Do you think forcing this 17 year old girl to undergo chemo to treat her cancer is the right thing to do?

Would it be different if the kid were 18? Remember Terry Schiavo, who the state of Florida wouldn’t let die despite her known directions to the contrary?

AT age 17, the kid is old enough and mature enough to make a decision for herself. Only arrogant, paternalistic, busybodies would deny her autonomy.

Forcing her is inhumane and dehumanizing. Her mother agrees with her – and the mother is the only one – the legal guardian – with the authority to have a say over her daughter.

What the state is doing is the Nanny state at its worst.

I don’t know. At 17 she has her whole life ahead of her. Family, kids, a career, grandkids. She can’t possibly realize what she’s going to miss out on at 17. And she has an 80 to 85 percent chance of survival.
I guess I’d tell her, “If you undergo chemo, and you are cured, you can always commit suicide later, when no one is looking.”

Is the state paying for her treatment? I’m confused.

It has (my opinion) nothing to do with her life in the future. That’s a red herring.

It’s about personal autonomy. The rest is fluff. If some government agency can tell you that you have to live, that same agency can decide that you have to die.

Kind of looks like it @hominid. “A court hearing ensued in which Cassandra’s doctors testified, and she was removed from her mother’s home and placed in state custody so that the state could make medical decisions for her”

Making medical decisions and paying doesn’t necessarily mean the same thing. Although, it hardly matters when you’re dealing with the right to die. Anyway, of course she should be able to refuse treatment.

Well, if she’s in state custody, then they’re paying for it. I mean, that’s how it works. I wish we could fast forward a year, and see what she’d have to say then. Then come right back here!

I think it’s very sad this girl and her family are in this situation. I think the girl should have a say on what she wants to do. The fact that she ran away from home to get away from the chemo says a lot to me. I know if I was in her shoes and being forced to live in a hospital receiving treatment I did not want, I’d be raising hell. I hope this comes to a fast resolution and she can go home soon.

I wonder if she thinks there will be an afterlife?

Absolutely. 80–85% chance of survival is too high to not do it.

I wish they had stated their reasoning in the article, but they didn’t.

I don’t feel comfortable with forcing anyone to accept medical treatment, regardless of their age. Even if she was much younger, I’d want to understand why she was reluctant to accept the treatment. For me, it depends whether she can make a rational and informed choice.

In this case, I wonder to what extent her decision is being influenced by other people (family). Her hair will grow back. I’d imagine they can harvest her eggs to ensure she can still have children should she choose to and her pain can be managed. I can’t see these reasons as sufficient cause to refuse treatment. Has the young woman received adequate counselling from unbiased, objective people to help her understand this though?

Similarly, if she suffers from mental health issues and is suicidal, then I would say she may not be able to make a rational choice for herself at this time. I wouldn’t agree with giving someone who is suffering from depression a gun because they feel like ending their life. I therefore wouldn’t feel okay with withholding treatment from a person who may not be mentally well enough to determine whether the treatment is right for her or not.

“The case will go to the Connecticut Supreme court this week to determine whether the teen, identified in court papers as Cassandra, has “the fundamental right to have a say about what goes on with your [her] body,””

This says it. Think you have rights? Think again. When the state can decide whether or not you get a say in what goes on with your body then you have no autonomy, no rights. When you do not have ownership of even your own body you have nothing.

She is a minor, end of story.

Mature enough to join the Army, but not mature enough to make decisions about her own body huh?

^ Just those society is comfortable allowing her to make ~~

I don’t think this issue would be coming up if she wasn’t a minor. On her 18th birthday she can opt to shut everything down if she still wants to. She could change her mind. I mean, wouldn’t it be horrible if she was on her death bed with such regret for not opting for the chemo, and now it’s too late?

I think it’s a sad thing that we need a mandatory magical age when people are suddenly legal adults and one day before that, we are treated like 10 year olds. I think it’s ridiculous that whatever the court decides, she’ll be free and legal to just walk out of treatment a few months from now—possibly even before the trial is finished for all we know.

We have no idea why she doesn’t want treatment. We probably will never know. But in a few months, whatever the court decides won’t matter.

I am going to amend my answer a little. I don’t know a ton about that cancer, but I know it is typically curable for the majority of people diagnosed, especially in the early stages. What I should have asked before answering is what is the prognosis for survival if she doesn’t do the rest of the chemo? Possibly she already has had radiation or will and that might be enough. I think it is treated with radiation as well.

I’m just thinking about my friend who was diagnosed with breast cancer in her early 40’s. She had a lumpectomy, chemo and radiation. That particular chemo ravages women, it’s brutal. The cancer was very small and the lumpectomy showed clear borders. It hadn’t spread anywhere as far as they could tell. She had the option of chemo and radiation, supposedly to assure more prevention against a reoccurrence. She works in the medical field and tends to have that outlook that if doctors recommend it, it must be the right thing to do. I told my husband I would not have done the chemo and radiation in the same situation.

Now, 15 years later, they usually don’t recommend doing the chemo and radiation in a similar situation to hers, because when they finally analyzed the data, the outcomes weren’t statistically significantly different for those who did and those who went through it.

