Girl Forced to Have Chemotherapy

[telephone89]

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."

So, what do you think of 'laws' that are meant to protect people? Ie minors cant buy cigarettes or alcohol? Do you think that they should be able to buy and consume these things because its their choice? Because the state should just stay out of their business?

I'm generally pretty pro-govt, and there are certain things that I dislike, but overall I think most of these things are meant to protect people. At the end of this anti-vaccer video (also somewhat relevant) there is an interesting (fake) news interview. To a child - would you rather choose a lollipop or a needle with a vaccine? 100% of the children chose the lollipop. Is that the best decision for their health? Are they thinking long term? Probably not. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2mdwmpLYLY

 

[Autumnovember]

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?

I am going to keep my thoughts to myself on this whole situation but wanted to chime in about something you said. I just wanted to point out that there are MANY chemotherapy medications that are very well tolerated. The symptoms you are describing are of very highly aggressive chemotherapy medications. The one that turns your urine orange is called adriamycin. It is bright red in color, and tough to tolerate. However, this drug, along with many of the aggressive drugs are ones that most patients receive for a four month regimen. While everyone responds differently to chemotherapy, the main goal no matter what drug a patient is receiving is to help manage symptoms. In our practice, the majority of my patients are able to successfully manage. There are various ways we go about this in order to help our patients complete treatment. I'm not saying management helps everyone but it has helped many in my experience of being a chemotherapy infusion nurse.

 

[Jambalaya]

Telephone - I said as long as people are committing no crime, and since buying alcohol and cigarettes is against the law, it would be a crime to buy them. Therefore I would not agree with the underage doing those things, because it's against the law.

Also, I think vaccinations are mandated by law? So not to get them would also be a crime, and would not be living within the law.

Laws meant to protect people are laws of the land so I believe they must be obeyed. I said as long as people are living within the law, the state shouldn't interfere. I'm fine with our current laws, but there's no law against refusing medical care. Except vaccinations - I think?

The girl said that all she wanted was the opportunity to ëxplore¨ other treatments, and said she would continue to monitor the cancer and go for regular scans while doing so. She sounds reasonable. She might well have agreed to reconsider under her own steam, if she had been allowed a bit of time, which she did have. CT's reaction just seems draconian.

 

[Jambalaya]

Missy -the girl said she understood that she would probably die without treatment. But when she made this decision, she must have been feeling really ill from the treatment. It bothers me that she wasn't even allowed a break or a cooling-off period to change her mind on her own, given that she did have some time. Only time will tell whether it was the right decision. Like I said, it will be interesting to hear what she has to say in a few years' time.

Aurumnnovember - yes, of course there are many different chemos. There must be at least 30 different ones just for breast cancer. Yes, adriamycin is the red one. Novantrone is the blue that I spoke of. It's also true that some are tolerated better than others. The point is, this patient can't have been tolerating it very well. She was so fearful of more that she ran away.

It's a pity that she wasn't offered some time to come to terms with what she had to do, and to retain some control, or given a lighter dose, or a break.

I just feel sorry for her. Her experience sounds dreadful.

Anyway, it's done now. She was powerless to resist. She is much better, but has a 24-fold increased risk for breast cancer. I will be very interested to know her perspective, say, twenty years from now. She may be very grateful and say how silly she was to refuse, in which case it will have been the right course of action.

 

[TooPatient]

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.

Yep!

I have seen 16 year olds more mature and capable than 40 year olds. It depends on the individual and their choices. She should have been allowed to choose. Since she is under 18, maybe parental agreement too.

Another question -- How come 12 and 13 year old girls can choose to get an abortion without so much as notifying parents but a 17 year old can't choose her own treatment with het parent's support?

 

[momhappy]

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.

Agreed.

 

[momhappy]

Missy -the girl said she understood that she would probably die without treatment. But when she made this decision, she must have been feeling really ill from the treatment. It bothers me that she wasn't even allowed a break or a cooling-off period to change her mind on her own, given that she did have some time. Only time will tell whether it was the right decision. Like I said, it will be interesting to hear what she has to say in a few years' time.

