General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTeen girl and mother fight the state over right to refuse chemo cancer treatment
According to the Hartford Courant, the girl, called Cassandra C., has run away in an attempt to evade the treatments, but was taken into custody and is now receiving a doctor-prescribed course of treatment as the case moves on to the state Supreme Court.
Doctors say that Cassandra will die without treatment, but her mother, Jackie Fortin, is adamant that her daughter doesn’t want to undergo chemotherapy and believes that at 17, she is competent to make that medical decision.
In a video posted by the Courant, Fortin said, “My daughter is refusing chemo because of the poison toxins that she does not want in her body. She knows the long-term effects of having chemo, what it does to your organs, what it does to your body. She may not be able to have children after this because it affects everything in your body. It not only kills cancer, it kills everything in your body.”
Cassandra was diagnosed with Hodgkins lymphoma in September, a cancer of the body’s lymphatic tissues, which are found in the lymph nodes, the liver, spleen and bone marrow and help the body to fight infections. Hodgkins lymphoma in young people is highly treatable and survivable, but Cassandra’s medical team at Connecticut Children’s Medical Center (CCMC) agree that she will die without chemotherapy as the cancer ravages her body’s ability to fight off infection.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/teen-girl-and-mother-fight-state-of-connecticut-over-right-to-refuse-life-saving-chemo/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Lancero
(3,011 posts)If she chooses to decline treatment, who are we to say otherwise?
Warpy
(111,332 posts)Lancero
(3,011 posts)It's a simple tenant, one that women are currently fighting for.
We don't have to agree with her choice. Personally, I think she is making the wrong choice. But our opinions don't matter, only her's does - We can criticize her choice all we want, as long as we don't deprive her of it.
Warpy
(111,332 posts)I'm glad she's getting treatment and is unhappy about it. May she live a long life and nurse the grudge for many decades.
Does your absolute choice include suicide? That's what no treatment is in this case. My bias is always on the side of preserving living, breathing people as long as there is a chance of a complete cure and a long, healthy life. This is one of those times.
Lancero
(3,011 posts)Involves the murder of children.
So I've heard worse - Still the same response, her body, her choice.
I have to wonder just why a Democrat is jumping up saying that a female should not have the right to decide what happens to her body. Just seems odd to me - I thought we were for womens rights, and not for forcing them down to accept the choices of people who think themselves their 'betters'?
As I've said, I think her choice was stupid and agree with you - I do hope she can nurse the grudge for a long time. But to say that she shouldn't be allowed to make her own choice is sexist and oppressive.
Warpy
(111,332 posts)and transplanted into the screaming men who want them saved, I'll be on that side.
This is different. She's still enough of a kid not to be able to make this choice because she doesn't have all the facts about what the cancer will do to her and how hair grows in after chemo.
Somebody should have told her it comes in curly. It does just that in most cases.
Lancero
(3,011 posts)It's simple - Her body, her choice. I support her right to choose, despite not liking what she has chosen - Can you set aside your own opinions to allow a woman to right to determine what happens to her own body?
Her body, her choice - A simple right, a right that all women should have no matter the circumstances.
Warpy
(111,332 posts)You're trying to make this about something it is not.
Go away.
Lancero
(3,011 posts)"It's about protecting life!"
But beneath the veneer, it is.
Her body, her choice - A right that all women deserve, no matter the circumstances.
Say it loud, say it proud, if you support women's equality - Her Body, Her Choice!
Demit
(11,238 posts)I remember watching the television series about the suffragettes, how they were force fed when they went on a hunger strike. That's the state forcibly taking over women's bodies 'for their own good'.
I don't understand the state's interest here otherwise.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Go away
onecent
(6,096 posts)voicing their own Opinion?????? YOU GO AWAY if you don't like this topici!!!!!!!
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)It's an attempt to inject a "pro-life/pro-choice" agenda into a topic that is about something else entirely by stating that she has "the right to choose". She is a minor who was most likely influenced by a borderline mentally ill person to refuse treatment. Attempting to derail the topic with the choice argument is trollish.
onecent
(6,096 posts)NOW I AM A TROLL???? JESUS...
I am a 69 year old woman WHO FUCKING BELIEVES IN PRO-CHOICE and if you don't like that about my post then go somewhere else.... I enjoy listening to others' thoughts and opinions on a topic like this...because I would fight to the hilt for ANY OF MY grandchildren to make decisions about their body if they felt the need.
I have been on these forums for many years and by God i have never been called a troll.....Take a look in the mirror or some thing....cuz I can'tmake sense of how many people have ruiined DU. by trying to "shut people up" and from getting SLAMMED to the ground every time they post.
kcr
(15,318 posts)is not a pro choice stance.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)I did not call you a troll. I'm not sure what you are reading into my comment. I think you probably have some anger issues and are responding to something that was not said or implied. Hope you find some peace.
I read that the young woman knows what the consequences and after effects of treatment are. How do you know what she actually knows? Why can't she have a choice about her life? Should she go through with something she objects to that is ultimately something she has to endure just to make others feel better about her situation?
Why is it that nobody is allowed to die? And why is it that choosing to do so is not acceptable to others who have no stake in the matter?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)state intervened.
2naSalit
(86,767 posts)I know that in a state I used to live in would declare any adult who refused medication for cancer to be unstable and incapable of making such choices themselves and would then force them to endure "treatment" anyway. There it doesn't matter what your age or anything other than being wealthy... you will have treatment and pay for it too. Choice is only welcome as long as one chooses as the state and their special interests desire.
I recall sitting in a clinic one day waiting for an exam when nurse saw an anomaly in the physical appearance and rushed out of the room bringing back some other person, not ID'd as a nurse or any professional standing, looked at me from across the room and decided I needed to have a biopsy. They made an appointment with a "specialist" for me without asking consent to do so. Furthermore, when I called this professional's office to see what had been set up for me by the clinic, I found it was going to cost $300.00 just to walk through the door. I canceled the appointment. I was later notified that I needed to go to this specialist, I moved to another state. What the clinic was freaking out about could have been dealt with by asking me what it was... it was the result of an injury and was not a major health concern for decades and is still not a problem.
Just because the judge "said so" isn't good enough, was an actual third party evaluation of the girl's state of mind conducted? I find the medical industrial complex still has its way with us, even with the ACA. It's going to be a long drawn out battle to change that situation.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)When the diagnosis is terminal, or when other treatments have failed, or if the chance of survival is low, or if the person is going through agony, I fully support that person's decision to end their life. I supported Britney Maynard's decision to die before her terminal cancer got bad enough to destroy her quality of life. There was no doubt in her case.
This case enters a somewhat more grey area. This girl has a cancer diagnosis of a treatable type of cancer that was caught early. She is underage and there is question concerning how much influence her mother is having in this decision. Cases like this are always difficult. We don't really know enough about the daughter or mother or what doctors have said to them to fully make a sound judgement on it.