All that treatment plunged her into menopause and radiation runs risks of causing other cancers and can damage the arteries leading to heart troubles.

Some cancer treatments have incredible cure rates and the treatment is worth suffering through. Some cancers have horrible treatments and have very very low cure rates. No one should be forced to go through treatment if it is only going to extend their life a few months or years.

If she had pancreatic cancer that was operable I would help tie her down to force her to have surgery. If she had pancreatic cancer that was inoperable I would be signing the petition to let her refuse all treatment. We really need more information.

Here is a detailed article about Hodgkins and the treatment and chances of survival.

I just wanted to add. I think she’s making a stupid decision. I can’t think of a good reason not to have the treatment when the success rate is amazingly high. But a few months from now, she’ll legally be allowed to make this stupid decision. But because she hasn’t reached that magical age yet, she’s a child, too immature to make this decision.

That’s the rub. In a few months, it won’t matter at all. They wasted all this time and energy to spend a ton of money and save someone who doesn’t want to be saved.

I don’t understand why the patents are going along with what their daughter wants? Are they just hoping the courts will force her so they don’t have to?

Maybe, @JLeslie , the parents have respect for their daughter and her autonomy. Unlike the state.

^^^Maybe the chemo has been especially terrible for her is all I can guess. Her autonomy wouldn’t mean shit to most parents if she has a very high chance of beating the cancer permanently with the treatment.

I remember the pain of being attacked by my own body at that age, and how I just wanted it all to end. Thing is, it’s now 5 years later and I’m so glad to be alive.

This is really sad. She is probably so caught up in the torment of the present that she can’t even see past it into the future.

But autonomy is important.

Shit, I don’t know what to say. She’s a minor, but she’s old enough to make informed decisions. If she were a six year old I’d say her decisions can be overruled due to lack of informed opinion, but where does the cutoff lie? Legally, at 18, even though we know that a 17 year old is smart enough to make the decision too.

Anyway, if it’s what she wants, she should be allowed to refuse treatment. It’s not like her decision is harming someone besides herself (other than emotionally, of course).

I feel really conflicting feelings about this. It’s a hard situation.

@Mariah A 17 year old barely understands what life is like. Their perspective is very narrow. They have little to zero idea of the happiness they most likely will go on to have as an adult. Teens often are depressed even without being sick.

I assume children with illnesses have a different perspective than well children. They probably have a deeper sense of appreciation and gratitude for happy and pain free times, but still, they don’t know what the future holds. What adulthood will be. They can’t accurately guess if it is worth giving up.

A 10th grader can fairly accurately guess what 11th grade will be like. Just like a 40 year old can pretty accurately guess what 45 will be like. But, a 17 year old can’t accurately guess what 35 will feel like, be like. So, the 17 year old doesn’t know what she is giving up.

Stupid decision or not it’s her decision to make, no one else’s. Not her parent’s, not her doctor’s, not the state’s, not even the us all-knowing sages here on Fluther.

@JLeslie Do they magically gain that perspective once they turn 18 though? That’s the thing that’s wigging me out about this. Like I agree that at 17 there is a LOT that people don’t know…but the law would treat her completely differently at the stroke of her 18th birthday and that isn’t right either.

@Darth_Algar I think I agree with you but one thing I’m wondering is if you’d say this for a person of any age, or is it just because you think 17 is mature enough? If the latter, what would be your cut off?

I am so glad I’m not the person who has to decide how to handle this legally. There are some things in life that just stump me.

I think 17 is mature enough. As for what the cutoff is, I don’t know. One thing I do know is that I’ll never get behind the state forcing anybody of any age to undergo any medical procedure against their will.

@Mariah 18 will not cause some sort of magical transformation. Luckily, she is 17. Mind you, I am going on the assumption that she is not having an unusually bad reaction to the chemo and that if she gets rid of the cancer she will be back to 100% eventually.

When my neighbor’s nephew developed cancer at age 21 he went through a hellish treatment. He had to get dental work done, go through all sorts of other things, to prepare for a bone marrow transplant. The dental work was to be sure he had minimum risk of infection, it had nothing to do with the cancer directly. Some sort of blood cancer if I remember correctly. He did everything, suffered greatly, and it didn’t work.

The doctors wanted to do the treatment a second time. He would have to build up strength and then be taken through a horrific process again. He didn’t want to do it. I asked my neighbor his chances. I couldn’t understand why the same treatment might work this time. She said he had a 20% chance. I said, I don’t think I would do it. His mother begged him to do it. Begged. He did it. Then he died. How the mom lives with pushing him through it I don’t know. For her, I hope she still feels it was worth trying. For me, not being his mother, I wish he would have been allowed to choose to die sooner and not have gone through what he did. I don’t even believe the 20% statistic.

It really depends a lot on the particular circumstances.

It’s insane to me that the government could tell somebody what to do with their body when nobody else’s wellbeing is on the line except the girl. It’s insane to me that a girl would throw away an 80% shot at 60+ more years of life due to temporary hardship. I don’t know which is more insane.