Aurumnnovember - yes, of course there are many different chemos. There must be at least 30 different ones just for breast cancer. Yes, adriamycin is the red one. Novantrone is the blue that I spoke of. It's also true that some are tolerated better than others. The point is, this patient can't have been tolerating it very well. She was so fearful of more that she ran away.

It's a pity that she wasn't offered some time to come to terms with what she had to do, and to retain some control, or given a lighter dose, or a break.

I just feel sorry for her. Her experience sounds dreadful.

Anyway, it's done now. She was powerless to resist. She is much better, but has a 24-fold increased risk for breast cancer. I will be very interested to know her perspective, say, twenty years from now. She may be very grateful and say how silly she was to refuse, in which case it will have been the right course of action.

But we don't know how she was feeling when she wanted to stop treatment - for all we know, she's a typical 17 year-old who thinks that she'll never die….

 

[Jambalaya]

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.

Agreed.

Like I said, it's a continuum on the health spectrum. Today, the terminally ill. Tomorrow, the potentially ill. Where's the line, once you start forcing people into things?

 

[Jambalaya]

Missy -the girl said she understood that she would probably die without treatment. But when she made this decision, she must have been feeling really ill from the treatment. It bothers me that she wasn't even allowed a break or a cooling-off period to change her mind on her own, given that she did have some time. Only time will tell whether it was the right decision. Like I said, it will be interesting to hear what she has to say in a few years' time.

Aurumnnovember - yes, of course there are many different chemos. There must be at least 30 different ones just for breast cancer. Yes, adriamycin is the red one. Novantrone is the blue that I spoke of. It's also true that some are tolerated better than others. The point is, this patient can't have been tolerating it very well. She was so fearful of more that she ran away.

It's a pity that she wasn't offered some time to come to terms with what she had to do, and to retain some control, or given a lighter dose, or a break.

I just feel sorry for her. Her experience sounds dreadful.

Anyway, it's done now. She was powerless to resist. She is much better, but has a 24-fold increased risk for breast cancer. I will be very interested to know her perspective, say, twenty years from now. She may be very grateful and say how silly she was to refuse, in which case it will have been the right course of action.

But we don't know how she was feeling when she wanted to stop treatment - for all we know, she's a typical 17 year-old who thinks that she'll never die….

Well, she did say that she understood that she would probably die without treatment. But yeah, who knows if she really knew what that meant - or even really believed it. The only key, really, is her thoughts on the matter when she's older.

 

[momhappy]

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.

Yep!

I have seen 16 year olds more mature and capable than 40 year olds. It depends on the individual and their choices. She should have been allowed to choose. Since she is under 18, maybe parental agreement too.

Another question -- How come 12 and 13 year old girls can choose to get an abortion without so much as notifying parents but a 17 year old can't choose her own treatment with het parent's support?

Yes, I can certainly understand your point and some of these laws just don't make sense. I think most states have parental involvement requirements that include a judicial bypass procedure that requires a minor to receive court approval for an abortion without her parents' knowledge or consent. Thirteen states require parental notification only and I believe a handful of states require both consent and notification.

 

[Jambalaya]

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.

Yep!

I have seen 16 year olds more mature and capable than 40 year olds. It depends on the individual and their choices. She should have been allowed to choose. Since she is under 18, maybe parental agreement too.

Another question -- How come 12 and 13 year old girls can choose to get an abortion without so much as notifying parents but a 17 year old can't choose her own treatment with het parent's support?

Really? Young girls can get abortions without parental consent? I didn't know that. Yours is a good question, then!

 

[Jambalaya]

It would be interesting to know if the girl feels glad to be alive when the treatment ends and she begins to feel better - i.e. if she feels gratitude sooner rather than later.

After all, you could say that a person can't make rational decisions when they feel very ill.

But then, that would apply to adults too.

