Connecticut Force Chemotherapy On Teen

klnOmega

Banned
Banned
Joined
Dec 10, 2014
Messages
9,540
Reaction score
0
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-teen-battles-chemo-order-0103-20150102-story.html#page=1

A doctor diagnosed a 17 year old girl with Lymphoma. The parents wanted to get a second opinion, so the doctor contact social services. They arrested the parents, and took custody of the girl. She ran away twice after her first two treatments, and now they literally chain her to the bed for treatment.



I feel like this sets a dangerous precedent. I'm not comfortable with Doctor's having this sort of power, nor with the state having the ability to force someone to go through horribly painful treatment.
 
So basically the mother is a crackpot and is going to let her (minor) child die from a treatable illness?

I have no problem with the state stepping in to save this girl's life.
 
Strange that someone would refuse treatment. The article mentions her being home schooled as well, so perhaps she lives a sheltered life with a deranged mother who filled her head with weird shit.

Probably best that they take away the daughter, and try and teach her some reality.
 
I think of that scene in Shawshank Redemption where Morgan Freeman is in front of the parole board and reflects on what his older self might have told his younger one in regards to all the stupid decisions the younger one made.
When she is 30 with kids and still alive, I wonder what decision she would tell her 17 year old self to make?
 
Strange that someone would refuse treatment. The article mentions her being home schooled as well, so perhaps she lives a sheltered life with a deranged mother who filled her head with weird shit.

Probably best that they take away the daughter, and try and teach her some reality.

Most Doctor's refuse chemo treatment. It is a horrible, horrible experience.
 
What's crazy is that at 17 she can choose to kill her own unborn baby (without consent) but she cannot choose an alternative treatment for her cancer.
 

Look at what the specific question is asking. It's not about chemotherapy, generally, or even about their belief in chemotherapy's effectiveness for a particular situation.

It posits a scenario where you're 60 years old and have *incurable stage 4 cancer* that has already spread from the lungs to the liver and bones.

Thus, the question is really asking a preference between (a) uncomfortable treatment that may buy you a little more time and (b) trying to make what little time you have left comfortable.

And a majority of respondents still picked (a).
 
Look at what the specific question is asking. It's not about chemotherapy, generally, or even about their belief in chemotherapy's effectiveness for a particular situation.

It posits a scenario where you're 60 years old and have *incurable stage 4 cancer* that has already spread from the lungs to the liver and bones.

Thus, the question is really asking a preference between (a) uncomfortable treatment that may buy you a little more time and (b) trying to make what little time you have left comfortable.

And a majority of respondents still picked (a).

The majority of doctors did not pick (a). They said they'd refuse.

Even if the numbers are close, it says something. Chemo is horribly painful. No one should be forced into it.
 
The majority of doctors did not pick (a). They said they'd refuse.

No, they didn't. The largest demographic (> 50%) said Yes at 2/3 rate. The group that only responded Yes at a 1/3 rate was the "Other" demographic.

Even if the numbers are close, it says something. Chemo is horribly painful. No one should be forced into it.

That chemotherapy is awful to go through is uncontroversial. No one needed a survey of that.

Regardless, the claim that most doctors would refuse chemo is blatantly false.
 
I think she's foolish, but don't think anyone should be forced to receive any unwanted medical treatment. I understand that children can't be expected to make the decision for themselves, but there's a sting of excess when it's being done to a 17 year old, practicality notwithstanding.

From her perspective, beyond it just being miserable, there's a risk of sterility as a side effect to many treatments, which potentially creates a whole new mess for everyone involved down the line.
 
10898161_10152976044551605_1241218257639997554_n.jpg



Thought this was funny. Although at 17, she should probably be able to make up her own mind even if her decision is beyond fucking stupid.
 
In general I fully support these types of laws. They're in place to prevent bible-thumpers and other fringe characters from choosing to treat their child's diabeetus with prayer and essential oils instead of insulin.

In this case it's complicated because A) the "child" in question is 17 years old and has her own opinion on the matter (she's not a helpless infant), and B) we're talking about chemotherapy, which is never a sure thing cure and comes with lots of problems of its own...it's not like a simple surgery that will definitely fix whatever someone's problem is.

In the end though, the law had to pick some age of medical autonomy. It settled with 18, so this girl's medical decisions go through her mother. She's the same as an infant in the eyes of the law - doctors have to look to her mother for medical decisions. And anytime someone's medical decisions go through another person (parent/guardian) you should have a system of oversight in place...doctors that are backed by the legal system to prevent a negligent decision being made by one person on another person's behalf. Given that doctors think it's pretty much a 100% chance of death with no chemo, but an 85% chance of recovery with chemo, they made the call to try to save her life.
 
Some people actually die due to causes from chemotherapy. And don't die from the cancer.
 
I think she's foolish, but don't think anyone should be forced to receive any unwanted medical treatment.

Really? You wouldn't force your say 8 year old child to receive life saving treatment? I most certainly would consider it my duty to do so. Seems to me it's purely an issue of her age being close to the 18 year threshold.

I understand that children can't be expected to make the decision for themselves, but there's a sting of excess when it's being done to a 17 year old, practicality notwithstanding.

But what age would you consider them too young? It has to be a somewhat arbitrary number and they've gone for below 18, which makes sense. Furthermore they've had a look at her mental state and deduced she's living in a fantasy which is not serving her well in this matter.

From her perspective, beyond it just being miserable, there's a risk of sterility as a side effect to many treatments, which potentially creates a whole new mess for everyone involved down the line.

And if they don't treat it will she definitely be sterile since she'll be dead too.

This is very treatable. She has a decent chance of living if treated vs a almost 100% chance of dying if they don't. Some BS "alternative" treatment will do fuck all other than leach some cash and emotions out of the family.
 
Back
Top