I truly believe that if she is forced to do the chemo, that is a decision that everybody involved will be happy with 5 years from now. But it’s really overstepping a line, to me, to force someone to go through a medical procedure.

I guess it really boils down to whether the ends justify the means?

@Mariah It is an ethical dilemma. I do agree with that.

I can completely understand a 17 year old not wanting to go through a treatment, depending on what the treatment is. I’m phobic about throwing up. I was much much more so when I was younger. The idea of chemo that causes days and weeks of nausea and puking was one of the worst things in the world I could imagine. I could see myself as a teen be willing to die to avoid it.

So I wonder then, since you said “Luckily, she is 17,” do you think the cut off age here is too low? An 18 year old also wouldn’t be mature enough to decide to die?

I hope it’s coming across correctly,I’m not trying to interrogate, just want to pull more perspectives and insight out of people.

@Mariah If it came down to a vote of where the age of majority cut off should be, I would not vote to raise the age. In fact, I have said that I think it is ridiculous our drinking age is 21, I think it should be 18.

There have been studies of the brain, and how it’s development is not really “complete” until around age 25. I say complete for lack if a better word. The brain continues to change, evolve and learn throughout our lives. Basically, the 25 year old number is referring to the young person’s ability to understand consequences. Which, ironically is what we are discussing. Also, other studies show as we age we feel more happiness and less emotional pain. These are averages of course, it varies for individuals and specific circumstances.

Knowing all of that, I still go with age 18. However, college is a convenient way to allow adolescence to stretch out and not have to be completely independent yet.

Think about this. Our legal system allows children to commit criminal acts and we give them lesser punishments than adults and even bury their record after age 18, because we believe as a society they can’t be responsible fully for making those bad decisions. The government acknowledges their brains don’t understand the consequences fully.

Now, just to contradict myself, I think a 17 year old should be able to get an abortion without any need for consent from a parent. There is a possibility she will regret it, but I don’t care. I also don’t want the government saying she can’t have the abortion or that she needs a parents to sign for it.

Our legal system also allows those under 18 to be tried as adults if circumstances warrant. Not sure if that’s a good measuring stick to use.

@Darth_Algar I thought of that, but still felt the example was fitting. Although, maybe it does show we should have exceptions and even force 18 year olds into medical treatment?

I don’t know. It gives me a sick feeling also to force someone through a difficult treatment.

It’s definitely complicated. Like I said, an ethical dilemma.

I think it is right to force her to undergo the treatment. I don’t even think someone at 25 should be able to opt into death if your odds of survival are that good. This will sound dickish but she probably cares more about losing all her hair than dying. Kids are fucking stupid.

If she really wants to die that sheet she is sleeping on can help speed up the process.

And, if you think this is a overreach of government into health-care. Transvaginal ultrasound

You know, it’s possible to hold the opinion that both are a governmental overreach.

@johnpowell One thing I wondered about the ultrasound is if it is routinely done to determine the gestational age anyway? I’ve never had an abortion, but I know you can’t trust a 16 year old to know the date she got pregnant. A few weeks pregnant it would be unnecessary I guess, since the hormone level would be very low, but several weeks and you need to determine the date well to know if you can do a drug induced abortion or need to wait for a regular abortion.

I agree, I don’t want a law about it. Not one decided by politicians anyway. But, that law doesn’t put me up in arms like the laws about notifying parents and having to wait a week to get one.

For the record, Oncologists use the word “remission” rather than “cure” for discussing cancer outcomes. And there are routinely excellent anti-nausea medications administed either by IV during chemo and/or with pills that prevent most nausea or vomiting. “The idea of chemo that causes days and weeks of nausea and puking” is no longer true in the case of most cancer treatments.

@gailcalled I know. I am talking about my perception as a teenager. Don’t worry, I was sure to ask for Zofran or similar when I had surgery and when I was given a “cancer” drug to get rid of my ectopic pregnancy.

@johnpowell ”This will sound dickish but she probably cares more about losing all her hair than dying. Kids are fucking stupid.” OK, that made me laugh! That probably summed my feelings up more than anything else. The priorities of teenagers can be ridiculous.

I have to agree that that magic date, the date you turn 18, is ridiculous in so many ways, but, on the other hand, there has to be some yardstick. It’s just like the poverty level. If you have 4 kids you’re trying to support, and you’re making $14, 500 a year you’re OK. You get some assistance, such as food stamps and medical for the kids. But if you make $14,501 a year, you’re SOL. They cut you off.

@JLeslie :: If you think the Transvaginal ultrasound is about anything medical you are deluded. It is about control of women and making the process of abortion as horrible as possible to make Jesus and constituents happy.

@johnpowell I do believe the republicans did the ultrasound thing because of Jesus and bullshit, but I also wonder if they do them anyway to determine gestational age. All my pregnancies failed (I wanted to be pregnant) so I don’t know the routine regarding abortions. I certainly don’t want a woman to be ordered to do an ultrasound by the government, nor do I want her to pay for an unnecessary procedure.

