Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Girl Forced to Have Chemotherapy

It seems there are more and more stories like this these days. Not just with medical treatment, but of states taking over parental rights for ridiculous reasons. It some of them it is hard to know if the stories are true or not, but it sure gives me pause.
 
Chilling. Absolutely chilling. This story is true, though.
 
Honestly I'm on the other side if the fence on this.

There are a few cases in the news here in Canada where children aged 11-13 are refusing chemotherapy. Doctors have reported the families to child protective services and the parents are winning the right to seek alternative therapies based on cultural beliefs.

Here's the thing. These children have an 80% or more chance of complete recovery with chemotherapy. They have zero chance of survival with alternative treatments. These are the facts. Do these children really have the ability to make such an important decision? Is this a knee jerk reaction to illness caused by conventional therapy?

I think a variety of factors come into play here. If an underage cancer patient is terminal than I think the decision to stop treatment should be on the table. However, if they have a good prognosis, then I think child protective services should step in. As much as I thought I knew everything at that age, I didn't. Children don't have the ability to look ahead and consider consequences to their actions.

I hate how government and health care workers are vilanized.
 
I think 17 is different than 11 or 13, however I do agree with the overall process. I mean, children shouldn't be making these decisions. But at 17, I'm wondering if she can't just be emancipated. The article mentions there is no mature minor law, which would make sense in this sort of situation. I also dont fully agree with parents using alternative medicine instead of western medicine. If they want to use it in conjunction, and then praise everything good thing that comes out of it to the alternative, sure. But at least get both =\ Religion/culture is not more important than your childs health.

I feel badly for her, but if she continues treatment until September and makes a full recovery and lives a long healthy life after that, how badly would I feel then?
 
It's all very well making decisions for someone else's body when it's not your body that will suffer. Chemotherapy, by all accounts, can make you feel so bad that you want to die. It can take away the ability to walk, it can make your fingernails drop off, it can age your heart by decades, it can make your soles so sore you can't stand up, and it can make your weight drop dangerously low due to the sores in your mouth, the vomiting and the lack of appetite. Oh yeah - and it can make the white of your eyes blue, and turn your urine blue or red, depending on the drug. They're so toxic that they're bright in color - so bright that the chemo bags are specially colored to mask it, for some drugs.

What right does anyone have to inflict that on you? The girl had already tried two rounds and said "Enough" but her wishes were ignored. She was forced to have this treatment. Forced. I just can't get past that.

If I were her I would have flown to Dignitas in Switzerland.

And a cure? Cancer can always come back. Some types can come back after 10, 15, 25, 30 years. And treatment for this cancer will put her at higher risk of breast cancer in her forties. Everything segues into everything else when it comes to complex illness - the cascade effect, it's called.

I would be so utterly incensed at the forced nature of the treatment that if I were her I'd flee to another country, probably somewhere in Europe, claim asylum at being force-poisoned, and never set foot in the United States again. I think her human rights to her own body have been completely violated.

Being overweight is also bad for you. So, because someone is 17 not 18, should we tie them down and starve them? Since we apparently tie people down and push poison into their bodies, why don't we starve overweight teenagers, because it's good for them like the chemo was good for the girl? Where do you draw the line?
 
Hi,

I'm so with Chem girl on this particular case. We often see poor judgement in many matters now-a-days, so the decision of this young woman cannot be looked at as wise, as she can be cured. I think she needs some counseling to erase some of her fear. It is a daunting process for a young woman to go through and, I think her fear overrides her judgement.

My son had Hodgins Lymphomia and is 5 yrs cancer free this year. I hope some day she will be grateful, as we are in our family for good survival chances.

Annette
 
Here's an article about the future risks of Hodgkins treatment for adolescent girls:

http://www.oncologynurseadvisor.com/breast-cancer-in-young-women-after-treatment-for-hodgkin-lymphoma/article/332207/

I understand that the treatment has worked, but compared to the horror of the state bearing down on you with a needle....shudder. The fact that the state can force chemo on you means they can force any treatment on you. The individual apparently has no rights. The state treated this girl as if her wishes were nothing.