Lancero
(3,011 posts)The age that people traditionally consider 'adulthood', I'd say that she is mature enough to make her own decisions on medical treatment.
Though in this case, if her parents thought otherwise then power to em if they want to try and change her mind. But her parents, despite knowing what the choice entails, are apparently supporting her right to choose.
Dorian Gray
(13,498 posts)her mom supported her decision for no treatment but her dad didn't and wanted her to get treatment. What would be the correct course of action for a minor?
Lancero
(3,011 posts)Opinion about it.
Given the subject, if the father was around he'd have made a appearance in the video or a least get a mention in the article.
Response to Lancero (Reply #18)
sharp_stick This message was self-deleted by its author.
mucifer
(23,560 posts)We wouldn't have this article.
NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)gerogie2
(450 posts)Your damn right it does. Any person should be allowed to refuse any medical treatment for any reason. And if I want to check out then it is none of the governments damn business.
onecent
(6,096 posts)Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)17 is tricky - if she were 14, "her body, her choice" would obviously be absurd, and if she were 18 it would be reasonable.
Lancero
(3,011 posts)For younger ages, under 16, it would fall to the parents to decide. 18, her choice all the way. But as you said, 17 is the gray area for it.
I have to wonder just when her birthday is though - If she 'just' turned 17, then I'd proably lean a bit more to letting the parents decide for her. Nearer to 18, leaning more towards her. Though I suppose this is a bit of a moot point since her parents support her choice.
Ms. Toad
(34,086 posts)(Singular, since no father is mentioned.)
It is the state that is forcing her into chemo at this point, over the wishes of the young woman and her mother. They are treating it as child abuse. They required the mother to permit treatment and removed her from her home after she ran away from home following the first two forced treatments.
Currently, she is being held at the hospital and forced treatments are continuing until the case is heard so by the time it is the question may be moot.
http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2015/01/05/state-forces-connecticut-teen-with-cancer-to-receive-chemotherapy/
kcr
(15,318 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)That is a right wing construct meant to distract and confuse the argument.
You always have the absolute choice to cut out a tumor or parasite, which in effect, an unwanted pregnancy is.
That is not the same as an underage person choosing to die rather than treatment based on paranoia fed by their parents.
kcr
(15,318 posts)There are lots of choices that are wrong and not allowable. A parent letting their kid die when they could easily be treated is one of them. The right to choose regarding abortion is about the right itself, not choice in general, but sometimes people exploit the word choice to press other agendas.
Nay
(12,051 posts)to suss out the simple facts of a situation.
onecent
(6,096 posts)I am a senior citizen...and I dare anyone to try and stop me from "pulling the plug" in the event I end up in a precarious position....
We can ALL only dream we do not go to a nursing home and slump in a wheel chair, while a nurse moves us to a window where we can see the trees and birds, but we cannot raise our head to even LOOK out the window.
Each person should have the RIGHT to live as they wish and die as they wish.
Sissyk
(12,665 posts)You do realize the child in this situation is 17, right?
Some just feel she should not be making this decision at that young age, and would wish for her to become a senior citizen someday, too.
No one is saying that it's not your decision for You to make at your age. IMO, it is.
avebury
(10,952 posts)to understand his/her medical condition and treatment options, the patient has every reason to refuse treatment if that is his/her choice. We do not have to agree with a person's choice but that is exactly what it is - his/her choice.
It is a slippery slope when you start to interfere with a person's right to make their own choices because who know how far that interference might reach over time.
Dorian Gray
(13,498 posts)but she's still a minor, and I worry that this is her mother's influence ("choice"
more than hers.
I know. It's messed up. I'm so on the fence with this. I want her to have whatever treatment gives her the best odds of survival, and it SOUNDS like there's an 80-85% chance of recovery if she gets chemo.
Hestia
(3,818 posts)and should be able to make this decision also.
If she does want to commit suicide, what is it to anyone here on this board?
What gets me is the hypocrisy - suicide is bad unless your name is Robin Williams - then we are supposed to be understanding and open a vein and bleed out, proving how much we care about a person who is named Robin Williams. If your name is John Williams, et al, then you are a loser and must hate your family for committing suicide.
Where is the outrage that the State can/did come in, abduct her, and force her through medical procedures that she implicitly turned down.
This is something like the 5th article I have read over the years about somehow y'all - up East - have allowed the State to supersede any and all medical directives made by the parents. Isn't there a SCOTUS ruling about this - parental rights trump the state's rights. It is flabbergasting to me, down here, that this would ever be allowed.
Skittles
(153,185 posts)she seems unduly influenced by her mum who could be terribly wrong
DesertFlower
(11,649 posts)radiation. i've watched friends and family suffer from chemo and die a horrible death from all the complications.
when my mom was alive i had her power of attorney. she said "don't ever let them give me chemo or radiation".
about 8 years ago i had a breast cancer scare. when i told my husband i said "chemo and radiation are not to be discussed".
everyone is entitled to their choice.
and yes -- i know chemo has saved many lives. i've also met people who had chemo and a few years later the cancer came back in another area. remember elizabeth edwards and tony snow.
so please no flames.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)There isn't that much difference between a 17 year old and an 18 year old. Science tells us that our brains don't fully develop until mid 20's. Impulse control and being able to fully comprehend the end result of our actions aren't fully realized until our mid 20's, but unless we change the laws to say that we are not adult until our mid twenties then I think a 17 year old should be able to make that decision for themselves.
Warpy
(111,332 posts)but 17 year olds are still kids and might have some pretty distorted thinking when it comes to things like cancer treatment. I'd have a lot more sympathy for her choice if the cancer weren't such a treatable one or if the first course of treatment hadn't worked (very rare).
I remember 17 and the prospect of being sick as hell for 6 months and (horrors!) losing my hair would have been a devastating one. However, the prospect of dying in agony from untreated cancer is even worse, and I doubt if people have discussed that in detail with her.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)are not sure if the girl's decision is really hers or her mother's.
While the choice to forego chemo is not a smart one, I support the girl's decision to do so as long as it really is her decision and not the mother's.
Warpy
(111,332 posts)
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Lancero
(3,011 posts)Unless Religious reasons is the answer (IE, faith healing), I really wonder just why she is choosing to do this.
The easiest fallback would be culture - Our culture tends to force women into childbearing roles, so she might be of the opinion that her life is worthless if she isn't able to have children.
Their might be a history of abuse, and she is taking this chance to escape - In any event, it would also explain why the parents support her choice. Her dying of documented natural causes would be a perfect coverup for any past abuse.
Might just be a simple case of "Hmm, lets see... Headache, blured vision, red eyes - Oh god, WebMD says I have brain cancer!" syndrome. (That is, looking into things and only seeing the worst possible outcomes)
The more I think of the 'Why' behind her choice, the more I hate supporting it. I suppose though that everyone encounters cases that make them question their beliefs, cases that make them doubt if they are really supporting the right ideal.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)sometimes you have to let stupid do its thing. If the daughter is as dumb as the mother and wants to refuse treatment, let her.