Just found this update

”A Connecticut teenager fighting cancer said she wants to refuse chemotherapy because she is interested in the quality of what life she has left, “not the quantity.” ” Does that reasoning even make sense? If she is cured, she’ll have quality AND quantity.

^ Of course it makes sense. Once she is dead, she won’t miss the extra years.

It doesn’t make sense, because this is not a discussion of quality of life with only a few months or years left that will be debilitating til the day she dies. If she had pancreatic cancer with a guess of two years to live and wanted to nottaie any treatment and accept she will probably die instead within 6 months, I would be right on her side adamant she gets to choose. Most likely she will have a shitty time during treatment and then recover and be for the most part a healthy woman, maybe without any lasting effects from the chemo. I say court order her and tie her down. I don’t see any information that she is very likely to have long lasting bad effects. If someone can provide that sort of information I might change my mind.

The pain of dying from the cancer will be greater than the pain of the chemo therapy.

@chyna Great point.

It’s a pretty sure bet during her dying final months she will regret her decision. Take her to the cancer ward where there are dying teenagers in the last stages before dying and let her talk to them. Let her see them in pain and puking and skinny from wasting.

What arrogance!!

“I’m sure she will regret..” @JLeslie
“I say “tie her down””” @JLeslie

How nice it is to be an omniscient god to know the girl’s feelings. I envy you the assuredness that is projected by ruling over another person’s life.

The kid is going to be 18 in a few months, not matter how many people screw with her autonomy, she can make her own decision at that point.

Hopefully she will have seen the benefits of the Chemo by then.

I agree with you, BTW @JLeslie.

@elbanditoroso Right, at 18 she can do whatever she wants.

How old are you?

Pretty much adults can guess better than her what she will regret. We can’t be sure for every individual, but odds are that people who have been through being 17 and now are over the age of 35 know better than her. Even for herself. I’m all for getting her someone to talk to about it, like a therapist, and letting her talk to people with cancer and who have survived cancer to give her more information in her decision.

If there are extenuiting circumstances that make this atypical I might change my mind for her particular case.

@JLeslie

What gives you, the state or anyone else the right to say “tie her down” and force her to undergo a medical procedure that she doesn’t want (even if you do “know better than her”)?

I mean, how many people are determined to commit suicide but change their minds and call 911 instead, like if they’ve ingested a boat load of pills or something? That last minute is what @JLeslie is referring to. I agree that she’ll regret it at the last moment and wish she’d done it differently.
If they get her well, then she can go commit suicide at her convenience.

So, “hey, kill yourself if you want, but you have to undergo this medical treatment that you don’t want first”. Awesome.

To give her the chance to change her mind. Once you’re dead, you’re dead. You can’t change your mind, there is no such thing as reincarnation or an afterlife. You’re just gone and you’re never coming back.

Your logic makes no sense here. Suicide, a rash decision that’s rarely thought out, would be acceptable if she chooses, but refusing treatment here, a decision in which she’s had a lot of time to think about and clearly has opted against, is not acceptable in case she changes her mind?

She has no idea what the magnitude of the decision she is making. And if her logic is “quality” of life, that just proves it. I imagine dying of cancer is a long, painful drawn out process and irreversible. Chemo will make her sick and cause her to lose her hair, but she’ll get better and her hair will grow back.
Hell, maybe she’s worried that she’ll never get a boyfriend or something.

Gotta love the assumption that this kid’s priorities are jumbled up simply because she’s a minor. Age does not equal common sense. Remember, everyone: Stupid people grow old, too!

There is just no way for this kid to have the experience to understand this decision. Hell, at that age I was immortal.

^ I have three questions:
1. Do you think you’re better suited for this kind of decision?
2. How does anyone understand a decision like hers?
3. Do you think everyone believes themselves to be immortal at 17?

Pretty sure everyone thinks they’re immortal at 17.

^ I have two more questions:
1. Is that based on just your personal experience, or anything more substantial?
2. Did you know you are either an inattentive reader, or not very thorough?

She’s 17, rebellious, and has a totally curable condition. She needs therapy.

Who on Earth does have the experience to understand this kind of decision? As far as I’m aware of no one’s ever had the experience of dying and then being able to relay that experience to others.

They can relay it up to the point they actually die. They can relay about the pain and the fear and denial and the anger and the sadness.

And? Ether option before this girl entails pain and suffering. The crux of the opposition here seems to be the girl dying (which, apparently is ok as long as she waits until after she’s had this treatment forced upon her, then she can die all she wants), not what pain she’s going to be in beforehand.

@Dutchess_III…and they will be telling their story. Not hers.

People kill themselves every day. Objectively, this girl has more reason than many others. Subjectively which is what counts, who knows?

But in one scenario she lives. In the other, she dies.

Well, if she had a 5% chance I’d agree. But she has an 80 to 85% chance of living!

In both scenarios, the pain is gone. That, apparently, is what counts to her.

@Dutchess_III “But in one scenario she lives. In the other, she dies.”

“If they get her well, then she can go commit suicide at her convenience”

Your concern doesn’t seem to be much with her living.

