U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-15-2015, 06:20 AM
 
9,056 posts, read 6,736,126 times
Reputation: 11008

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ncole1 View Post
Ok, well then maybe we need to re-think the usage of a mental capacity criterion in adult cases as well. If I accept your pretense, this would be necessary to be consistent.

Would a society of fully emancipated 8th graders be problematic? I don't know, in fact no one really knows the answer to such questions. Suffice it to say that the idea that they are simply not mature enough to make responsible life choices is not supported by data. In The Case Against Adolescence, psychologist Robert Epstein shows that neither historical evidence, nor biological considerations, nor direct behavioral studies, lend credence to the widely held view that adolescents are immature and incompetent at making decisions for themselves.

To defend the common view (which, as I am arguing here, seems flawed) that individuals in that life stage are too immature to make their own decisions, one must first address the issue of how one can determine what behaviors constitute evidence of maturity, of lack thereof. And there must be a fair method of making such an assessment, at least in principle. Otherwise what you say about the ages at which people possess sufficient maturity levels is something you basically just made up, with no reasoned analysis to support it.
It's not something I made up, it's something I witness. Good lawd, I don't need a study to tell me 13 year olds (as a whole) are immature.

It's also something I understand after living a decently long life so far myself and acquiring a bit of hindsight along the way.

Cassandra is not making her own decision, btw, she's obviously heavily influenced by her mother - who's informed medical opinion on the matter is this "It's not even a matter of dying. She's not gonna die. She doesn't want to die," Fortin said.

Well in that case, obviously there's nothing to worry about, is there?


I support the "right" of kids to make decisions about a lot of things that will influence their future (and I don't think parents are an infallible source of wisdom and direction) - except and unless it's something that will result in an irreversible and irrevocable outcome - you know, like death.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-15-2015, 07:02 AM
 
8,323 posts, read 8,602,376 times
Reputation: 25991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scooby Snacks View Post
You keep repeating this mantra that Cassandra has probably had a psychological evaluation. There is no evidence of that. And even if she has had a psychological evaluation, and the results made Cassandra look competent to make this decision, releasing it to the public would not benefit her, since she is still being forced to undergo the treatment. And if the mother had released the results, she would be subjected to a barrage of public criticism for doing so, and she may be violating federal HIPAA laws as well.


No, if she and the daughter want to release the information HIPAA has no application. People can always voluntarily choose to release their medical records. The gold standard for HIPAA is simply signing a HIPAA compliant medical release form. Without getting into detail, I will tell you I deal with these issues practically everyday. Since the daughter is not 18, the mother would be one who would have to execute the release form.

I don't see this "barrage of public criticism" that you elude to either. If they have information that would support their position, I agree that it would have been released by now.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2015, 08:10 AM
 
Location: Austin
11,066 posts, read 6,237,390 times
Reputation: 11950
Nope, she doesn't have the legal right to refuse probable lifesaving chemo. She's still a minor and the law says she isn't yet fully capable of making life and death decisions. By the way, I agree with the law.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2015, 10:17 AM
 
5,662 posts, read 3,208,198 times
Reputation: 6646
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
[/b]

No, if she and the daughter want to release the information HIPAA has no application. People can always voluntarily choose to release their medical records. The gold standard for HIPAA is simply signing a HIPAA compliant medical release form. Without getting into detail, I will tell you I deal with these issues practically everyday. Since the daughter is not 18, the mother would be one who would have to execute the release form.

I don't see this "barrage of public criticism" that you elude to either. If they have information that would support their position, I agree that it would have been released by now.
Go on local news sites for CT, NY, NJ. You will see a "barage of public (local) criticism". The reason for this is probably because of forced vax for children in these states; NYC especially so. Don't want to get OT here but NYC is becoming the capital of the country on that one. NYC news broadcasts to CT.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2015, 11:45 AM
 
820 posts, read 941,330 times
Reputation: 1166
Its messed up for the people who cannot afford cancer treatment, and she has a golden ticket to stay alive?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2015, 01:42 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
21,556 posts, read 26,178,293 times
Reputation: 26586
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
[/b]

No, if she and the daughter want to release the information HIPAA has no application. People can always voluntarily choose to release their medical records. The gold standard for HIPAA is simply signing a HIPAA compliant medical release form. Without getting into detail, I will tell you I deal with these issues practically everyday. Since the daughter is not 18, the mother would be one who would have to execute the release form.