It's moronic but it is her right to refuse.
But the mother really said "poison toxins? Way to double the woo words lady.
Lancero
(3,011 posts)Though since poison is the broader definition, toxins use is still redundant.
Silent3
(15,259 posts)However, although I'd certainly let the mother die for her own idiocy, I prefer for children to be spared from theirs, and that of their parents, as much as possible until they are adults.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)But the total cost of its treatment is under
$ 3,000 while the Big Pharma companies make over $ 300,000 from radiation and chemo treatments on each cancer patient.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)Woo-woo nonsense.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)I understand the Big Pharma people have a full claim on the brains of 99% of the "D" candidates, but living in California, I come across news articles and meet people whose stories go like this:
http://www.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/miracle-cannabis-oil-may-treat-cancer-but-money-and-the-law-stand-in-the-way-of-finding-out/Content?oid=2825695
Don't forget, the side effects of the treatment with CBD happens to be:
1) sleepy
2) hungry
3) happy
While the side effects of chemo and radiation are torturous agony, total anemia and energy and again, dealing with Big Insurance people trying to come up with the money and the treatments.
and loss of hair etc.
And yes, according to Big Pharma, these tales of CBD cures are "anecdotal." But I used to hang out with many of the top independent breast cancer researchers, in SF Bay area, and they kept pointing out how ridiculous it is to say that a breast cancer patient is "in remission" after five years, when she then goes on to die in year six or year seven.
And that "remission" has cost her her breasts, her money, and often her home.
Shivering Jemmy
(900 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 10, 2015, 08:01 PM - Edit history (1)
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4
Lancero
(3,011 posts)I'd recommend this here for a read - http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/medical-marijuana-as-the-new-herbalism-part-2-cannabis-does-not-cure-cancer/
The key point, imo, is this - Weed itself isn't a cureall, but some specific compounds, if isolated, can be beneficial. It's exactly the same as with various medicines derived from venoms - A specific, isolated, compound has a medical benefit, however letting a venomous snake, spider, whatever, bite you is a very, very, bad idea. (A example of this, heart attacks - Two venom derived heart attack medicines are in use, and are effective. But if you tried using the straight venom, you'd kill yourself.)
On the venoms, I'd recommend this to read - http://science.education.nih.gov/animalresearch.nsf/Story1/Making+Medicines+from+Poisonous+Snakes
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4
Oh and a district court just ruled here in Calif. that those who want to use CBD oils should not be penalized, as it is exactly the sort of medicine that Prop 215 was written to allow for. (The wonderful folks at Big Pharma were able to get local regulations against CBD oils enacted, so that people caught with the substance end up with more penalties and jail time that those with crack cocaine!) Kudos to that judge for issuing a ruling that reflects the National Institute'
own science and what people are understanding to be true.
Orrex
(63,220 posts)Turns a sandwich into a banquet and gives 700mpg in most domestic cars.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Thumbs up!
From this url:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4
An in vitro study of the effect of CBD on programmed cell death in breast cancer cell lines found that CBD induced programmed cell death, independent of the CB1, CB2, or vanilloid receptors. CBD inhibited the survival of both estrogen receptor–positive and estrogen receptor–negative breast cancer cell lines, inducing apoptosis in a concentration-dependent manner while having little effect on nontumorigenic mammary cells.[18] Other studies have also shown the antitumor effect of cannabinoids (i.e., CBD and THC) in preclinical models of breast cancer.[19,20]
####
Much much more at the link above.
Orrex
(63,220 posts)Rule #1: western medicine is not to be trusted
Rule #2: except when western medicine confirms some claim made by "alternative" "medicine," at which point western medicine is the sacrosanct authority above reproach
Rule #3: but only regarding that one claim. For all else, see rule #1
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)Orrex
(63,220 posts)Wherever you find it to be true.
KentuckyWoman
(6,692 posts)I watched the doctors prolong the dying with almost 5 years of continuous chemo on a member of my family who didn't want to face the reality of the situation. So I view chemo with a lot of skepticism and have said repeatedly I won't go through that. So I understand he sentiment here.
However, I'm over 60. Depending on what illness befalls me at this stage in life my choices are based on the benefit versus my age.
In her case the potential benefit is enormous versus the risk. And as I have read more about this case the more I'm convinced Mom has been doing so much chattering in the girl's ear that this girl is not really making her own decisions clearly. No I don't believe Mom wants her child to die... but I do think things are a little bit mixed up here.
Now all that said, only in the rarest of cases to I believe in forcing medical treatment on anyone. It's a really tough call in any situation and I feel for the medical people willing to put themselves in that situation. "the system" is rigged to shovel in the profits yes... but there's an individual doctor and/or nurses who are human beings and want to do what is right. They don't always get it right ....
So yes I have some mixed feelings on this but I hope they are able to keep her alive .... a long and happy life... where she can spend a lifetime fighting for patient rights if she wants.
mikemcl350
(10 posts)or hysteria over something they don't really understand.
over their lifetime they will be bombarded with way more chemicals that she will get in a chemo regime.
do they eat at Mcdonalds or grow their own food in pesticide free soil?
do they filter air and water they use everywhere ever they go?
do they have stain proof carpeting or engineered wood or plastic products in the home?
use hormone mimetic free cleaning products?
is their lawn nice and green?
why draw the line at a lifesaving treatment when every day they probably are taking in all kinds "toxins" with every breath sip or bite they take?
Ms. Toad
(34,086 posts)Have you ever had chemo - or been around someone while they are having chemo?
It seems to me as if you are the one who doesn't understand chemo. Although they are improving chemotherapy to minimize the short and long term effects, they are still considerably more overwhelming in both the short term and long term than the examples you have listed.
At that age, with that cancer, I would have the treatment. But not because chemotherapy was more innocuous than the things you have mentioned.
kaiden
(1,314 posts)My husband was diagnosed with Stage 4 mantle cell lymphoma (a rare, non-Hodgkins lymphoma). He sat when and where the oncologists told him to sit and he is cancer free a year after his autologous bone marrow transplant. Blood cancers are easier to treat than organ cancers because, with blood cancers, doctors can kill the source. I find this family's "line in the sand" a little odd. Maybe a fear of chemo? As far as I know, the cures from cannibis oil are anecdotal at this time. However, cannabis relieves the jitters caused by the prednisone one must take for its immuno-suppression properties.
Inkfreak
(1,695 posts)My FiL survived both Hodgkins & Non-Hodgkins and will be alive to see his daughters/my first child born. F*** cancer.
kaiden
(1,314 posts)Message to men: If you have a lump anywhere, get thee to a physician. If you are having hot flashes or night sweats, NO! Men do not have these. Go to the doctor immediately.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Are anecdotal?
