Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(I haven't read all the replies/ links provided, so maybe something similar has been said.)
I'm surprised that they didn't leave her family/ person in charge any option - since she is a minor, her opinion is not enough.
When our daughter was diagnosed with Wilm's tumor, the doctors gave us a document to sign, on which we could choose among 3 options : cancer treatment (with details about all the risks), no cancer treatment but some palliative care, or no care whatsoever. So we did have a choice to say no.
I said she had the emotional capacity and mental maturity of a ten year old. Her behavior (running away) attests to that. I consider that being mentally challenged. I suspect the court ordered a psychological evaluation, and I would be very surprised if the results placed her at the far right end of the intellectual bell curve. I do not expect those results to be released to the general public, nor should they be.
"Cassandra is not invoking a religious belief in saying no. Nor is she claiming she believes in some form of alternative medicine. According to the teen's mother, Cassandra is refusing chemo because she hates the miserable treatment — hair loss, feeling sick, nausea, and being really tired."
Those are not rational reasons to forgo potentially life-saving treatment, which she appears to be tolerating well from a medical point of view.
I think saying she is mentally challenged is completely wrong. She has a mind of a teenager, she doesn't want to suffer through the treatment. Given the prognosis of Hodgkins, I agree she should get treatment.
Not being in the shoes of the mother it's hard to say what I would do in the situation.
If it was me, I would suffer chemo. I would do it so I could survive for my kids, my family. They need me. It would be selfish to chose to die and leave them behind if there were a chance for me to fight it. I would fight cancer.
I have read this response several times on this thread. Your choice (and other posters') in this situation is irrelevant, and a nonargument to boot. This teenager does NOT want treatment. She's not you. What you would do in her situation is immaterial.
I have read this response several times on this thread. Your choice (and other posters') in this situation is irrelevant, and a nonargument to boot. This teenager does NOT want treatment. She's not you. What you would do in her situation is immaterial.
This teen has the mind of, well, a 17 year old. Chemo makes her feel crappy. She'll lose her hair. (From one picture it looks like she already has lost some of it.) This is a tough one. She's almost 18, almost at the age of consent. But almost doesn't count. I think she needs some unbiased information.
Even if her parents have too much income and too many assets? I'm guessing it depends on the state since I have heard horror stories about parents being expected to spend down over $100,000 of retirement savings before they could get any help for a disabled child.
I said she had the emotional capacity and mental maturity of a ten year old. Her behavior (running away) attests to that. I consider that being mentally challenged.
Depends. Someone who runs away from a very bad home environment involving alcoholism or abuse may indeed be making a rational decision. Such things must be looked at on a case by case basis, not with excessively sweeping generalizations.
At this point, I would question whether these six and seven year olds really did commit suicide or not. Again, suicide requires an intent to permanently end one's own life, not simply an action that results in it. I am skeptical a 6 year old really understands death. You cannot intend to end your own life if you don't know what it is to end one's own life in the first place. However, if they fully understand the ramifications of their actions, then in order to be consistent, we must bite the bullet and accept that they also should have the ability to refuse life-saving medical treatment.
So, if it is determined that a six or seven year old understands death and knows that withholding certain medical treatment will cause his death, than we must "bite the bullet" and let him refuse medical treatment? I tell you, I've heard some crazy stuff in this discussion, but it doesn't get much more loony than this.
Quote:
No. Most assault laws do not simply allow a court to grant such permission "by default". If a court grants permission it must do so explicitly.
Says you. Again, I come back to the fact that legislatures make law and that courts interpret law and you don't. You are entitled to an opinion about what you think the law should be. If the courts order a minor to submit to a medical procedure than that is consent for the contact or touching involved in the medical procedure. Therefore, there is no case of assault. The police aren't coming. If you don't like it, you need to get the law changed to have a rational point.
Quote:
The issue of medical consent is a separate set of statutes from what is assault. Duties to give medical treatment do not amount to an automatic abolition of one's right to be free from assault.