I wish Rarebear was here. He would know which would be worse. The chemo, which would cure her, or that actual dying of cancer part, which has to be hell too.

We don’t even know that the cancer is her real reason.

Be that as it may it’s not Rarebear’s call to make ether. I mean I wouldn’t necessarily make the same decision this girl is making, but I’m not her. It’s not my body and it’s not my life. It’s hers and no one else should be allowed to take that choice from her. That’s what I find disturbing about this: the notion that the state can force someone to undergo a medical procedure they don’t want, and that there are people in support of that.

She said she is concerned about the quality of life, rather than the quantity. Well, the quality of life for her, at the end, is going to be absolute shit and it might be shit for a long time.

There are ways to keep people comfortable as they are dying from cancer (hospice). If this was an older person, people would be arguing for their right to a death with dignity and the right to choose for themselves. What ever is going on, I believe this girl should have a choice. While her choice may not be what I would choose for myself, I believe it is hers to make. I hate the idea of the state taking that right to choose from this girl and her parents. I also hate the idea of “tying her down and making her get it”. Patients have the right to refuse care.

Maybe she has reasons beyond that, reason that she does not wish to publicly state. Regardless, that doesn’t matter. This should be her choice and hers alone, whatever her reasons may be.

Pain of dying >>>>> annoyance of chemo.

Let’s ask a bunch of people who are currently dying from cancer at age 17 or lived through cancer as a teen and are now adults. If they all say tie her down, then is it ok?

I’m the first one to want to allow people to die when it is hopeless. I don’t believe in trying to save 5 month fetuses that are born early. I don’t believe in forcing medical treatment to simply extend life for a short time. I don’t believe in pushing treatment that had almost no hope of working.

This is completely different.

Are any of the jellies who think she should be allowed to choose over the age of 35? If so, I admit I am surprised, although I am sure there are older adults out there who would agree. If you are under 35 I suggest that when you are older you will probably think differently about this. Just be open to it. Be open to the idea that as we age our perspective changes.

Just like you understand some things better at age 22 than when you are 12. The learning curve continues. You will shocked at 45 how you have changed from age 35.

The learning curve may continue, but I don’t believe that matters. A lot can happen over the years, good and bad. While I may not be 35 yet (will be next year), I work in the medical field. I have worked on oncology units as a nurse and would never agree to forcing chemotherapy on someone. It is not my place to force my beliefs about medicine on a patient. Just as it should not be the state’s place in this case.

If we were to say someone couldn’t make a decision for themselves regarding their medical care and potential death because they weren’t old enough to know better, we would never allow people to make such decisions. We all grow and change over time, but that should not cause us to be unable to make choices for ourselves in the here and now. At what age would we finally say someone could make such decisions? Our perspectives will always have the possibility of changing as we age.

Not to mention, what kind of quality of life does she have right now, and for the next 6 months of treatment, being tied down to a bed and forced to live in the hospital to undergo this treatment she does not want? I read an article today that stated she has been tied down (restrained) and sedated for the insertion of an indwelling port. So not only does she have to receive the chemotherapy, but they also performed a procedure to insert an indwelling port to administer the chemotherapy. Imagine spending six months this way, would any of you really be happy about it? What if the chemo doesn’t work? What would you say to her then, after forcing her to spend these months in this condition?

You make excellent points @Seaofclouds. I would not be happy, but I would have the experience to know that at the end of the 6 months I will be done and have 60 more years to live. For a 17 year old, 6 months may as well be a lifetime, when we all know, 6 months goes by in a snap in retrospect.

@Dutchess_III
– that’s just the problem. YOU might be happy about having 60 more years to live, if the chemo worked.

You are not the girl. You’re imputing YOUR values on her.

@Dutchess_III Not necessarily. You are counting on the chemotherapy working and having no other problems afterward. There is no guarantee that will be the case (80–85% survival is not a guarantee). Depending on how she takes this whole situation, it could leave her psychologically and emotionally scarred for the rest of her life. Six months of imprisonment and forced treatment would not easily be forgotten. There is more to the quality of life than surviving the cancer.

For all those that seem to believe this girl will have nothing to worry about once she completes the course of chemotherapy and is “cured”, here is some reading on late effects of chemotherapy. It is said that more than two thirds of cancer survivors will experience late effects from their cancer treatment. As our treatment of cancer has evolved and improved (meaning more remission and “cures”), we have seen an increase it the damage the side effects cause to the body. Just more to think about when we deem it’s perfectly acceptable to force someone into such a situation.

As I said, we are lacking the information about the most likely long term effects of the treatment. I do care about that, and it might change my mind.

If this girl was 9 years old no one would blink that the parents were going to do treatment assuming the treatment is not terribly abusive and the long term prognosis is very good. The 9 year kid wouldn’t want to do it either most likely. They don’t want to get a needle or be sick.

I know plenty of people who have been through chemotherapy, one of them in particular I didn’t think she should do it and I still think she shouldn’t have, but she doesn’t regret it. Another, I think I described him above, I think they should have let him die after the first set if treatment, which was a bone marrow transplant, didn’t work, but they tried again. He didn’t want to do it, but he did. He was in his early 20’s. He didn’t want to die, but he didn’t want to go through the process for such low odds of success.