If she develops breast cancer after her treatment, I hope she sues the state for all she's worth.
 
I'm not saying that chemotherapy isn't awful. Having taken care of my mother while she underwent cancer treatment, trust me, I know. You know what's also horribly painful, draining, psychologically damaging? Dying of cancer. Seriously, it is horrible to watch.

These kids know that chemo makes them feel awful. They read about alternative treatments. They are impressionable, they don't believe in their own mortality. Alternative treatments may seem like a viable alternative. The truth is they don't work. These kids are trading a year of hell for an excruciating death.

And yes, no medical treatment is without risks, and cancer can come back. 10, 15, 20 years of health shouldn't be taken for granted. So much life can happen in that time.

Without chemo we would have lost my mom over 20 years ago. Modern medicine is a gift.

Eta: the key to this case is that the child is a minor. The government can't force treatment on a legal adult. There has to be an age cutoff somewhere. Maybe the age of consent for medical treatment needs to be lower. I feel strongly that there needs to be an age where a child's health should be up to their guardian, failing that the state.
 
She's 17, though, not 13 or 10.

I've watched cancer deaths, too, in immediate family, and yes it's all terrible, including the chemo. It really takes away a part of your innocence that you can never get back, it's all so awful. Due to the research I did at that time, any one chemo only has a 30% success rate.

But anyway, she's only a few months off her 18th birthday and she had willingly tried two rounds of chemo and then said she wanted to stop. I think her wishes should have been respected.

Forcing people is just not the way. Couldn't there have been a skilled counselor who could have talked her into it, made her feel like it was her decision to go ahead with chemo? Gently, gently is the way, not force. Couldn't someone have put things into perspective for her, drawn her a picture with words of what her future could be - i.e. love, marriage, career, children, traveling the world, watching a sunset in India, drinking margaritas with friends in the Caribbean? Being forced to have chemotherapy, that's like being attacked, and I would have thought self-esteem issues could arise afterward like in an actual attack, because you were denied agency over your own destiny. It's just too close to being treated as if you're nothing - as if you, the individual, what you want, your opinions, your wishes, are nothing. She said she didn't want any more and the state came down on her like a ton of bricks, and I think that's wrong. She's almost an adult.
 
Jambalaya|1425921804|3844353 said:
She's 17, though, not 13 or 10.

I've watched cancer deaths, too, in immediate family, and yes it's all terrible, including the chemo. It really takes away a part of your innocence that you can never get back, it's all so awful. Due to the research I did at that time, any one chemo only has a 30% success rate.

But anyway, she's only a few months off her 18th birthday and she had willingly tried two rounds of chemo and then said she wanted to stop. I think her wishes should have been respected.

Forcing people is just not the way. Couldn't there have been a skilled counselor who could have talked her into it, made her feel like it was her decision to go ahead with chemo? Gently, gently is the way, not force. Couldn't someone have put things into perspective for her, drawn her a picture with words of what her future could be - i.e. love, marriage, career, children, traveling the world, watching a sunset in India, drinking margaritas with friends in the Caribbean? Being forced to have chemotherapy, that's like being attacked, and I would have thought self-esteem issues could arise afterward like in an actual attack, because you were denied agency over your own destiny. It's just too close to being treated as if you're nothing - as if you, the individual, what you want, your opinions, your wishes, are nothing. She said she didn't want any more and the state came down on her like a ton of bricks, and I think that's wrong. She's almost an adult.
Click to expand...

But we don't know if the hospital offered counseling. My experience has been in Canada, but here major cancer centers have individual counselors, social workers, family therapy, group therapy. Maybe these options were available to her and she chose not to take them. Maybe the healthcare workers tried their best to make her comfortable with chemo and she wouldn't listen.