 

[packrat]

B/c she's young, our first instinct is to say NO YOU CAN'T QUIT. EVER. NO MATTER WHAT. But what gives us the right to decide that she hasn't tried hard enough, or done enough or been thru enough or put herself thru enough? (a couple months from the time she legally becomes an adult no less) Do we think she doesn't value herself or her life enough? People would give their left arms to have their loved ones brought back from their deaths of cancer and here's this smarmy young thing thinking she can make decisions for her life when she doesn't "get it" and *she* has the possibility of a longer life when other loved ones didn't and we think she's throwing her life away. Is there a length of time, like you have to go thru 11 rounds of the hardest chemo ever, and then we go ohhh yeah that really sucked for you, ok go ahead and throw in the towel? And when we're not the ones going thru it and we're not the ones helping a loved one go thru it looking it in the face 24/7, it's a bit easier to sit here and our computers and be her champions to not give up.

 

[Jambalaya]

B/c she's young, our first instinct is to say NO YOU CAN'T QUIT. EVER. NO MATTER WHAT. But what gives us the right to decide that she hasn't tried hard enough, or done enough or been thru enough or put herself thru enough? (a couple months from the time she legally becomes an adult no less) Do we think she doesn't value herself or her life enough? People would give their left arms to have their loved ones brought back from their deaths of cancer and here's this smarmy young thing thinking she can make decisions for her life when she doesn't "get it" and *she* has the possibility of a longer life when other loved ones didn't and we think she's throwing her life away. Is there a length of time, like you have to go thru 11 rounds of the hardest chemo ever, and then we go ohhh yeah that really sucked for you, ok go ahead and throw in the towel? And when we're not the ones going thru it and we're not the ones helping a loved one go thru it looking it in the face 24/7, it's a bit easier to sit here and our computers and be her champions to not give up.

Well, I agree, Packrat. How many people who are OK with this girl having unwanted treatment forced on her would be OK with the same thing happening to them - a treatment that is definitely not wanted by you, remember.

I also do not understand why adults get a chemo break and this girl didn't.

But anyway, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks. The state did what it wanted, and it's done now. And hey, maybe there will be a positive outcome. Maybe sheĺl live to be 90, and won't get another cancer, and will travel the world, and feel right within herself about the forced treatment. There was something in TIME magazine the other week about positive people having lower cancer rates. I hope she feels positive about the whole thing when she feels better.

 

[packrat]

B/c she's legally a child and therefore doesn't know enough to make decisions for herself, and I feel like as adults it's "offensive" to our tender sensibilities, the thought/idea/image of a young person dying. Even if they have dealt w/things a lot of adults would have a hard time dealing w/-if you have the slightest chance for survival, it is our gut instinct that *everyone* should try.

 

[packrat]

If she was found to have breast cancer, would they force a mastectomy on her if she didn't want one, if it would give her a better chance of survival? Just a random thought that popped into my head. My aunt had breast cancer and went thru chemo, opted out of a mastectomy, while my mom and I both were of the mind that we would, were we in her shoes.

 

[TooPatient]

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.

Yep!

I have seen 16 year olds more mature and capable than 40 year olds. It depends on the individual and their choices. She should have been allowed to choose. Since she is under 18, maybe parental agreement too.

Another question -- How come 12 and 13 year old girls can choose to get an abortion without so much as notifying parents but a 17 year old can't choose her own treatment with het parent's support?

Really? Young girls can get abortions without parental consent? I didn't know that. Yours is a good question, then!

I think it varies by state. Many (most?) require consent under a certain age but there are ways around it. One clear example from recent years includes the young girl who was taken by a school nurse and bled to death later that night because her parents didn't know to watch.

 

[Jambalaya]

If she was found to have breast cancer, would they force a mastectomy on her if she didn't want one, if it would give her a better chance of survival? Just a random thought that popped into my head. My aunt had breast cancer and went thru chemo, opted out of a mastectomy, while my mom and I both were of the mind that we would, were we in her shoes.