My, my, the Big Boys and Girls at Big Pharma really got you brainwashed, don't they?
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/patient/page2
Also:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4
Oh and a district court just ruled here in Calif. that those who want to use CBD oils should not be penalized, as it is exactly the sort of medicine that Prop 215 was written to allow for. (The wonderful folks at Big Pharma were able to get local regulations against CBD oils enacted, so that people caught with the substance end up with more penalties and jail time that those with crack cocaine!) Kudos to that judge for issuing a ruling that reflects the National Institute'
own science and what people are understanding to be true.
kaiden
(1,314 posts)Your links above are informative as to mice studies. Are there no human studies where multiple persons diagnosed with Stage IV cancer have been given solely cannibis oil and each one of them cured of his/her cancer? My husband was "patient zero" here in the states for a treatment that had extensive human trials in Italy. He then had an autologous bone marrow transplant. This treatment (and yes, it involves chemotherapy) is now standard of care for this type of cancer. Because we live in Colorado, marijuana is legal, but my husband limited his cannibis to edibles and smoking when the jitters from the prednisone became severe (which is one of the known virtues of cannabis oil mentioned in your two links above). We still have about three pounds left at home (gifts from well-meaning friends). When cannabis oil has been proven to have an acceptable cure rate in humans, cannabis oil will become standard of care.
Orrex
(63,220 posts)
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Sorry if I was nasty, but that word gets dragged out far too often whenever and wherever any thinking person tries to contribute to a discussion.
Wanna know where the new meaning applied to the word "anecdotal" comes from?
Prior to the late 1980's, the word referred to a tale about a pleasant and enjoyable experience.
Then to the surprise of Big Pestiicde and Big Pharma industries (which often are one and the same,) we anti-pesticide activists were able to succeed in making California the first state in the Union to stipulate that wherever various poisons and carcinogens were used, there had to be placards detailing the use of the toxins and carcinogens at whatever facility utilized thsoe items. (Prop 65.)
We were told when we succeed in this that our legal effort would be so expenseive that the business world in California would come to a screeching halt, but that of course didn't happen.
But Big Pesticide and Big Pahram decided that they needed to band together and have a new way of viewing the anti-poison movement. Otherwise, they feared that activists would ensure that the same labeling informed people about everyday dangers around them in the other 49 states, and Big Industry does not like people being educated.
Since much of what informed us activists were our own experiences, they decided to trivialize those experiences. (For instance, I became an activist against pestiicdes when the 1981-82 aerial spraying of Santa Clara Calif with malathion caused me to develop a skin conditon known as vitaligo. This means that for the last 30 years, I could't be outside in direct sunlight!)
Personal observation has always been a part of science. Witness Newton and the apple. Witness the many astronomers and their telescopes, and their discoveries. Even witness Ed Jenner and his observations about cow maids not getting small pox.
But now people are automatically ridiculed if they make observations such as, "My daughter had a dozen epileptic seizures a day before we discovered that CBD oil would help her. Now we simply see to it that she has the proper soseage of CBD oil, and she is almost seizure free."
In this instance, the people who hear this parent state this wills ay, "it is only anecdotal." Well so what! Anecdotal as a slur is made up.
And the parent may have already spent four years of their life and tens of thousands of dollars trying to get something that works for their daughter, but nothing inside the medical model did.
Mind you, people often allow the medical world to experiment on them and their family members for years before they turn to CBD. There have been cases of people in fourth stage of this or that cancer and after six months on CBD, the tumors afflicting them are so shrunken that they can go back to their old life. And their use of CBD oil occurred only after the medical professionals told them that "nothing more can be done."
As far as the fact that the National Cancer Institute's study was on mice, I imagine that that was the professional way to go. Now that the NCI knows there was indeed success in using the cannabis, they will have more ability to get people to sign on to the experiment(s) that is needed to utilize CBD oil for a cancer study on humans. But wouldn't it have been seriouslly immoral to go ahead with a study on humans before there was a single study done on animals?
Also, cost is a factor for many people. I am betting that you and your spouse had to have been insured to be part of this study, (or else rich!) and you had to be connected in some way (such as living close to a decent teaching hospital) before you had the extreme good fortune to get to be part of this experimental procedure that savedyour spouse. Good for you that it succeeded. But how much did it cost?
I mean, I recently found out that a friend was forced by Kaiser to have a colonoscopy to dermine if he ahd any signs of colon cancer. So he went in and had that colonscopy,without anesthesia of course, because Kaiser won't give it to you for that. *(You need to be an executive with premium insurance tohave a colonoscopy in a pain free manner.) Polyps were discovered, but Kaiser now goes under some system of medicine where they don't have to remove polyps on a person who is over 65! So there is a real need to get to have a simple and inexpensive remedy for various cancers, as there are indeed death panels operating inside Big Insurers. Many of us are paying insurance premiums knowing that our "doctors" are not going to go to bat for us and see we have the state of the art treatment, as they get promoted if they deny us treatment, so we really have to find things that work that are on the cheap!
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)She can petition to be declared an Emancipated Minor. That isn't going to happen overnight. Couldn't they put a hold on the chemo based on that? Let her appear before the court and speak for herself.
"Second opinion", the mother stated. That isn't allowed either? It sounds like they might want to go the Alternative Medicine route from the mother's statements.
I agree with the "Her Body, Her Choice", especially at 17. Many people think that 17 year olds are still children, but seriously, is her maturity level going to change that drastically in 9 months? Did YOURS? lol Like it not, your children are adults at 18 years old.
I believe any adult should have the choice to refuse any medical treatment they want, even if that causes their death.
kcr
(15,318 posts)This mother should lose her case and I hope she does.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)decision if she is still a Minor. The problem is that people, and the state, and the hospital, don't like the mother's decision either.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)And fine, let the mother decide. Then let the DA charge her with negligent homicide.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)The is girl is a Minor. Then if she is, the parents make the decision. Wait a minute. No, the parents cannot decide because people don't like their decision. The state then decides when medicine doesn't like the choice the parents are making for their Minor child.
kcr
(15,318 posts)Children are not belongings. Parents don't get to decide to withhold food, shelter or necessary medical care. If this girl wanted to starve herself to death and the mother was allowing and helping her, responses would be much different. What this mother is doing is no different.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)could decide she didn't want any medical care whatsoever. We are not talking about babies here. Would you say the same if she was turning 18 next week too? She could decide on assisted suicide if that is what she wanted. Just as that young woman in her 20s with cancer choose no more treatments, but assisted suicide instead.
There were a lost of posters even then who said she should not have been allowed to make that choice.
kcr
(15,318 posts)What is the point of setting an age limit and then ignoring it?
Fla Dem
(23,736 posts)At that point it is her decision.
kcr
(15,318 posts)So she's still a minor.