I think we see this case in a fundamentally different light. I see it as well meaning healthcare professionals who played the minor card to save a patient's life. She is a danger to herself. I don't like the image of this poor girl being confined and medicated against her will either. I can just see the other side of it.
 
Jambalaya|1425921804|3844353 said:
She's 17, though, not 13 or 10.

I've watched cancer deaths, too, in immediate family, and yes it's all terrible, including the chemo. It really takes away a part of your innocence that you can never get back, it's all so awful. Due to the research I did at that time, any one chemo only has a 30% success rate.

But anyway, she's only a few months off her 18th birthday and she had willingly tried two rounds of chemo and then said she wanted to stop. I think her wishes should have been respected.

Forcing people is just not the way. Couldn't there have been a skilled counselor who could have talked her into it, made her feel like it was her decision to go ahead with chemo? Gently, gently is the way, not force. Couldn't someone have put things into perspective for her, drawn her a picture with words of what her future could be - i.e. love, marriage, career, children, traveling the world, watching a sunset in India, drinking margaritas with friends in the Caribbean? Being forced to have chemotherapy, that's like being attacked, and I would have thought self-esteem issues could arise afterward like in an actual attack, because you were denied agency over your own destiny. It's just too close to being treated as if you're nothing - as if you, the individual, what you want, your opinions, your wishes, are nothing. She said she didn't want any more and the state came down on her like a ton of bricks, and I think that's wrong. She's almost an adult.
Click to expand...

This is the thing... she's not an adult. I agree with chemgirl. The line has to be drawn somewhere. Maybe 18 isn't the best for medical treatment, but that's what we are dealing with at this point in time. I truly hope the chemotherapy heals her body, and she becomes eternally grateful for having been made to undergo the treatment. I feel the state would be doing a huge disservice in allowing minors to make these decisions -- these are literally life and death issues. Even at 17, 18, and 19 year of age, the mind is quite immature... I'm so grateful for modern science!
 
I'm with Chemgirl.
 
It's a pity she wasn't allowed a bit more time. Apparently she would have lived for two years without treatment and her type of cancer has a high cure rate even at an advanced stage. A lot can change in just a few short months, let alone two years. Just the thought of forced treatment by the state must have been incredibly threatening. If she had been left alone for a bit longer, and given a chance to see that the alternative treatments weren't working, she might well have changed her mind of her own accord, once she was no longer being threatened.

Edit: Being forced into treatment must leave terrible mental scars. Although the treatment is working, she says she plans to leave Connecticut and start a new life somewhere else.
 
Can someone educate me?

It seems to me that many, many people who receive cancer treatments, chemo, radiation, tamoxifen, and who get beat cancer into remission, tend to have cancer come roaring back with a vengeance at some point. And the second time around is much uglier than the first. Where I need clarification is that it seems that the treatments from the first go around are what cause the uglier second instance of cancer. It seems the second round of cancer isn't even the same kind of cancer the person had in the first place. Am I right to believe that these toxic treatments cause cancer too?

And maybe this is why this young lady wanted nothing to do with traditional treatments?
 
House Cat - it's because different cancers are REALLY different from one another, despite all having the same name.

For example, once breast cancer is Stage IV, i.e. out of the breast, chemotherapy can sometimes control it for a while but usually the cancer finds its way around every drug. Five-year survival rate are around 20%. In this case, chemo failed both my sisters and my uncle. However, with testicular cancer, once it escapes the testicles and spreads to the rest of the body - and is Stage IV - a cure is still possible.

Sometimes chemo works, sometimes it doesn't. Success rates are highly dependent on what type of cancer you have.

But yes, this case is a classic example of treatment for one type of cancer leaving you vulnerable to another. This treatment will leave the CT girl 24 times more likely to get breast cancer, and earlier in her life than most breast cancer cases. (See my link above.)
 