The girl certainly can hang herself tomorrow if she wants to die.

All of you saying she should be able to choose to refuse the meds, what if you came home and found your teenager or sibling dying (God forbid) from an overdose with the suicide note next to them? Would you watch them die? Or, would you call the ambulance, have them stuck with IV’s, stomach pumped, shocked if their heart went haywire, and drugs pushed into them to keep their blood pressure up and whatever else needed to be done?

17 year olds are notoriously depressed and borderline suicidal even when they are perfectly physically healthy. They aren’t trustworthy to judge life.

@JLeslie “Let’s ask a bunch of people who are currently dying from cancer at age 17 or lived through cancer as a teen and are now adults. If they all say tie her down, then is it ok?”

No, because it’s not their body, their life or their choice to make.

“Are any of the jellies who think she should be allowed to choose over the age of 35? If so, I admit I am surprised”

Yes. Now stop assuming that age gives you some kind of special insight that others lack.

Pain of dying >>>>> annoyance of chemo.

“Chemo is more than annoying but doable. There are lots of unpleasant side effects but they usually are temporary. “Doable” means different things to different people, of course.

Today there is also very sophisticated integrative medical counselling programs… Dana Farber in Boston has a wonderful group of retired MDs who offer the service, usually an hour’s free consult that is three-pronged; nutritional, physical activity, and stress/symptom management. They suggest a donation to Dana Farber if you can afford it.

”A plant-base diet and physical activity imprives cancer outcomes” is a direct quote from Dr. David Rosenthal, one of the Dana Farber counsellors.

Oncologists are encouraging patients who undergo chemo to try acupuncture, Reiki and massage.

@seaofclouds Will it be 6 months of chemo? I missed that in the article.

@JLeslie Yes, I read it is six months of chemo.

@Seaofclouds Do you know how frequent the treatments are?

One more question. Did they put the port in, because she in uncooperative? Or, is that standard? I know my BIL had a port for his colon cancer treatment, but I don’t remember that for my breast cancer friends.

I’m glad they sedated her for the port.

Kids get restrained all the time for procedures. It’s horrific and I know she is not a small child, so it’s quite upsetting they had to do it. Believe me it does bother me. I remember being in an emergency room and a young child was freaking out about getting something done. I think it could have been handled better. The ER doctor seemed to not give a shit and didn’t try to use the mom to help comfort the child into compliance. The mother didn’t make any suggestions either, just went along. Maybe they’ve tried other ways before. I don’t know.

In a way had it happen to me after my accident. The nurse wouldn’t listen to me to do an IV in a different part of my body and did it where he wanted to against my will. It still troubles me to this day. Especially since they easily could have done it in another location. I begged. He caused my a lot of pain when I already was in incredible pain. Not that I compare my hospital experience to cancer and chemo. I’m just saying even that is very troubling to me.

A mediport is standard for many cancers and obviates needing to be stuck in the arm for every blood draw (fluid going out) and chemotherapy (fluids going in.) The procedure to install it is quick, although done in a sterile OR, and the port itself is almost invisible.

Many chemos are every three weeks.

I read more about this and gained some new perspective which changes the situation a bit, for me. It sounds like the mother might be one of those people who mistrusts western medicine to the point of trying to treat cancer with bullshit snake oil.

Normally the parents have final say over children’s medical decisions. The state is taking control in this case because it is believed that the parents aren’t competent.

The question is, do we let a child die because she has been indoctrinated into pseudo-science by her parents? Many 17 year olds aren’t thinking too independently from their parents yet and that appears to be the case here.

Do you have a link to where you got all this info from? That does put it in a different light.

@Mariah This is a totally new story then.

@chyna @Mariah – ALTHOUGH that’s interesting, I am not sure it’s a whole new story. It’s sort of a tangent.

If anything, it’s a further indictment of the state of Connecticut for reaching into the lives of a family, disapproving of the family’s beliefs, and acting as the nanny state and taking away the parent’s rights in addition to the girl’s rights. Not only is the state running roughshod over the girl, but now over the parent’s right to care for the child.

This is wrong.

The mother was not abusing the girl. The mother has her own set of beliefs (which I do not agree with*, but it is legal in this country for people to mistrust western medicine.

If, @Mariah , what you wrote is the case (and I haven’t seen any corroboration), then what the state did is DOUBLY bad.

I disagree. Your logic would apply to a child of any age. If we let a wacko parent make a horrible decision on behalf of a 17 year old, then we let them make a horrible decision for a one year old.

@Dutchess_III – draw me the line, then.

At what point does the state have the right to countermand the wishes of the patient and the parent?

If the state has the right to jump in, they can jump in to any family at any time and say that you are not raising your child to state standards. That is scary.

Can the state require a parent to take a child to church? Your logic would say yes, as long as state policy said that church was a beneficial thing for the child.

When the child will die without treatment, and will live with treatment.

The state doesn’t have the right to jump into any family at any time. Don’t exaggerate.