I don't see this "barrage of public criticism" that you elude to either. If they have information that would support their position, I agree that it would have been released by now.
Just as the family of the man who died from Ebola in Texas released his records.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2015, 02:14 PM
 
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
4,888 posts, read 8,915,728 times
Reputation: 2439
Quote:
Originally Posted by FallsAngel View Post
My Goodness! It's really hard for me to believe that this attitude is still prevalent in 2015! That's what many people were saying back when I was a young nurse in 1970! Yes, for this disease, lymphoma, chemo helps and does plenty for longevity and qol.
I'm not doubting you, but I would like to see proof.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2015, 02:45 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
21,556 posts, read 26,178,293 times
Reputation: 26586
Quote:
Originally Posted by 80skeys View Post
Does chemo even help at all? Does it do anything at all for longevity and quality of life? Thousands of years ago, in certain societies people tried to fix some ailments by drilling into the skull of the patient. It seems to me that chemo is a similiarly ignorant and barbaric way of trying to treat cancer.
Quote:
I'm not doubting you, but I would like to see proof.
Good grief.

The five year survival rate for Hodgkin disease without treatment is 5 years. With treatment, it is 85%. Does that not tell you something?

Some more childhood cancer stats:

Cancer Survival Rates

1962 represents the infancy of effective cancer treatment.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2015, 04:20 AM
 
Location: the Permian Basin
4,094 posts, read 2,830,369 times
Reputation: 5665
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
Not if it puts your life at risk, as in this case.


http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/pers...29%20Faith.pdf

"Just as with pharmacists' and physicians' claims that they can refuse to provide medical care to select adult patients because such care conflicts with their religious beliefs or their conscience became more commonplace as a result of political empowerment of the religious right, so too there seems to be a rise in similar claims made by parents for denials of care for their children. Children, however, are different than adults, and it appears based on the small number of cases thus far that even if a cultural climate which
may be more conservative, the ability to refuse care may have much firmer limits when the care involves children. Both state and the federal government appear to be more willing to intervene when a child's life is threatened. Parents may legally be allowed to sacrifice their own lives for religious or conscience reasons, but not their children's."
The article you are quoting, which is not a legal opinion, also states:

"Legal precedent and authority currently exists for a state to intervene when an individual parent's refusal to seek medical treatment for a child threatens the general public. Without question, for some diseases and some therapies parental refusals to allow their children to be medicated not only dramatically increases the likelihood of the child getting the disease, but also greatly increases the health risks to other children they may come into contact with."

Cassandra's diagnosis was not for a condition that threatens the general public; cancer is not contagious. Thus, Cassandra's condition posed no threat whatsoever to public health, which made it unnecessary for the court to act in the interest of public health.



"There are currently no laws in any state which spell out specific guidelines as to what medical decisions parents may or may not make for particular life-threatening illnesses. And, as noted, there is currently no clear pattern from the few civil or criminal cases at hand which provide firm guidance based on child's age, level of understanding, type of disease as well as curability by the withheld therapy."

Thus, we find the court's ruling was arbitrary and capricious, not based upon clearly defined statutory guidelines nor upon firmly-established precedent.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2015, 11:53 AM
 
8,323 posts, read 8,602,376 times
Reputation: 25991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX View Post
The article you are quoting, which is not a legal opinion, also states:

"Legal precedent and authority currently exists for a state to intervene when an individual parent's refusal to seek medical treatment for a child threatens the general public. Without question, for some diseases and some therapies parental refusals to allow their children to be medicated not only dramatically increases the likelihood of the child getting the disease, but also greatly increases the health risks to other children they may come into contact with."

Cassandra's diagnosis was not for a condition that threatens the general public; cancer is not contagious. Thus, Cassandra's condition posed no threat whatsoever to public health, which made it unnecessary for the court to act in the interest of public health.



"There are currently no laws in any state which spell out specific guidelines as to what medical decisions parents may or may not make for particular life-threatening illnesses. And, as noted, there is currently no clear pattern from the few civil or criminal cases at hand which provide firm guidance based on child's age, level of understanding, type of disease as well as curability by the withheld therapy."

Thus, we find the court's ruling was arbitrary and capricious, not based upon clearly defined statutory guidelines nor upon firmly-established precedent.
I have heard so many inaccurate statements and so much "wishful thinking" in this thread on the part of those who don't believe the state should ever intervene on behalf of a child that I'm convinced large segments of people have taken leave of their senses.

I think some here are tired of the fact that I keep talking about what the law actually is compared to what their opinion of the law is. I sympathize with those who are getting tired of this. I keep saying it because clearly some here clearly can't seem to get this concept through their heads.

YES. There is plenty of legal precedent for courts intervening and overriding parent's wishes even when a non-contagious disease is affecting a child that does not pose a public health threat. Please read the citations I'm going to give you. Trauma has no public health implications. It is not contagious. Yet, courts have repeatedly intervened to require a transfusion when the life of a single child was in danger. Other courts, years ago, have intervened to require that a child ill with cancer be given chemotherapy.

http://adc.bmj.com/content/90/7/715.full


http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/26/min...emo/index.html

Before calling the decision in the Cassandra C case "arbitrary and capricious", you ought to do some actual research.

Last edited by markg91359; 01-16-2015 at 12:25 PM..
Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top