I'm with chemgirl on this. She is remission and her medical doctors feel she would have died without the intervention. In a few short months she will be 18, and from then on if she wants to refuse medical care it will be within her right to refuse.
And she will be alive to have the ability to choose.

Even with adults, there are limits to our rights to refuse. A a person is deemed mentally unfit, they may also have medications against their will. A prime example is someone who is involuntarily committed due to being a risk to others or self being given antipsychotics. I totally agree, that the best case scenario is when a patient is a full and willing partner in their treatment and health. In rare cases that doesn't happen.
 
House Cat|1425924507|3844380 said:
Can someone educate me?

It seems to me that many, many people who receive cancer treatments, chemo, radiation, tamoxifen, and who get beat cancer into remission, tend to have cancer come roaring back with a vengeance at some point. And the second time around is much uglier than the first. Where I need clarification is that it seems that the treatments from the first go around are what cause the uglier second instance of cancer. It seems the second round of cancer isn't even the same kind of cancer the person had in the first place. Am I right to believe that these toxic treatments cause cancer too?

And maybe this is why this young lady wanted nothing to do with traditional treatments?
Click to expand...

It is true that cancer treatment itself can cause cancer later in life. It's hard give exact numbers because there are confounding factors. For example radiation from repeated CT scans can cause cancer. Also, the first cancer may have been caused by an environmental exposure or a genetic anomaly.

So some stats I've seen thrown about: someone who repocvered from cancer has around a 22% chance of getting a different type of cancer. About half of those cases are totally random. So around 11% of cancer patients will have a second occurance that is directly related to the first cancer (but not the same kind). Of that 11%, an unknown number of cancers will be caused by previous treatment, keeping in mind that the factors that caused the first cancer may still be there. So while the verdict is still out on the number of cancers caused by radiation and chemotherapy, it is likely that far fewer than 10% of people who have undergone treatment will get cancer again because of the treatment.

If that makes any sense. Different studies will give slightly different numbers, but it is something that is relatively hard to track. I am on my phone, but post references later if people are curious.

Eta: When my mom had chemo when it was a relatively new technology. At the time she was told that there weren't any longterm studies and I quote "It might kill you in 20 years". Her response was " Well at least it won't kill me this year ". She was given 6 months without treatment. Definitely the right decision for our family.
 
It's funny to me that we can force something on someone like *this*. We can take away parental rights for something like *this*. But we can't tell people they aren't allowed to go out and have 42 kids that they can't take care of. So those kids will then be forced to live lives nobody would wish on their dog.

18 isn't a magical number. Kids decide at 17 all the time to go into the military when they turn 18. She's been thru it before and chose what she felt was the right decision based on *her* experiences. Not the state's experiences. Not child protective services experiences. Hers. So why in 2 months or three months or whatever will she now magically become in control of what happens to her?

It's our human fear of death, I think. And religion. And whatever else we don't understand or are scared of.
 
I agree that the line has to be drawn somewhere. At 17, I certainly wasn't making very good decisions and I felt indestructible - as many teens do. I'm not so sure that a 17 year-old could fully understand the ramifications of a decision of this magnitude nor do I believe that a 17 year-old has the experience to make such a choice. Sure, many 17 year-olds make mature, life-changing decisions all the time, but the state is protecting those who can't and again, the line has to be drawn somewhere.
I get that she's opposed to chemo. I am too after watching one of my loved ones go through chemo. I question its efficacy and I honestly don't know that it would be my choice if I was faced with choosing a treatment for cancer.
 
I think government should have minimal interference in our lives. As long as you're paying your taxes, committing no crimes, and living peacefully within the law, the state should butt out.

And government interference in our bodies is a very slippery slope.

I don't live in New Hampshire but I love their motto, "Live Free or Die."
 
packrat|1425926773|3844405 said:
It's funny to me that we can force something on someone like *this*. We can take away parental rights for something like *this*. But we can't tell people they aren't allowed to go out and have 42 kids that they can't take care of. So those kids will then be forced to live lives nobody would wish on their dog.

