Connecticut Force Chemotherapy On Teen

I agree. But in this case, it was a minor whose parents are dip shits, so I'm fine with it.

So long as the taxpayers foot the bill and it's not forced on the parents since it's the public making the decision. Although I disagree that 17 is too young to decide. If it is then the driving age needs raised since minors (16-17) sure can't be trusted to make decisions that could kill other people if they can't be trusted to determine their own health and course of medicine.
 
So long as the taxpayers foot the bill and it's not forced on the parents since it's the public making the decision. Although I disagree that 17 is too young to decide. If it is then the driving age needs raised since minors (16-17) sure can't be trusted to make decisions that could kill other people if they can't be trusted to determine their own health and course of medicine.

The parents can't decide to avoid their duty of care to their children and expect society to pick up the entire tab.
 
So long as the taxpayers foot the bill and it's not forced on the parents since it's the public making the decision. Although I disagree that 17 is too young to decide. If it is then the driving age needs raised since minors (16-17) sure can't be trusted to make decisions that could kill other people if they can't be trusted to determine their own health and course of medicine.

In some States teens don't have full driving privileges until they are 18. In Oregon they get a provisional license with all sorts of restrictions.
 
The parents can't decide to avoid their duty of care to their children and expect society to pick up the entire tab.

Duty to fight nature at all costs? Duty to not let a 17 year old make their own decisions? Maybe, but I'd consider that a family matter and one that you and I should stay out of. Why shouldn't society pick up the tab if society is the one that is demanding the person get treatment against their will?

In some States teens don't have full driving privileges until they are 18. In Oregon they get a provisional license with all sorts of restrictions.

Ok. So in nearly all states kids can be out on the road at 16 (unaccompanied by an adult) operating machines that kill tens of thousands of people a year? Mature enough to risk the lives of others but not mature enough to decide one's own medical care? This just doesn't make sense to me.
 
For some people, the chemo doesn't work and they are forced to try alternative treatment like this. And some people just choose this outright.

[YT]watch?v=ShqKk3fasZA[/YT]
 
For some people, the chemo doesn't work and they are forced to try alternative treatment like this. And some people just choose this outright.

Yep. And then they die because the "treatment" is neither science nor evidence-based medicine.
 
The 2/3 category wasn't too thirds. They were slightly less. And they were 51%.
The 49% category were slighly less than 1/3.

Overall, that makes doctor's slightly lower than 50% likely to say yes.

I think that's a poor reading of the info in your source.

There were roughly 64 oncologists/hematologists = 51%

The other 49% were made up of:
The 2 nonmedical administrators (both said no).
An unknown number of nurses (67% said yes).
An unknown number of radiation oncologists and other types of physicians (33% said yes).

It's impossible to determine the number of total respondents that answered yes or no because we are not given enough information. For all we know, the third category included just 3 people.

Not to mention the advancements in chemotherapy between 1997 and now.
 
Duty to fight nature at all costs? Duty to not let a 17 year old make their own decisions? Maybe, but I'd consider that a family matter and one that you and I should stay out of. Why shouldn't society pick up the tab if society is the one that is demanding the person get treatment against their will?

Unless you're emancipated, many states allow your medical decisions to be made by your parents until you're 18. If you want that age lowered, that's a different issue.

In this situation, it would be the same argument for a 17 year old or 3 year old. Would you demand society pick up the tab if the parents were refusing chemo if a 3 year old had treatable cancer for which doctors were recommending chemo as a desired course of treatment?

What if a parent was refusing to allow his/her child to get a rabies shot after being bit by an infected bat/rac**** etc? Obviously, the answer is easy for most people.
 
Ok. So in nearly all states kids can be out on the road at 16 (unaccompanied by an adult) operating machines that kill tens of thousands of people a year? Mature enough to risk the lives of others but not mature enough to decide one's own medical care? This just doesn't make sense to me.

Since this is in Connecticut, I used the Google Machine to see their teen driving laws. They are pretty restrictive. Connecticut clearly decided 16/17 year olds are not mature enough to drive freely.

http://www.ct.gov/teendriving/cwp/view.asp?Q=413528&A=3369
 
Unless you're emancipated, many states allow your medical decisions to be made by your parents until you're 18. If you want that age lowered, that's a different issue.

