this is the bottom of the slippery slope.
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,353
Member is Online
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Jan 9, 2015 9:25:15 GMT -5
Yes, government has "a" role. But it is not this role. I draw the line a little brighter than this. There's no evidence the girl is being abused and neglected. This is a medical decision pure and simple. The government shouldn't even be informed of the matter, let alone presume to insert itself between this family and their medical professionals. This isn't a slippery slope- this is the bottom of the slippery slope. There is no evidence to you. There was evidence to the supreme court.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Jan 9, 2015 9:53:56 GMT -5
At 17 I knew what life and death was. I was making medical decisions for myself. Guess what, at 17 my mom had very little real control over my day to day actions. If I missed a doctors appointment that was on me. What is the mother supposed to do, forcibly take her daughter to the doctor? How does that work? Handcuffs? Locking her in the house until it's time to go? We are not talking about a 7 year old. We are talking about a young lady that in ~250 days will be a full and legal adult. Think about that, in ~250 days if she were diagnosed she would have been able to do the exact same thing she is doing now, without any input from anyone. So do tell me... what magical alchemy takes place in the human brain/body when a person reaches 18 years of age?? Perhaps, the mother knows that the girl is not ready for this treatment emotionally. I read the same quote from the mother who said that she hoped and thought the young lady would willingly start treatment when she started showing symptoms and getting sick. Hell even the doctors that started this whole mess said they don't want patients fighting the chemo and treatment plan. Well they should have thought of that before they got all gestapo on her and turned her in for 'not going along with the program' Once again... I ask the question. If the young lady can choose to have an abortion why is she not mature enough to decide on if she wants chemo?That's a different issue and the one that I brought up numerous times - we send very mixed signals about who is an adult and can make decisions and who is not. I think it's CRAAAZY that you can enlist at 18 and go to war, but yet some judge can force parents to pay for college for their "kids". You can keep your "kids" on your insurance until they are 26!!! but yet, at 16 they can drive a car and drink at 21. Etc etc etc I just don't get that at all. I think you either an adult or you are not.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jan 9, 2015 10:03:26 GMT -5
I don't like the state stepping into private lives and decisions. But I also don't like parents letting their kids suffer and/or die because they're forcing their beliefs of no doctors (or whatever) on their kid.
This brings to mind the movie my sister's keeper where the court stepped in and said mom needed to give up and stop treatment on her dying kid, but in an opposite way of course.
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,353
Member is Online
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Jan 9, 2015 10:26:21 GMT -5
Even in OR where we have assisted suicide the law says that the disease has to be fatal. I view this as the equivalent of a 17 year old threatening to jump off a bridge or slit her wrists. I would try to stop that as well because a teenager doesn't know what they are giving up when they talk about dying. This is someone who has never lived independently, has maybe never driven, had a date or traveled. Part of what the supreme court wanted to determine was her maturity and if she was mature enough to be making the decision as an adult. Apparently the girl had previously told DCF that she would go through with the chemo and then subsequently ran away from home. The court took this as evidence that she is not mature enough to be making the decision as an adult.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Jan 9, 2015 10:29:28 GMT -5
I find it troublesome that running away from home makes one "not mature enough"
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jan 9, 2015 10:31:19 GMT -5
We really don't have a lot of information on this case. We don't know if the "mature minor doctrine" is recognized in this child's state. That would make a difference in how this case would be handled. The thing that bothers me is, mostly, the fact that this particular disease has an excellent cure rate if treated early. Waiting until the child has symptoms that cause her to decide to have treatment will result in the narrowing of the window of opportunity. That's troublesome. As I said, this is a tough one.
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,353
Member is Online
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Jan 9, 2015 10:33:12 GMT -5
I find it troublesome that running away from home makes one "not mature enough" That was only part of the evidence, but I think a strong part of their evidence.
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,353
Member is Online
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Jan 9, 2015 10:34:48 GMT -5
I find it troublesome that running away from home makes one "not mature enough" It was not just running away. It was saying that she would go through with the chemo and then running away. So she was either lying at first or she truly changed her mind in a short time frame. Both of those don't go to prove a stable, mature decision making process.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Jan 9, 2015 10:49:55 GMT -5
I find it interesting that a parent cannot force their child to have an abortion but will be forced to bear the costs of this unwanted child their child brings into the world, and seems to be unable to make any decisions regarding their own child except bear the financial and any other responsibility for those decisions made by others for the child or the child makes them herself.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Jan 9, 2015 10:53:17 GMT -5
Oops, sorry for the "A" word.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,483
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 9, 2015 10:53:46 GMT -5
I find it interesting that a parent cannot force their child to have an abortion but will be forced to bear the costs of this unwanted child their child brings into the world, and seems to be unable to make any decisions regarding their own child except bear the financial and any other responsibility for those decisions made by others for the child or the child makes them herself. Chemo causes pregnancy? I didn't realize that.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jan 9, 2015 10:55:32 GMT -5
Let's leave abortion out of this discussion. This is not about abortion so let's not conflate the issues, please. This thread's subject is important enough to stand on its own without the need to drag other discussions into it and derail it. Any further posts that endeavor to bring abortion into this discussion will be removed as off-topic. Thanks.
mmhmm, Administrator
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Jan 9, 2015 10:57:28 GMT -5
I'm sure you knew what I meant. Please try to keep that in mind.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 20:54:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2015 11:09:09 GMT -5
This is not suicide. She would not be taking her own life, cancer would. Chemo is an intrusive and painful procedure. The state has no business telling anyone they have to do it.
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,353
Member is Online
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Jan 9, 2015 11:11:51 GMT -5
This is not suicide. She would not be taking her own life, cancer would. Chemo is an intrusive and painful procedure. The state has no business telling anyone they have to do it. what if she was 5.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,327
|
Post by swamp on Jan 9, 2015 11:16:04 GMT -5
I saw this on the news last night. Mom is a nutter. Chemo is poison, and since the girl doesn't want to die, she won't die, therefore she doesn't need treatment.
Girl was parroting what mom said.
|
|