18 isn't a magical number. Kids decide at 17 all the time to go into the military when they turn 18. She's been thru it before and chose what she felt was the right decision based on *her* experiences. Not the state's experiences. Not child protective services experiences. Hers. So why in 2 months or three months or whatever will she now magically become in control of what happens to her?

It's our human fear of death, I think. And religion. And whatever else we don't understand or are scared of.
Click to expand...

Very true statement imo.
 
Jambalaya|1425919509|3844334 said:
It's all very well making decisions for someone else's body when it's not your body that will suffer. Chemotherapy, by all accounts, can make you feel so bad that you want to die. It can take away the ability to walk, it can make your fingernails drop off, it can age your heart by decades, it can make your soles so sore you can't stand up, and it can make your weight drop dangerously low due to the sores in your mouth, the vomiting and the lack of appetite. Oh yeah - and it can make the white of your eyes blue, and turn your urine blue or red, depending on the drug. They're so toxic that they're bright in color - so bright that the chemo bags are specially colored to mask it, for some drugs.

What right does anyone have to inflict that on you? The girl had already tried two rounds and said "Enough" but her wishes were ignored. She was forced to have this treatment. Forced. I just can't get past that.

If I were her I would have flown to Dignitas in Switzerland.

And a cure? Cancer can always come back. Some types can come back after 10, 15, 25, 30 years. And treatment for this cancer will put her at higher risk of breast cancer in her forties. Everything segues into everything else when it comes to complex illness - the cascade effect, it's called.

I would be so utterly incensed at the forced nature of the treatment that if I were her I'd flee to another country, probably somewhere in Europe, claim asylum at being force-poisoned, and never set foot in the United States again. I think her human rights to her own body have been completely violated.

Being overweight is also bad for you. So, because someone is 17 not 18, should we tie them down and starve them? Since we apparently tie people down and push poison into their bodies, why don't we starve overweight teenagers, because it's good for them like the chemo was good for the girl? Where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...

Really? I don't think her terminal cancer is just "bad for you." Are you seriously comparing being overweight with terminal cancer?
 
This is a tough issue and there is no easy right or wrong here IMO. I am more of the thought that she is too young to make the best decision for herself regarding this issue at this time. Though I agree with not wanting the government to interfere in our lives this way and I too like the New Hampshire motto "Live free or die". However the fact remains there are times when the govt should intervene and I think this might have been one of those times. She got life saving treatment and the good news is she is now in remission.

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/03/09/teen-who-tried-to-refuse-chemotherapy-treatments-in-court-is-now/21151220/

Sure the line of 17 to 18 is an arbitrary one and I know some 15 year olds who are way more mature than some 35 year olds and better able to manage their lives and think through ramifications of issues. They are in the minority however and for the most part teenagers are not as able as adults with life experience to think through all the possible alternatives and make the best decision all the time.

If this was my 17yo I certainly would have wanted her to undergo chemo for the best possible chance for a full life. This is a very treatable disease and no reason she should lose her life to it. Hodgkin lymphoma has an 85% chance of survival with treatment.

Should the government force adults to undergo life saving treatment they don't want? No I don't think they should because once you are an adult for the most part, for better or for worse, you have to make decisions bad or good on your own. And as with everything the age line has to be drawn somewhere.
 
We allow 13/14 year olds to make *adult* decisions as far as having kids. We allow 13/14 year olds to be in control of another human life in that manner. But a 17 year old can't be in control of her *own* life? That's what I don't get, I guess. The things we allow people to be in control of or not be in control of. And I do fully well believe that most of what we go base decisions on is gut reaction.
 
sstephensid|1425937810|3844499 said:
Jambalaya|1425919509|3844334 said:
It's all very well making decisions for someone else's body when it's not your body that will suffer. Chemotherapy, by all accounts, can make you feel so bad that you want to die. It can take away the ability to walk, it can make your fingernails drop off, it can age your heart by decades, it can make your soles so sore you can't stand up, and it can make your weight drop dangerously low due to the sores in your mouth, the vomiting and the lack of appetite. Oh yeah - and it can make the white of your eyes blue, and turn your urine blue or red, depending on the drug. They're so toxic that they're bright in color - so bright that the chemo bags are specially colored to mask it, for some drugs.