In this situation, it would be the same argument for a 17 year old or 3 year old. Would you demand society pick up the tab if the parents were refusing chemo if a 3 year old had treatable cancer for which doctors were recommending chemo as a desired course of treatment?

What if a parent was refusing to allow his/her child to get a rabies shot after being bit by an infected bat/rac**** etc? Obviously, the answer is easy for most people.

Your (in my opinion) problem seems to be that you don't want either the child or the parents to be able to make the decision. Rather you see the parent as a state surrogate.

If the state demands someone get medical care then the state should be paying for it. That's a pretty simple concept.

I'm not going to get into discussions about three year olds. I purposely avoided having kids and have no interest in debating these laws other than to reiterate that if the state is going to demand it then the state should pay for it. My position is that a 17 year old is not a three year old and at that age one is as capable of making decisions as they will be at 18. And if they can't decide their medical fate at 17 then they sure as fuck shouldn't be on the roads risking the lives of others.
 
The 2/3 category wasn't too thirds. They were slightly less. And they were 51%.
The 49% category were slighly less than 1/3.

Overall, that makes doctor's slightly lower than 50% likely to say yes.

There is no 49% category.

We know there was:
64 were oncologists/hemotologists. 42 said yes, 22 said no.
2 were administrators. 0 said yes, 2 said no.

X were nurses. 2/3 of them said yes, 1/3 said no.
Y were Other. 1/3 said yes, 2/3 said no.

And again, this survey has no bearing on the effectiveness of chemotherapy - it represents an end-of-life situation of incurable cancer.
 
I was making more of a generalized comment on the notion of supporting forced medical care while alluding to the potential bankruptcy that might ensue. Personally I don't care why someone refuses treatment. I consider that a fundamental right.

Kids are expensive, go figure.

Should i stop feeding my kids since that costs money too?
 
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.

Judging by the poor behavior and life choices of most college students, I have to admit that I think the legal age of an adult should be moved up to 25. These days, meeting a somewhat intelligent person under 25 is extremely rare. Maybe it's just too much time spent in school?
 
Since this is in Connecticut, I used the Google Machine to see their teen driving laws. They are pretty restrictive. Connecticut clearly decided 16/17 year olds are not mature enough to drive freely.

http://www.ct.gov/teendriving/cwp/view.asp?Q=413528&A=3369

So we agree that the minors in CT are allowed to get behind the wheel? Good for the state though that they take the danger seriously. Looking at these laws I don't see where it says the minor can't drive alone, just that if they have a passenger it needs to be of a certain type. Can someone confirm if CT kids can drive with only themselves in the vehicle between the ages of 16-17?
 
For some people, the chemo doesn't work and they are forced to try alternative treatment like this. And some people just choose this outright.

[YT]watch?v=ShqKk3fasZA[/YT]

Cancer is a misnomer, there are over 200 types and all of them are different.

This particular cancer was treatable with a high chance of full recover (85%).
 
Your (in my opinion) problem seems to be that you don't want either the child or the parents to be able to make the decision. Rather you see the parent as a state surrogate.

If the state demands someone get medical care then the state should be paying for it. That's a pretty simple concept.

I'm not going to get into discussions about three year olds. I purposely avoided having kids and have no interest in debating these laws other than to reiterate that if the state is going to demand it then the state should pay for it. My position is that a 17 year old is not a three year old and at that age one is as capable of making decisions as they will be at 18. And if they can't decide their medical fate at 17 then they sure as fuck shouldn't be on the roads risking the lives of others.

The medical decision(s) have to be reasonable if you're making them for another person; even (especially) for your child. You'd be allowing parents to effectively give their kids a death sentence if they happen to believe in some whacked out christian science-esque BS. The state has a responsibility to care for children when their parents are incapable of doing so.


The age issue is different. Whenever a person is capable of making informed, non-coerced decisions regarding their own health, I agree he/she should be able to do so.
 
Back
Top