See above.
Quote:
The laws governing medical care in no way supersede or render invalid the laws regarding assault.
I'm afraid they do in this instance. What would make you think they don't? Perhaps, you could share your extensive legal background and knowledge with me. Mine includes a JD Degree, a license to practice law, and thirty years experience handling civil litigation. Oh, and I better mention approximately four courses in Constitutional Law as both an undergraduate and graduate student.
Quote:
Source please?
This law review article from the Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy discusses the mature minor doctrine. The author points out many things. First, its a matter of state law and states can choose not to have this doctrine at all and simply determine these matters based on the age of the patient. In other words, its perfectly legal and constitutional for a state to not have a "mature minor doctrine" and require a minor be 18 to make all medical decisions. If the state has the doctrine, it can severely limit its application. It can require the minor to go to court to establish his/her rights to refuse medical treatment. Those states that do recognize the doctrine often recognize it for limited purposes. A minor may have special authority to consent to an abortion or to treatment for a sexually transmitted disease. The author of this article actually does agree that in some very limited situations minors should be allowed to refuse medical treatment. However, in the last part of the article he focuses on maturity and what it means. He would require a high level of information and proof that the minor had engaged in a great level of introspection before making such a choice. One aspect of this would be being aware that treatment for the disease is 85% successful and despite knowing that electing not to have the treatment. Bonafide religious beliefs may play a role. Than, there is the issue of maturity. In this case, the minor demonstrated a lack of maturity by running away.
Anyway, take a look. Its a far more complex subject than the simple way many here want to approach it.
Not really. The implication of what many are saying here is that parents can do just about any damn thing they want on behalf of their kids. Its disturbing and from a legal standpoint its just not true.
There is a bottom line to this. It is recognized that government has what is called "police power". This is an ancient concept. However, the very reason governments are instituted among people is to regulate the health, welfare, and safety of citizens and of a community. Some people are incapable of acting for themselves because of some sort of disability. That disability may be mental incompetence, physical incompetence, or lack of maturity. Government exists among other reasons to offer those individuals a modicum of protection.
If this girl/woman dies because she refused this treatment because of ignorance her rights are irrelevant because she won't be alive to exercise her rights. Mark my words, her mother will regret her stupidity as well. Sometimes, rarely, it is necessary to act to prevent stupid people from ruining their lives and those of others. Its unfortunate, but a lesson I've learned over my 55 years of life.
I said she had the emotional capacity and mental maturity of a ten year old. Her behavior (running away) attests to that. I consider that being mentally challenged.
You say running away attests to the fact that she has the intellectual capacity of a 10 year old. I tell you it doesn't. How do I know this? Because I lived a very similar situation. My mother was crazy as a loon. I am an intelligent girl. She did all sorts of bad things to me, including stealing my identity when I was only 11 years old and ruining my credit. She also didn't supervise me adequately, we were dirt poor, to the point of eating out of dumpsters (I'm not kidding) and when I moved out of the house, my little sis had no water or gas in the house.
So, when I was a mere 15 years old, my mother threw me out. Before that, I avoided home whenever possible by crashing at other people's houses, taking on night jobs, and basically doing everything I could to avoid her bizarre mood swings and constant excessive demands on my time. And I started college super early. I got my own apartment at age 16 years old after clearing the identity theft mess up. My landlord trusted me after hearing my horrible story. And I never let her down. Being underage doesn't automatically equal immaturity, and being the age of legality doesn't automatically equal maturity. Everyone should understand human behavior to enough to know that. I graduated from college with honors at age 20 and never moved back home. I am 37 now. I must also mention that my own mother passed away several years ago at age 46 from cancer herself. She refused treatment because she didn't want to go through the horrible side effects and she had other health problems that reduced her survival chances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncole1
Depends. Someone who runs away from a very bad home environment involving alcoholism or abuse may indeed be making a rational decision. Such things must be looked at on a case by case basis, not with excessively sweeping generalizations.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