What right does anyone have to inflict that on you? The girl had already tried two rounds and said "Enough" but her wishes were ignored. She was forced to have this treatment. Forced. I just can't get past that.

If I were her I would have flown to Dignitas in Switzerland.

And a cure? Cancer can always come back. Some types can come back after 10, 15, 25, 30 years. And treatment for this cancer will put her at higher risk of breast cancer in her forties. Everything segues into everything else when it comes to complex illness - the cascade effect, it's called.

I would be so utterly incensed at the forced nature of the treatment that if I were her I'd flee to another country, probably somewhere in Europe, claim asylum at being force-poisoned, and never set foot in the United States again. I think her human rights to her own body have been completely violated.

Being overweight is also bad for you. So, because someone is 17 not 18, should we tie them down and starve them? Since we apparently tie people down and push poison into their bodies, why don't we starve overweight teenagers, because it's good for them like the chemo was good for the girl? Where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...

Really? I don't think her terminal cancer is just "bad for you." Are you seriously comparing being overweight with terminal cancer?
Click to expand...

Yes, sstephensid, I am making that exact comparison. Being overweight can kill you via heart disease and is also a major contributor to many cancers, with bowel cancer and breast cancer being particularly vulnerable to fat cells. In the case of breast cancer, many of those are caused by estrogen receptors on the cancer cells. The more estrogen, the more the cancer can feed and grow. And in the female body, post-menopause, fat cells produce a lot of extra estrogen, producing a major risk factor for breast cancer as well as heart disease and other cancers. In addition, putting on weight in your teens, particularly, as a female poses extra risks in terms of breast cancer later in life. It's yet to be determined if losing this weight later in life counteracts that effect.

And since I am five feet four and currently weigh 193 pounds, I know all about being fat and the health risks. In the long term, being overweight poses serious risks to your life. So if we give this girl chemo, against her wishes, why not mandate health treatment that others can benefit from but choose not to do? Do we deny women the Pill to women with a strong family history of breast cancer? Do we force overweight minors to participate in WeightWatchers? My point is: Where do you draw the line? Why is THIS girl chosen to receive forced treatment? Why isn't every minor who's not in the peak of health and fitness having medical treatment shoved down their throats? It might start with treatment for the terminally ill, but where does state interference in private bodies end? Where is that line? Maybe the overweight minor isn't at such immediate risk....but if weŕe playing Nanny State, Nanny could argue that forced treatment for all minors who aren't in perfect health and fitness would reduce the healthcare costs down the line when theyŕe older and when the costs of their bad health habits are higher. And, says Nanny, it's all for their own good.

Now it's forced treatment for the terminally ill. What next? Forced treatment for the seriously ill. Then, when that has gained acceptance, treatment for the ill. Then for the potentially ill...etc.

I think the idea that the State can stick a needle in your veins against your will is deeply disturbing. She's not a criminal. They should have given her a bit more time to come round to the idea herself, given that she had two years without treatment and her cancer can be cured at a later stage. There was no need for the government to get so heavy at this stage. Even if we consider it OK to force-treat her, it should have been an absolute last resort. Once she saw the alternative treatments weren't working, she might have changed her mind of her own accord. Now she wants to leave Connecticut permanently, which is sad, because it's her home.

Edited.
 
Being overweight isn't "scary" tho, really, when you think about it. It's not an "unknown", you know? So in human minds, it's not the same thing. And it's not really something that has the scary on the outside, like cancer and chemo.
 