Ms. Toad
(34,086 posts)DCF first ordered the mother to cooperate with treatment. After 2 rounds the daughter ran away from home to avoid further treatment. DCF then removed her from her home - she is currently being held in the hospital and is forced to continue to undergo treatments until the case is heard.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Hodgkin's Lymphoma has an extremely high survival rate with chemo, so I've got to support the doctors on this one.
Yes, 18 is an arbitrary age, but in a nation of laws an arbitrary age must be chosen and our society has chosen 18.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)Putting aside the issue of a 17 year old, shouldn't the PARENT then have the right to determine what medical treatment their Minor children have? Has the Mother been declared unfit by a court and a Guardian en Lietum declared? I didn't read anything about that.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)So no, the mother has no say in this.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)or 2nd Opinions either? I suppose parents cannot be allowed to opt-out of vaccinations for their kids either?
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)There is quackery, but no alternatives to chemo.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)she would not be allowed to choose "quackery" for herself? That is why in my original statement, I said she should petition the court to be declared an Emanicipated Minor.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)We are a nation of laws and we have chosen 18 as the age for adults.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)of minors. 18 is not set in stone.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Until the courts can move on her request for emancipation, however, treatments will continue.
And she will most likely survive.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)pending a decision on her emancipation, and whether she has competency to make her own decisions at 17 years old.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Since that would be a death sentence, there's no way any court would stay her treatments.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)Of course the hospital and state would probably say that.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)There is no medical doubt on that count. The effect will not be immediate, but it will happen.
It's more possible a court would find she is mentally ill and attempting suicide than to allow the treatment to stop.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)next months? Is there a specific date of her death?
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Right now, her chances of surviving are approaching 90%.
Stop treatment and that figure begins to drop. And ANY survivability figure ONLY applies so long as she gets treatment.
Ceasing treatment altogether = death. There is no reprieve. Most likely, 12 to 18 months at best. I had a friend about 35 years ago diagnosed with stage 1 Hodgkins. He died because the treatments were nowhere near as effective as they are now.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)So a stay could be issued.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)CPS could not have kidnapped her a mere 9 months from now.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Yes, where possible they should defer to the parent, but if that decision is to needlessly let a child die then obviously it should be overruled.
What makes this case less clear-cut is that it's not obvious that 17 is a child.
But either she's a minor, it's the state's call, and she should be forced to live, or she's an adult, it's her call, and and she should be allowed to die - either way, it's not her mother's decision.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)You, and Government, do not have complete control after High School Graduation with a Minor Child. My husband gradated at 16 years and 8 months in 1965. I graduated High School at 17 and and 7 months in 1965. Our older daughter graduated HS at 17 and and 5 months in 1996.
Military. Our daughter at 17 wanted to join the Military after HS graduation. Yes, parental consent was needed but MINOR CHILD had to give their consent and even SIGN on the dotted sign. As soon as the recruiter at the PARENT consultation which SHE had to be present for, heard her say, "Hell no, if you cannot guarantee me this, I AM NOT SIGNING, the recruiter packed up his papers. Mommy and Daddy could sign a thousand consents but without MINORS consent, it was a no go. Military could not kidnap her and send her to boot camp based just on Parents Consent. Factor. Our older daughter then and today had her own mind and a MOUTH. She wasn't afraid to voice her opinions to the world.
Schooling? Again, once HS Graduation occurs, 17 year old graduates cannot be forced to attend school. I WANT you to go to college. CPS will not take your Minor and force them to attend college classes once they graduate HS. Sorry, parents that is your MINOR CHILD'S decision.
Employment. After HS graduation for a Minor? Can a PARENT, or CPS, block a HS Graduate Minor from working full time? NO. No parental consent required. With a HS Diploma, a parents or government cannot tell a Minor that they cannot work full time after graduation. I did not need my parents consent to work full time after HS graduation. I did not have to sign my consent for my MINOR daughter in 1996 after graduation for her to work full time. All our employers required of both of us was showing our HS Diploma for employment; no CONSENT from parents as Minors.
It seems to be as far as MINORS concerned, while they cannot legally do anything they want, HS GRADUATION does confer a lot of rights for UNDERAGE Minors.
To all you parents who think you can control your 17 year olds, you need to think again.
BTW, if the State of Connecticut, as they issued in their statement, has a duty to prevent "suicide", by that logic do they have a duty to force "life saving treaments" on adults too to preven their sucide too? Doctor says you need these procedure to save your life, as an adult you cannot say NO? State will arrest you then to force treatment on you because they have a DUTY to prevent suicide??????
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)to have the chemo. If it had a very small survival rate, then perhaps not. After all, we wouldn't allow her to refuse treatment should she happen to fall and a shard of glass on the ground cut her wrist, for example. A pressure bandage and stitches would ensure her survival in most such cases, and we would treat it as a suicide attempt should she refuse medical attention. Is this so very different? Her cancer is highly treatable, while she will die if she doesn't get treatment.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)Do you think adults should also be forced to receive treatment? Few years ago I hit my head on a tree with blood pouring down my face. I refused to be taken to a hospital. Should I have been forced into an ambulance just because that was treatable?
Was my refusal a sucide attempt? If you think so, you are threading on very serious freedoms here.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)As in 90% chance of dying? No? Then refuse medical treatment all you want, but don't come crying to me if there are after-effects.
However, if there is a high chance of dying without treatment, and a high chance of surviving *with* treatment, then at least the patient should face mandatory psychological evaluation if they refuse treatment. Do you not agree it is different to refuse treatment if treatment gives you a 90% chance of survival, versus if it gives you a 9% survival chance? A person can be put in psychiatric hospitals if they are a danger for themselves or others, even in the US, I believe. How can a child refusing medical treatment, or even a parent refusing medical treatment for their child not be endangering themselves or others? Especially if this is a common condition and a common treatment? If it were an experimental treatment, or a very unusual condition, it should definitely be examined by someone other than the doctors - in fact, a guardian ad litem (I believe that's what they are called) should be appointed for all such children, who could be impartial and not influenced by extreme alternative medicine quacks.
And one caveat which I ask you to read carefully - I think this should only be the case in civilized countries with universal health care available to all regardless of age or financial status. Since this isn't the case in the US, I would not force an adult to have treatment, but a child, yes. And her treatment should be paid for by the state.
However, if I remember correctly, you think vaccines are silly because you survived your childhood, so I don't really expect you to agree with me.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)Hemorrhaging from external, and maybe internal bleeding in the brain? My hair turned totally red. That is not an exaggeration. Adult. Refused to be taken to the ER. I had to sign a liability release after refusing to be taken to the hospital by the tour I was on.
You have never known an adult to refuse treatment? lol Meet one.
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)No I didn't.