Presumably she would be an adult if that occurred, so she could say no. But then they could just declare her incompetent if they really wanted to, I suppose. There are so many loopholes in the law that sometimes it seems courts get to do what they want. Forced treatment is bodily assault, and assault is against the law. We can attack a child legally but not an adult.

Anyway, let's hope it all turns out OK, since it's done now.

 

[luv2sparkle]

What bothers me about this case is that the government is taking over parental rights. It is happening more and more over less severe issues. We allow a 16 year old to go to an abortion clinic with no permission from her parents. She gets to choose what is okay for her body, but this 17 year old isn't allowed the same freedom. Her parents have no say.

In my personal opinion the state has taken too much authority in the lives of people. We have dealt with this continually with my brain injured son. We are his conservators and have no problem with accountability but the truth is the state has the final say. Why? Because he has money. If he had none, they wouldn't care a single bit what happen to him in the way that they do now. I realize that this is not the case for this poor girl, but it is just another example of a system that is flawed and goes way to far. It is ripe for abuse and the state making other health decisions in the lives of people.

 

[House Cat]

In California the age of medical consent is 12. Although the law was originally brought about for abortion, it became a blanket law and children 12 and over are allowed to make all decisions regarding their medical care, to include refusing medical treatment. Most kids still look to their parent in these matters but they have to tell their doctor that they have given consent for their parents to be involved in their care.

This young lady did not live in a state with these laws.

 

[packrat]

If she was found to have breast cancer, would they force a mastectomy on her if she didn't want one, if it would give her a better chance of survival? Just a random thought that popped into my head. My aunt had breast cancer and went thru chemo, opted out of a mastectomy, while my mom and I both were of the mind that we would, were we in her shoes.

Presumably she would be an adult if that occurred, so she could say no. But then they could just declare her incompetent if they really wanted to, I suppose. There are so many loopholes in the law that sometimes it seems courts get to do what they want. Forced treatment is bodily assault, and assault is against the law. We can attack a child legally but not an adult.

Anyway, let's hope it all turns out OK, since it's done now.

I meant as a 17 year old, as opposed to an adult, wondering what we are ok w/being forced on another person who is juuuust under the cusp of being a legal adult.

 

[Autumnovember]

B/c she's young, our first instinct is to say NO YOU CAN'T QUIT. EVER. NO MATTER WHAT. But what gives us the right to decide that she hasn't tried hard enough, or done enough or been thru enough or put herself thru enough? (a couple months from the time she legally becomes an adult no less) Do we think she doesn't value herself or her life enough? People would give their left arms to have their loved ones brought back from their deaths of cancer and here's this smarmy young thing thinking she can make decisions for her life when she doesn't "get it" and *she* has the possibility of a longer life when other loved ones didn't and we think she's throwing her life away. Is there a length of time, like you have to go thru 11 rounds of the hardest chemo ever, and then we go ohhh yeah that really sucked for you, ok go ahead and throw in the towel? And when we're not the ones going thru it and we're not the ones helping a loved one go thru it looking it in the face 24/7, it's a bit easier to sit here and our computers and be her champions to not give up.

Well, I agree, Packrat. How many people who are OK with this girl having unwanted treatment forced on her would be OK with the same thing happening to them - a treatment that is definitely not wanted by you, remember.

I also do not understand why adults get a chemo break and this girl didn't.

But anyway, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks. The state did what it wanted, and it's done now. And hey, maybe there will be a positive outcome. Maybe sheĺl live to be 90, and won't get another cancer, and will travel the world, and feel right within herself about the forced treatment. There was something in TIME magazine the other week about positive people having lower cancer rates. I hope she feels positive about the whole thing when she feels better.

Completely agree with your last sentence. I hope she is able to feel positive about it in the future too.

 

[TooPatient]

In California the age of medical consent is 12. Although the law was originally brought about for abortion, it became a blanket law and children 12 and over are allowed to make all decisions regarding their medical care, to include refusing medical treatment. Most kids still look to their parent in these matters but they have to tell their doctor that they have given consent for their parents to be involved in their care.