If the state said they had to go to church that would be illegal and unconstitutional.

From this article

Mom says, “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.”

That didn’t even make sense.

At one point I wondered about the mother. Very few mother’s would be ok with their 17 year old daughter not doing the treatment.

@JLeslie I forget how often they said the treatments would be, but the girl will be forced to stay in patient in the hospital during the whole time period of the treatment. My understanding is that this is so they can make sure she gets the treatment. I don’t know what alternative treatments this family was hoping to look into, but I did read they wanted to seek alternatives to chemo.

As a mother, I hope to never face this situation. I would want my child to have the chemo, but if my 17 year old came to me and didn’t want it, I would have to talk to them about it and find out what they are thinking. I dont know what I would do. Part of me says push for it and make them do it, but part of me would want to honor my child’s wishes and advocate for them. It’s a tough decision and one I hope to never be forced to make.

@Seaofclouds Your child would probably not refuse to do it.

Steve Jobs decided to go the natural route and that is why he is dead. If I remember correctly he regretted his decision. He was an adult when he was diagnosed of course. Suzanne Somers who refused either chemo or radiation for her breast cancer, I don’t remember which, or maybe both, and she is big time natural pill popper and vitamins and minerals, and against a lot of cancer chemo treatments says even she believes in taking chemo that has proven extremely good cure rates.

I’m all for doing natural things to improve chances and also all for weighing the risks and if treatment has a low likelihood of working, I respect someone’s decision to not acceot treatment.

@Seaofclouds, totally agree with your second paragraph. I think I’d have to try to find an advocate who could ensure my child had the right information and support, without the emotion I would bring to the situation. Just to make sure I didn’t try to railroad them into doing what I wanted rather than what they wanted. I’d want to be sure they were coming from a very informed place when making those decisions.

@JLeslie I know a lot of cancer patients that never regretted not doing chemo. They all had their reasons for not doing it. This girl may or may not have regretted her decision. We will never know since she is not being allowed to make the choice for herself. I wonder if Conneticut would force a 17 year old Jehovah’s Witness to get blood if she and her family wanted to refuse. I really wonder where they would draw the line.

Probably the state would force it. Sometimes the parents are relieved the state interviened.

Steve Jobs opted not to do surgery.

I cannot find the article I read before, but @Dutchess_III‘s quote is the same one I read. “It’s not even a matter of dying” was the specific part that freaked me out. The mother is not even acknowledging that cancer could (will) kill her child if she doesn’t get the chemo.

I really feel, given the new information, that this girl has been brainwashed into thinking that chemo will ruin her body so badly that she’ll have a terrible life afterwards. Sad. I am starting to feel better about the fact that the state is stepping in to override the decision of her parents.

@JLeslie: Yoiu are not remembering correctly. Steve Jobs did have the surgery; he just waited too long.

“Jobs did not elect it right away. He reportedly spent nine months on “alternative therapies,” including what Fortune called “a special diet.” But when a scan showed that the original tumor had grown, he finally had it removed on July 31, 2004, at Stanford University Medical Clinic.”

“The surgery removed the right side of the pancreas, the gallbladder, and parts of the stomach, bile duct, and small intestine.” Source

@gailcalled That’s my mistake. I read he did regret it though. Pancreatic cancer discovered early enough for surgery is an extremely rare gift (if we can use gift and pancreatic cancer in the same sentence), he passed on the gift.

At this point I’m kind of musing…if the kid makes it through, what is she going to think when she’s 35, has her kids, has a life of her own, has seen parts of the world for the first time, has experienced awe…..what is she going to think about her Mom backing her choice to die at 17?

@Dutchess_III That’s if she can have children. Chemo can lead to infertility. Often they will harvest and store a females eggs prior to beginning chemo, just to be safe. I don’t know if they did that for her before this all started. I hope for her sake that she manages to come out of this with a positive attitude in the long run. I’m more worried about built up resentment and anger after being forced into this situation. I can only imagine how she will feel about hospitals and doctors after all they have put her through.

@Seaofclouds wrote: I can only imagine how she will feel about hospitals and doctors after all they have put her through.

…to which I will add (if she is alive) ... I wonder how strong her trust in governmental power will be

@Seaofclouds She can kill herself at any time if her life is miserable. Not that it makes suffering through treatment ok or insignificant, but she doesn’t have to live with her resentment if she chooses not to.

I think it is more likely she winds up grateful later in life, but certainly it could go the other way. No way to predict. She might resent her mom, resent the government, be grateful for the government, none of us know for sure.

I love this “kill yourself after if you want, but you must go through this treatment that you don’t want first” line of thought.

There is always adoption @Seaofclouds.

I just think she is being a child, unable to actually see beyond today, and I’m shocked that her mother supports her.

@JLeslie “She can kill herself at any time if her life is miserable.”

But…she’s trying to do just that.

But I don’t think she fully understands the meaning of the word die. I mean, whenever I hear of a teenager committing suicide, that’s the first thing that comes to my mind. They didn’t really understand what they were doing.