I do understand that in countries like the US, where you can go bankrupt for going to the hospital, that many adults refuse treatment simply because of financial reasons. However, I find that absolutely barbaric. If money is not an issue, and adults still want to refuse treatment for injuries or easily-treated diseases, they are free to do it, but I would question their mental health if they did. If they would risk a high chance of death or even certain death than undergo a treatment that is 80-90% guaranteed to cure them, I most definitely would say it's time for a psychiatric evaluation. A parent who would deny the child treatment that would in 80% of the cases save their life, while they would certainly die without it, should be charged with reckless endangerment of their child and the custody of that child should be taken away from them.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)My cousins tried to declare my Uncle incompetent for refusing life saving surgery at 68 years old. Save him, yes. What quality of life? In a hospital bed on a machine? He told them no, walked out of hospital, and lived his last 6 months of life enjoying himself. Was he INSANE because he could have been SAVED?
My Mom never spoke to her nephews and niece again. Neither have I. He fortunately died before it was ever litigated. Do you want to go down this road just so ADULTS can live as long as medicine, or others, determines?????? Hell, no. I think this caused my Mom to see an Attorney, draw up a Living Will, and state her wishes in a legal form. Is this what people now have to do so others "life at all costs" mentality, and medicine's needs for profits, makes their own bodies not theirs anymore?
If you are advocating that adults must be insane to refuse any medical treatment (even if means death), that is not a FREE society. Certainly, not a Democrat principal.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)There's a big difference between a life-threatening emergency and an accident that (clearly, in your case) does not merit hospitalization. No one would treat that as a suicide attempt, because you're not going to die.
I do agree with the general principle that no one should be forced to receive treatment if they do not want it, provided they are 18. Otherwise it should be the parent's decision, except if the parent's decision will lead to the death or injury of the child. I don't like what the state is doing, but I do think that there is a good legal basis to do so in this case and as the law stands at this time, as the teen is not yet an adult, and the decision will almost certainly lead to her death.
We need to have a discussion about at which age we give people legal control over their own bodies. In my opinion, that age should not be 18; there are many medical decisions that should be left to the patient. I think 16 is a reasonable age for this, as by then, most are old enough to understand of the consequences of refusing medical treatment. While I would like to give everyone full autonomy over what is done to them, younger children should still remain under the authority of their parents, because a 12- or 13-year-old is not going to be able to fully grasp medical situations the majority of the time.
kcr
(15,318 posts)is if my 16 year old has a treatable cancer I'm going to put my foot down and insist on treatment whether they want it or not. 16 year olds aren't the same as 13 year olds but they are still under parental supervision and care. It should stay that way.
I don't really have a good reason to tell you you're wrong 
If I have a 16 year old someday, I would probably completely agree. How, though, would you say this differs significantly from abortion (legitimate question, I promise I'm not trolling)? I believe that a person should always be allowed to have control over that, regardless of age.
Also, what do you think about body modification and age limits for that? Should tattoos, piercings, etc., be controlled by parents as well? There may very well be laws about that already, though I'm not aware of any.
kcr
(15,318 posts)A parent withholding lifesaving medical care resulting in death is something the government should intervene in because I view it as a matter of serious neglect. I believe that because I don't think parents own their children to do with as they please just because they're responsible for their care. I'm not saying children have no autonomy whatsoever and agree with you regarding abortion.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)I think you've got it right. Thanks for the response.
Runningdawg
(4,522 posts)and politics online in general, I've got to say, I am surprised and a bit shocked at some of the replies to this issue.
Granted her age throws a monkey wrench in the equation, but my opinion is: ultimately it is her body and should be her choice and hers alone. Yes, she is a minor, but at 17 there are many adult activities, such as marriage, that she would be allowed to do under law, with the permission of her parents.
If we were discussing this woman terminating a pregnancy I feel most would be on her side, so why the double standard when it is HER life, not the life of her unborn on the line?
As long as she has been seen and evaluated by mental health professionals and there are no signs of mental illness or coercion from her mother or anyone else, I feel she should be able to make the decision for herself.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)The problem is that under current law, she is a minor, and the parent's refusal of life-saving treatment means the state is required to step in (especially in a case where treatment has a very high success rate, and forgoing treatment will cause the likelihood of death to skyrocket).
I do think we need to have a conversation about when an appropriate age is to have full autonomy over your body and medical decisions. I agree that 18 is too old. I would propose 16 as an age where minors can deny consent to medical treatment, or for other body modifications, etc.
As for needing to be seen and evaluated by mental health professionals, how would you decide when someone is or isn't able to make the decision for themselves? I'm of the opinion that if someone was suffering from severe depression and was no longer interested in making the effort to continue living a painful life, then they should have the right to end it. Yes, they are certainly influenced and perhaps strongly guided by that depression, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to make that decision. We of course should offer and provide any help and treatment that is needed or wanted, but in the end, it should be up to the individual. This wouldn't apply to things like end of life care where the person may truly be unable to communicate on their own behalf.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)to be capable of making rational choices, she would have been allowed to do as she wished.
Her age really isn't what's important here....it's that the court found she lacked the rational basis to make this decision.
dilby
(2,273 posts)Why do we insist putting people through Chemo and other treatments that are absolutely painful if the person would rather just die? I see nothing wrong with this young woman refusing treatment, the doctors are not saving her life, they are only extending it and some people don't want to have to deal with the pain of Chemo just to tac on a couple extra years and putting their family in debt. I am 40 years old, if I had cancer I would opt to go without treatment as well.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)You are not WELL. We will not release you. Says, who? That was 34 years ago. Not well? I had EXTREMELY good health insurance working at a pharmececutical. $$$$$$$ the longer I was there.
haele
(12,674 posts)Chemo sucks, but this isn't a case of "it will give you a couple more years", just as doctors who are treating any chronic illness or injury that may affect your immune system enough to cause your eventual death are not "saving your life" in the long run.
My daughter's father in law was diagnosed with Hodgkin's Lymphoma when he was 14, had Chemo for a year and a half immediately after diagnosis, and a healthy son when he was 18...and he's 47 now with a full head of hair, and still healthy with only a few issues (due to habits) and has seen no remission.
Now, the question as to whether or not a young woman of 17 should be forced to have Chemo against her mother's wishes - I find that tricky. The young woman is hearing all about the poison and the few months of pain or weakness, and probably that "she's going to die anyway" and/or become sterile (and lose her value to a prospective husband) - or all the other such nonsense that goes around the internet when it comes to cancer. And at her age, her mother is probably the one with the insurance policy that she would be using to get treatment, if the young woman isn't being covered by CHIP or some other children's health insurance fund.
17 is a tough age; most 17-year-olds are still easily swayed by peers or influential adults (parental figures, coaches, teachers, employers). If no one in that peer group or adult category is willing to encourage the confidence to make informed decisions and take responsibility, that 17 year old is just going to bounce around through young adulthood until s/he does something stupid enough to get killed/disabled/incarcerated or finally make it through to the late 20's, when hopefully maturity and responsibility kicks in.
Chemo is not going to impoverish her family now-a-days. And again, she can have a long life with children afterwards.