This young lady did not live in a state with these laws.

I think Washington is 13. Gotta love that we can't insist on the important stuff but are still financially and legally responsible (such as any issues from the refusal of treatment) for anything she choose to do or not do without our knowledge.

Been there, having fun with that...

The doctor we see is pretty laid back and knows me well. Her approach is to just sort of lead the parent back too and (unless the kid objects) that is taken as consent for the visit.

 

[telephone89]

In California the age of medical consent is 12. Although the law was originally brought about for abortion, it became a blanket law and children 12 and over are allowed to make all decisions regarding their medical care, to include refusing medical treatment. Most kids still look to their parent in these matters but they have to tell their doctor that they have given consent for their parents to be involved in their care.

This young lady did not live in a state with these laws.

12?! My goodness. Do parents still have rights over them? For example in this case, if this girl had wanted to opt out of the care, in Cali that would be ok. Could her parents still force her to, or is her decision final?

 

[Jambalaya]

AutumnNovember - yes, that's all we can hope for, that the circumstances of her treatment don't unduly scar her - although it can't have been pleasant - and that she is able to feel positivity and gratitude. Even with lesser illnesses, it's pretty hard to feel good about things when you're feeling sick.

Packrat - oh, I see what you meant, what if she had breast cancer as a 17-year-old, would she have been able to refuse a mastectomy? I'd assume that if she couldn't refuse chemo then she couldn't refuse a mastectomy. That's what I mean about a scary continuum, and where's the line, etc. Actually, in the case of breast cancer, a lumpectomy is sometimes an alternative. But what if she had bone cancer in her thigh, and the treatment would be to take the leg off (like my neighbor) and she didn't want it? Would the state really take off someone's leg by force? The permutations of a case like this are just endless, and a precedent has been set.

 

[TooPatient]

In California the age of medical consent is 12. Although the law was originally brought about for abortion, it became a blanket law and children 12 and over are allowed to make all decisions regarding their medical care, to include refusing medical treatment. Most kids still look to their parent in these matters but they have to tell their doctor that they have given consent for their parents to be involved in their care.

This young lady did not live in a state with these laws.

12?! My goodness. Do parents still have rights over them? For example in this case, if this girl had wanted to opt out of the care, in Cali that would be ok. Could her parents still force her to, or is her decision final?

I'm in Washington so don't know how California works exactly. Here, the age is 13. Most doctors let the parents come on back with the kid and just don't mention it so it is almost like implied consent for the parent to be there and the kid usually just goes with what the doctor says and the parent agrees with. BUT the kid can (and I did when I was that age) state that I did not want my mother present and she was escorted out of the office. They are not allowed to release records to the parent without the kid signing a form. They aren't even supposed to discuss stuff with the parent if the parent calls.


ETA: We have had doctors (psychologists, psychiatrists, counselors, etc) refuse to see "A" because she says she doesn't want to talk to them and it is her choice.

 

[House Cat]

In California the age of medical consent is 12. Although the law was originally brought about for abortion, it became a blanket law and children 12 and over are allowed to make all decisions regarding their medical care, to include refusing medical treatment. Most kids still look to their parent in these matters but they have to tell their doctor that they have given consent for their parents to be involved in their care.

This young lady did not live in a state with these laws.

12?! My goodness. Do parents still have rights over them? For example in this case, if this girl had wanted to opt out of the care, in Cali that would be ok. Could her parents still force her to, or is her decision final?

I'm in Washington so don't know how California works exactly. Here, the age is 13. Most doctors let the parents come on back with the kid and just don't mention it so it is almost like implied consent for the parent to be there and the kid usually just goes with what the doctor says and the parent agrees with. BUT the kid can (and I did when I was that age) state that I did not want my mother present and she was escorted out of the office. They are not allowed to release records to the parent without the kid signing a form. They aren't even supposed to discuss stuff with the parent if the parent calls.