And she’s not trying to commit “suicide.” She’s just refusing treatment, which will end with her dying. Now, if they get her cured and she wants to die after that, that’s up to her. But I bet she won’t want to.

^ Ah, that. Yeah. My friend committed suicide a year ago. He was quite a bit younger than that magic age of 35, but from the letter he wrote, and the way he did it…yeah, he knew what he was doing. He was dead set, and he must have been in so much pain before he did it.

I hate that no-one was able to help him, but I’d still defend his right to die. Pain is pain, no matter how old you are.

I’m sorry about your friend.

The thing is, there is no hint that the girl WANTED to die before all of this started.

Thank you.

I realize this is anecdotal, but it may be interesting anyway: Before said friend drove off to kill himself, he was the happiest person I knew. Smart, well-adjusted, stable home, lots of friends. I don’t pretend to understand why people want to kill themselves – I’m glad I don’t understand. The point is, if life is bad enough, I want everyone to have a way out. Even if they’re only thirteen, like the formerly-depressed kid who is buried next to my friend was.

To me it is so sad because so many people don’t realize that there is nothing after death. Nothing. This is the one life you were given. Against a trillion odds, you were born.

@Dutchess_III “he thing is, there is no hint that the girl WANTED to die before all of this started.”

Because you know the girl so well huh?

I don’t think 35 is a magic age. I also don’t think 18 is a magic age.

I also said if she winds up after the fact wanting to kill herself it will be awful she was put through the treatment.

I agree with all of those things. I’m just playing the odds.

She is not suicidal in an active manner. She is passively suicidal, willing to let death happen.

Many people who attempt suicide don’t want to die. They want to be out of their pain.

For the record I don’t think offering adoption is a comfort to someone who is going to most likely lose their fertility, unless they happen to always be open to adoption in the first place.

Plus, if the treatment drives her into menopause that sucks at her age. I don’t know the likelihood with this specific treatment.

@Darth You don’t know her either, none of us do. We are talking in generalities, and generally speaking 17 year olds aren’t very well equipped to make the decision. Especially if the mother is anti medical.

Correct, I don’t know her. Which is exactly why I’m saying the choice is hers and hers alone to make. Not mine, not your’s, not hers doctors’ and certainly not the state’s.

What if she was 6?

@Darth_Algar I would assume that if she had been suicidal before there would have been some mention in the articles I’ve read on it, because they listed her reasons. That would be a big reason to list. But they only said something about “Quality not quantity.” Well, she obviously is thinking with an undeveloped thought process. The quality will be bad, no matter which road she takes.

@Dutchess_III “What if she was 6?”

Still would not give the state the right to force medical procedures on her.

@Dutchess_III

You assume with no basis to assume upon. You assume simply because you haven’t read it. The thing with suicidal people is that often times even those closest to them have no idea they’re suicidal.

And you’re assuming she was suicidal?

If a judge made the ruling I assume he got to know her a little, there were people on both sides presenting their case. I would hope an advocate was assigned to her. Her mother agreed with the daughter, which means an adult was there to help her defend her position or hire a lawyer to defend her.

@Dutchess_III

I’m assuming neither. I’m saying she has her reasons, whatever they may be, and that it’s her body, her life, her call.

Do we let children refuce vaccines? They don’t usually want a shot.

The reasons listed int the article that it’s her quality of life that’s important, not quantity. Which is utterly illogical.

Good point @JLeslie.

Vaccines are not an invasive medical procedure and remaining unvaccinated puts others at risk. No one else is put at risk by this woman’s decision to refuse treatment for her cancer. If you’re going to make comparisons at least try to make sure they’re even remotely comparable.

The kids think it’s invasive.

You know you’re really clutching at straws now, right?

No. You said, “What if she was 6?” Still would not give the state the right to force medical procedures on her.

Last I heard vaccinations are a medical procedure. Not an invasive one like chemo, but a medical procedure none the less. And the kid doesn’t want to do it. So we forced them.

You know goddamn good and well what was meant by my statement. All you’re doing now is attempting to muddy the water.

@Dutchess_III Not all parents force their children to get vaccinations. Are we taking those children away from their parents and keeping them in hospitals until they receive the full vaccination schedule?

Not yet. I bet the government will start to try to interviene if enough parents stop vaccinating. It would have to be a lot, I would say once we get to the 20%+ mark for certain disease the government might start doing more. Measles (actually we have an outbreak of measles right now in the US. Ground zero seems to be Disneyland in California) would be one the government would clamp down on I bet. Kids already are vaccinated in the hospital when first born and most parents don’t even know it’s happening.

If there was an outbreak of small pox I bet the government would do something. That vaccine has a fairly high incidents of bad side effects. First we would just try to contain the people who are infected obviously. Almost no one under the age of 43 has immunity.

Some schools try to deny entry if the kids aren’t vaccinated.

Just to throw this out: You can’t work in the health care field if you haven’t been vaccinated.

If we as a people don’t unite to protect this girl’s right to her own physical autonomy, then we will become a doctatorship! ;-o

@Brian1946 – what do you mean – “will become”? In many ways, we’re there already.