But as they say - "it's her choice". I'm just sad to see a life wasted because none of the influences in her life are pragmatic enough to view her as more than a damaged vessel that is better off in the trash; not worth the time and effort to fix, and have managed to convince her that she has no future to fight the cancer for. Or worse, that somehow, cancer can just be miracled away and she'd be cured if everyone just believed enough.
Haele
dilby
(2,273 posts)would any of you complain or would you say it's her body and her right to die?
KMOD
(7,906 posts)She's not terminal.
dilby
(2,273 posts)With Death with Dignity you are not mandated for treatment for your disease/illness. You just need a doctor to sign off on it and telling a doctor you don't want chemo should be enough.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)Ms. Maynard was given a pill, that when taken, would cause her death. Ms. Maynard was terminal, and no treatment could save her life, it would only prolong it. In the state of Oregon, she was able to have the choice to take the pill should her suffering become unbearable.
This young woman, is not terminal, if treated. If treatment is refused, she will die, but she will suffer. There is no pill for her. She's also legally a minor. If she was an adult, it would be no problem.
I'm interested to see how the CT Supreme Court rules on this.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)I believe that one day we will look at chemo with the same sort of horror that we today look on medieval medicine.
Forced medicine is more about force than about medicine.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)was considered good medical practice even in the 60s. Don't have to go that far back.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)What passes for the latest and greatest in medicine changes all the time... chemo isn't going to be it any longer than it remains profitable.
I have to wonder, if there were a $1 pill that would instantly cure cancer, would anybody in the medical field have any incentive at all to let patients know it existed?
KMOD
(7,906 posts)And still has good results for some with severe depression.
I'm familiar with it, because I know someone who underwent this therapy in the early 70s. I don't believe this person felt tortured by it. It did actually help remove very painful memories. The downside, was that it removed many good memories from the past as well. It's certainly not for just anybody, but it should be available for extreme cases. It this persons case, I'd say it was helpful.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)No further comment from someone who has worked with MR/DD population.
Sgent
(5,857 posts)its performed under anesthesia and muscle relaxants so the side effects aren't as severe (broken bones, etc.), but it still an amazing procedure for treatment of recalcitrant or life threatening depression.
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)you might be surprised to find out how quickly you will submit to that "medieval medicine."
I have gone from 100% chance of death to a 30% chance of death from breast cancer. I will happily live with those odds and the chance to grow old with my husband and see my grandchildren grow up.
And an fyi, the anti-nausea drugs are so good now, that I never once threw up. I never had anything more than a slightly upset stomach, a metallic taste in my mouth, and little appetite. And I was very lethargic for the first week after each treatment. All of the women in my group had similar experiences - some a bit better and some a bit worse.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)That doesn't mean I want the healthcare to be mandatory, but I do want it available. An individual has rights. We want informative packaging so we know what we are putting into our bodies. We have warnings on cigarettes, because we want people to know the results of their choices. But we let people make those choices. To eat sugary foods or to smoke. We step in as a society when those choices affect others. No smoking in buildings for example.
I personally, am horrified by this. The patient in question does not want the treatment. The parent supports the choice. Enough said, matter closed in my mind. They know the risks, and have made their choice. I would be equally adamant if there was an experimental treatment with little chance of success that was being denied to a patient by the State. If they want it, and the Doctor agrees it couldn't hurt, and might help, then it is nobody else's business.
I believe healthcare is between the patient, and the Doctor. I believe that nobody has a right to involve themselves into the mix with the exception of a parent/legal guardian. If the legal guardian is comfortable with the course of action, that is the end of it in my mind. If the Doctor doesn't agree, and can't comply with the wishes of the patient, then you refer them to another Doctor, and you step back.
Freedom doesn't mean the requirement to do what everyone else does. It means the right to do as you please, so long as your choice does not harm another. If the girl chooses not to get the treatment, that's the end of it.
Justina Peltier should have taught us this, if nothing else. Smug superiority of some posts here saying they hope she lives a long life and holds a grudge is the worst possible sort of response. Respecting choice doesn't mean dictating choice.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)Thank you.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)I had never heard of this, but was just reading about it. Some state, including Connecticut, have adopted it. Basically, if an older teen can prove they are mature enough, they can consent to their own medical decisions.
It will certainly be interesting to see how Connecticut high court rules on this.
below is a link for a brief explanation.
http://healthcare.uslegal.com/treatment-of-minors/the-mature-minor-doctrine/
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)An older mature teen can refuse medical treatment.
That will be their argument.
bpj62
(999 posts)Since I appear to be the first one who had a child with Non Hodgkin's Lymphoma I will phrase my response carefully. My son was 4 1/2 when he was diagnosed. There was never a thought in my mind that my wife and I would ever refuse him treatment. He is now a healthy 13 year old. Yes chemo sucks and yes it can do some permanent damage but every person responds differently to treatment. My son lost his hair then grew it back, he had chubby cheeks from the steroids that he was given. he got mouth sores, sometimes he got motion sickness the day after treatment. However he is alive and I know he is grateful to be alive. I haven't read anywhere that this young lady is terminal, just that she is very concerned about the possible long term affects of the Chemotherapy which I completely understand. She is 17 and while I concur that she is almost an adult and is probably very capable of making sound decisions does she really understand that other than chemotherapy and radiation, there are not any proven herbal remedies for curing cancer. Believe me I would have much rather had my sons cancer cured by natural remedies. left unchecked Non Hodgkin's or Hodgkin's will eventually kill her and it will do so within a short period of time. If her outlook is not terminal why would you want to give yourself a death sentence at such a young age. I hope she makes the right decision for herself. In the cancer world we have two sayings one is "Cancer Sucks" and the other is "Fuck Cancer'.
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)her life will not be worth living "if" she can't get pregnant in the future?
That is what I would like to know.
She might be close to "legal" adulthood, but she is also at an age where she may very well have a romanticized view of her future. I have children. I get it. But I would rather live without children than die without children!
KMOD
(7,906 posts)"They are also killing her body. They are killing her organs. They're killing her insides. It's not even a matter of dying. She's not going to die," Fortin said.
Ultimately, she will have to take some step to fight the deadly disease.
"She will, but she should have the choice herself," Fortin said.
The family searched for alternative treatments and second opinions, but a judge ordered Cassandra to undergo chemotherapy. After two just treatments, she ran away from home. The Connecticut Department of Children and Families (DCF) interceded and placed Cassandra into protective custody.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mother-of-connecticut-teen-forced-to-undergo-chemotherapy-speaks-out/
Her mother believes she is not going to die, and they were searching for alternative treatments.
I'm glad your son kicked cancer's ass.
I also would not refuse treatment for my child.
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)then she has probably brainwashed the teen girl.
Doctors are supposed to let this teen die because the mother has brainwashed her?