I know, but I'm talking about a continuum. A range of what is acceptable. Today we force-treat the terminally ill minor. Tomorrow, maybe the potentially ill minor.

So really, I'm talking about the principle of government interference in your body. Of course she should take the chemo. But she didn't want it - out of fear, I suppose. She had already taken two rounds of forced chemo, and I guess she felt so ill she didn't want any further. The state was quick to come down on her. She had two treatments, ran away to escape more, and was brought back for many more treatments - months more. It's just a pity that she wasn't allowed more time to get some perspective, try it her way, see that it doesn't work, and maybe come round to it herself. I expect she was feeling very ill when she decided no more. Had they allowed her some time, she might have felt better about it once she was no longer feeling so ill. It wasn't so urgent that they couldn't have waited another month and just left her alone to think about things during that time.

Maybe the trade-off of a 24-fold increased risk of breast cancer wasn't worth it for her. I cannot imagine how awful it must be to receive treatment against your will.

But it will be interesting to hear her perspective in a few years.

Edit: I've just never heard of a case like this before. I know there have been others, but I hadn't heard of them before today, and I'm just reeling from the fact that the state can force someone to have chemo.
 
missy|1425938232|3844504 said:
This is a tough issue and there is no easy right or wrong here IMO. I am more of the thought that she is too young to make the best decision for herself regarding this issue at this time. Though I agree with not wanting the government to interfere in our lives this way and I too like the New Hampshire motto "Live free or die". However the fact remains there are times when the govt should intervene and I think this might have been one of those times. She got life saving treatment and the good news is she is now in remission.

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/03/09/teen-who-tried-to-refuse-chemotherapy-treatments-in-court-is-now/21151220/

Sure the line of 17 to 18 is an arbitrary one and I know some 15 year olds who are way more mature than some 35 year olds and better able to manage their lives and think through ramifications of issues. They are in the minority however and for the most part teenagers are not as able as adults with life experience to think through all the possible alternatives and make the best decision all the time.

If this was my 17yo I certainly would have wanted her to undergo chemo for the best possible chance for a full life. This is a very treatable disease and no reason she should lose her life to it. Hodgkin lymphoma has an 85% chance of survival with treatment.

Should the government force adults to undergo life saving treatment they don't want? No I don't think they should because once you are an adult for the most part, for better or for worse, you have to make decisions bad or good on your own. And as with everything the age line has to be drawn somewhere.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I know, the age line has to be drawn somewhere. I think the mature minor rule is really sensible, otherwise small children are considered to be on a par with a 17-year-old.

She must have felt really ill from the chemo to refuse more. It's odd, because the women I knew on chemo for breast cancer often didn't finish the courses as it made them so ill. It's not unusual to discontinue chemo. It's a pity she couldn't have been granted a break, or had a lighter dose, maybe for longer. Those are all solutions that are sometimes employed when chemo is too much for adults.

Edit: Perhaps her lawyers would have been better off arguing the case for a reprieve - a chemo break, or a period of cooling-off time - given that she did have some time. There is nothing in the press coverage about counseling. Maybe the state could have mandated some counseling, and granted her a break, and see where they were after that.

I just see a lot of other places to go before forcing treatment on someone.
 
Jambalaya, I hear what you are saying but in this case I think the right decision was made. The mother and daughter were under the mistaken impression that she wouldn't die from this cancer. Chemo had an 80-85% chance of curing her and that is why her doctors petitioned the courts in her case. I don't think she refused it because the chemo made her so sick. I think her mom brainwashed her about how alternative treatments would be just as good.

All cancers are not the same. All chemotherapies are not the same and in this case chemo was the only way to cure her.

The thinking by the state was that if she did not get the chemo it would be a form of suicide and the state of Connecticut has an obligation to prevent such a suicide.

It needs IMO to go on a case by case basis and there can really be no one rule fits all. It's just that this specific cancer has a high cure rate with chemo and not doing it is almost certain death.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top