ETA: We have had doctors (psychologists, psychiatrists, counselors, etc) refuse to see "A" because she says she doesn't want to talk to them and it is her choice.

Our HMO has an online system for us to email doctors, order prescriptions, keep track of labs, etc. and when my sons reached the age of 12, they were taken off of this system. They were added back to the system at 18. They do this so that parents don't "accidentally " get into their records. Each appointment, my boys were asked if I could be present.

When my oldest started to have mental health issues, we were sent to a class and warned of the fact that our child was over the age of 12 and could refuse psychiatric treatment. He wasn't a danger to himself or others.

I don't know if CPS would intervene in a case where cancer was involved.

 

[TooPatient]

In California the age of medical consent is 12. Although the law was originally brought about for abortion, it became a blanket law and children 12 and over are allowed to make all decisions regarding their medical care, to include refusing medical treatment. Most kids still look to their parent in these matters but they have to tell their doctor that they have given consent for their parents to be involved in their care.

This young lady did not live in a state with these laws.

12?! My goodness. Do parents still have rights over them? For example in this case, if this girl had wanted to opt out of the care, in Cali that would be ok. Could her parents still force her to, or is her decision final?

I'm in Washington so don't know how California works exactly. Here, the age is 13. Most doctors let the parents come on back with the kid and just don't mention it so it is almost like implied consent for the parent to be there and the kid usually just goes with what the doctor says and the parent agrees with. BUT the kid can (and I did when I was that age) state that I did not want my mother present and she was escorted out of the office. They are not allowed to release records to the parent without the kid signing a form. They aren't even supposed to discuss stuff with the parent if the parent calls.


ETA: We have had doctors (psychologists, psychiatrists, counselors, etc) refuse to see "A" because she says she doesn't want to talk to them and it is her choice.

Our HMO has an online system for us to email doctors, order prescriptions, keep track of labs, etc. and when my sons reached the age of 12, they were taken off of this system. They were added back to the system at 18. They do this so that parents don't "accidentally " get into their records. Each appointment, my boys were asked if I could be present.

When my oldest started to have mental health issues, we were sent to a class and warned of the fact that our child was over the age of 12 and could refuse psychiatric treatment. He wasn't a danger to himself or others.

I don't know if CPS would intervene in a case where cancer was involved.

We have a similar online thing and they do that also. The medical treatment gets a bit stickier. They are still able to decline but we are held responsible and doctors, schools, etc can call CPS if they feel needed treatments aren't being done. Not sure where it goes from there. Thankfully, we haven't gotten to that point yet.
Oh....but we have had "A" authorize a (thankfully minor) thing and the doctor did it without getting an okay from us then sent us the bill.

 

[aljdewey]

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.

Packie......once again, you said (almost) exactly what I was thinking, albeit it with a twist.

The only reason she'll be magically in control is because 'the law' then won't be able to override her decision; she will legally be able to execute her own wishes. However, what is flatly unlikely to change in 2-3 months is her capability or existing maturity to make such a decision. No one's going to tap this poor girl with the wisdom wand when she turns 18, right, so if she's going to be capable enough to make the decision for herself in a few months, then she's capable enough to make it now and holding her back from it on a technicality just feels wrong to me. Laws are meant to be guidelines, but I personally feel as though "the rules" should never trump the ability to use sound judgment on a case by case basis.

I'm not familiar with this story beyond the posts here, but if I take the info within this thread as being accurate.....she's already been through two rounds of chemo. It's not like she has no idea what it entails, and it's not like she hasn't tried (and more than once) to go that route. She is the one having to endure the treatments, and that should count for something. Count me firmly in the camp of people who feel it's wrong to impose this on her.

 

[aljdewey]

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.

Were they? Were they mistaken, or were they given this information by her doctors and just refused to believe it?

This feels like the foundation for saying it's ok to force treatment on people who are ignorant, uninformed, or just plain don't agree - which is scary.