I have children, and I really do not want my right to make decisions for my minor children taken away from me. I also wouldn't want their rights to make decisions for themselves as they reach adulthood, but, if either I or my child is delusional about his condition, I hope that someone steps in and saves my child.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)Delusional according to WHO? Go to court and have them declared incompentent for refusing treatment as adults? I guarantee you if you did that and if they lived, they probably would never speak to you ever again.
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)If one can't understand the statistics of mortality related to one's disease, or refuses to believe them, then I would say that person is either ignorant or delusional.
This is not a case of going to hell and back in chemo for a ten percent chance at life. She will die if she doesn't have the treatment, and statistically, she will very likely live if she does.
Adults may have the right to be delusional, but they shouldn't be allowed to take their kids with them, imo.
And, yeah, I mostly consider myself a strong supporter of parental rights, but we don't own our kids. We are responsible for our kids, and when we are not, the government steps in. If keeping a child alive isn't a good reason for the government to intervene, I don't know what is.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)
uppityperson
(115,678 posts)HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)instead of refusing medical treatment, she would not definitely be charged as an adult at 17? She would have the mental capacity for that, but not medical treatment?
How about that one?
KMOD
(7,906 posts)She really needs to be fully aware of the consequences of refusing treatment in this situation. Since she will die without it, she needs to fully understand that. Teenagers are known to make many poor decisions. They really need to get it right in this case.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers ruled that the teen — listed only as Cassandra C. in legal records — is not mature by any standard.
That means Cassandra will remain at a Hartford hospital, in the temporary custody of child-welfare workers, and will receive her full course of chemotherapy to treat Hodgkin lymphoma.
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/cancer/connecticut-teen-curable-cancer-must-continue-chemo-court-n282421
ChazII
(6,205 posts)KMOD
(7,906 posts)SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)I'm kind of shocked at the number of people here that oppose the notion of this young woman choosing to forego treatment.
vankuria
(904 posts)I have a friend who just received the worst diagnosis anyone could get, stage 4 lung cancer, the cancer has spread throughout her body and even with treatment she would only be extending her life for 6 months. She's opted to forego treatment but if she'd been given the prognosis this young lady has, she'd do whatever is necessary, no matter how painful to get healthy again.
I could understand the young lady given her age, might not fully grasp the consequences of her decision, but what puzzles me is the mom. What the hell is she thinking, does she want to see her daughter die a painful death? She states the chemo drugs are toxins in her body, well what does she think cancer is, she'd rather have that in her daughters body?
She also mentions her daughter not being able to bear children because of the cancer drugs, I would think the priority is to get her daughter healthy and worry about that some other time. I've also known women who've preserved their eggs before undergoing chemo so they could have the chance to bear children, so there are ways around that issue.
I've thankfully never had to go through this, but know many friends and family who have and some lost their battle. I salute the courage and bravery cancer patients have, to fight for their lives. This young lady and her mom are being given a gift, to get well and live a long life, something many would give anything to have.
YarnAddict
(1,850 posts)I was. I had Stage 3 mixed cell Hogkins Lymphoma, diagnosed in 1986. I was 30 years old, and seven months pregnant with my second son.
I was treated with chemotherapy and radiation. I didn't lose my hair, due to a torture device called a cold cap. After wetting down my hair and putting a tourniquet around my scalp, I had to wear an ice cold foam rubber cap during my IV treatment. The point was that blood flow to the scalp was restricted, and the toxic effects of the chemo would be reduced to that area. It was awful, and toward the end of my treatment, I would vomit at the sight of it. I was willing to forego the cold cap, knowing that hair grows back, but the nurses encouraged me to continue it, since it worked so well.
The whole ordeal was awful. But, I can tell you for a fact that the 29 years of life I have lived as a result of undergoing that ordeal have been well worth it.
I suffer no long-term effects of the chemo. Ironically, the radiation (which was the far easier portion of the treatment) has caused some heart damage, but I am still here, with no end in sight.
This young woman is willing to give up decades of life out of fear of temporary side effects and an unknown future. She isn't thinking clearly because of her age, her mother's influence, and the distress of a devastating and unexpected diagnosis.
I wish she would understand and cooperate with her docs, but since she won't, I think the courts are making the correct decision in this particular case, and I think that someday she will be grateful.
vankuria
(904 posts)As a cancer survivor you make an excellent argument for why this young lady should listen to her Dr.'s and the mom is obviously not thinking straight either. It's beyond me why the mom would want her daughter to die a painful death rather than except treatment that most likely will save her life.
I'm glad you have done so well and wish you many more years of good health!
YarnAddict
(1,850 posts)HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)My Uncle did just that even after hospital said they could SAVE his life with treatment, but he would be in a bed on a machine for however long he lived. SUICIDE according to the state of Connecticut! LIFE at all costs!!!!!
I walked out of a hospital when I was in my 30s. They said to me "you cannot leave because WE say you are not well enough". I told them try and stop me. Um, guess they were WRONG because that was 36 years ago
Damn. If a doctor or hospital tells you to jump, you just jump because you think they are GODS, know more than you, and you TRUST them?
WolverineDG
(22,298 posts)If she's old enough to be tried as an adult fora crime, she's old enough to have a say in her medical care without state intervention "for her own good."
I don't agree with her choice, but she's old enough to make that decision.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Evolution through natural selection, as far as I'm concerned.
Sid
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Death might prevent her from having children.
That said, cancer isn't an infectious disease. 17 is old enough to throw your life away.
Vinca
(50,302 posts)It seems almost suicidal not to take the treatment. Maybe some 17 year olds are mature enough to make life or death decisions, but not all are. I'm conflicted on this one and leaning toward the state.
YarnAddict
(1,850 posts)Tell her she needs to go through the treatment this time, and if there is ever a recurrence she can choose not to be treated.
Get her to the point of a remission--almost a given in the case of Hodgkins--and once the treatment is in the rearview mirror, she can decide if life is worth living.
Just a thought . . .
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)medical treatment again her mother's wishes. The hidden message in this is the MORE medical care (like mandatory preventative care and programs), the better. Refusing medical care, even non life threatening, is bad and incompetent. That applies to adults also in today medicine obsessed society.
Big business doesn't rule the country. Big HEALTH CARE does now.
kcr
(15,318 posts)Who is advocating that all medical decisions should be forced by the government? But when a parent is delusional and is making a decision that will kill their child the government should step in and it rightfully did in this case. Your point that she would have to be highly mature to go against her parent's wish only reinforces my point. She isn't an adult making a completely informed decision for herself.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)Her mother would be delusional if she herself refused chemo. The state has a duty to prevent suicide, including for adults in life or death situations. So if delusional Mom needs chemo in a "life and death" situation for herself then the state can prevent her "suicide" by forcing chemo on her too? Extrapolate the situation.
Do you think this too would be good?
kcr
(15,318 posts)And the state shouldn't have to treat them the same and turn children into chattel just to soothe your slippery slope paranoia.
