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 01-10-2015, 02:34 PM
 
1,774 posts, read 1,731,089 times
Reputation: 2700

Advertisements

Mercola is a fraud and unfortunately that poster is prime example of why most people should not be in charge of medical decision making for others or even themselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-10-2015, 03:19 PM
 
65 posts, read 56,693 times
Reputation: 52
Yes. She absolutely has the right to refuse chemo.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2015, 03:41 PM
 
12,404 posts, read 9,199,643 times
Reputation: 8863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Chances are the lady also didn't want to commit suicide, however.
This wasn't my point. My argument is that the mere possibility of suicide is sufficient to demonstrate the mental capacity to understand one's own death. Not that she actually would kill herself, or wants to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post

Emancipation not being a rubber stamp has itd reasons. Basically it only occurs when the child is better equipped to make decisions than the parent is, which very well may have been the case for the lady in your story. It's unlikely the case in this one.
You have given no reason to think it's unlikely, that's just your opinion, and I disagree with you, but the discussion of why would include a huge amount of Dr. Robert Epstein's research on the behavioral and social cognition of adolescents and would derail the thread so I won't continue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
At 18, however, then it becomes harder to force treatment. It's still possible because people aren't always sane or rational.
True.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2015, 04:12 PM
 
687 posts, read 652,843 times
Reputation: 2243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervah View Post
If this girl has read all about the treatments and looked up the stats about recurrence and survival rates and made an informed decision, I think she has every right to turn down the treatment being forced upon her.

Teen fighting chemo says she knows she'll die without it - CBS News
Just more government control and regulation over citizens' lives.

As far as I'm concerned all individuals have the right to refuse treatment of any kind, from flu shots to chemotherapy (both are poisons by the way). That is written in the Patients Bill of Rights is it not?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2015, 04:59 PM
 
8,305 posts, read 8,580,329 times
Reputation: 25923
Quote:
Originally Posted by ks5692 View Post
That decision and power rests with the parents, not with the government. The parents in this case have discussed it endlessly with their child.

Government has no business forcing medical treatment on us against our wills. Neither do you.
You may wish this is what the law is, but it is not. It is your opinion of what the law should be. I wonder how the parents would feel if they let the daughter succumb to a very treatable form of cancer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ncole1 View Post
Why do you think someone can't make this decision simply because they are 17? As has been pointed out, the right to decide what to accept for your own body has nothing to do with maturity and really little to do with age either.

If a child, even at 11 years of age let alone 17, were to hang themselves or intentionally overdose on pain pills, or shoot themselves in the head deliberately, no one would object to that being labeled as a suicide. To say it's a suicide, of course, acknowledges a basic understanding of causation of death. By contrast, a 6-month-old infant cannot commit suicide because he/she simply lacks the understanding. By labeling an act as suicide, you admit the person is old enough to understand causation and comprehend their own death - this distinguishes suicide from an accident (which we would label it as if, for example, a 6-month old rolled off the sofa to his/her death - this would never be suicide!).

If you are old enough that you could commit suicide, then you're old enough that you should be allowed to refuse life-saving treatment, in my view. It really makes no sense to say in one case that one is old enough to understand their own death and in another case they aren't. But that is exactly what you're saying, and hence I beg to differ. This patient should be allowed to make the decision.

Frankly, people physically forcing this patient to accept a treatment is assault. She should call the police. Even if they don't do anything, it would be a good way of drawing attention to the insanity of the denial of basic human rights to so-called minors (which is a rather demoralizing term for people below a certain age but whatever).
Your analogy about suicide is beyond ridiculous. Some six and seven year old kids have committed suicide. No one in their right mind would argue that they have the ability to evaluate whether they should be the one to decide whether a complex medical procedure is done or not.

Assault is some form of touching without consent. In this case, the consent of the party is not needed for the treatment because that consent is provided by a guardian appointed by the state after a hearing in court.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ncole1 View Post
This isn't even true in all states - some require "assent" to medical treatment for "mature minors".
The "mature minor" doctrine is something that would require long analysis to really understand. It came into existence because it was believed that minors of a certain age ought to be give consent to minor medical procedures in an emergency room or physician's office. The exact circumstances of the medical problem and the minor's capacity to consent to treatment have to be weighed. In this case, it has held that the "mature minor" doctrine did not allow the minor to refuse the medical procedure because she had demonstrated irresponsibility including running away. Not every state recognizes this and most that do have recognized it in the limited situation of allowing a minor to authorize the minor medical procedures mentioned above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
So if a parent decides to starve their child to death, the government doesn't have the right to intervene?
I think some of these people believe children are simply possessions to be dealt with as parents wish. Its a power thing for them. I am grateful laws that prevent nut parents from destroying the lives of innocent children. Someone may have a belief that trauma victims shouldn't have blood transfusions or that those suffering from pneumonia shouldn't be given antibiotics. Those beliefs are unworthy of respect either individually or by the system. If the holder is older than 18, we have to go along. In other situations I would rapidly disregard them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2015, 05:27 PM
 
Location: Houston, TX
13,139 posts, read 7,393,567 times
Reputation: 27254
Quote:
Originally Posted by rzzzz View Post
It's against the law for a parent to kill her kid.

Religious wacko parents who let their kids die because they have pneumonia end up going to jail.
The parent is not killing the child. The CANCER is killing the child. There's a big difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suburban_Guy View Post
Good thoughts about this subject.

There's a lot more to it than simply toeing the safe party line of "it's her body and her choice/life."

If I were the parent of course I would want to do anything I could to prolong her life, especially if there is a very good chance it will lead to a successful treatment, and medication exists to help treat symptoms.
Yes there is. So I will continue. It IS HER body and IS HER choice. I believe she hasn't reached the age of majority, however, the age of majority isn't as cut and dried as you would like to think. It seems rather hypocritical that when a teenager commits a vicious crime on another person, the public insists the teenager be tried as an adult and given the maximum sentence possible, yet when another teenager wants to refuse a painful cancer treatment on herself and she is just one year from being a legal adult, suddenly she's a child who has no clue about her condition.

Another age example: I got married when I was younger than 21, and my husband was over 21. In TX, because my husband was legally able to drink, as long as he accompanied me to the bar, I was able to drink as well. Now this was years ago, so the law may have changed, but I actually went to the bar with him a couple of times and that was the law back then. Different states have different laws RE: what people are able to do at different ages. It's not always age 18 or 21 for this or that, especially marriage age.

She doesn't want the treatment. Sure, there is a good chance it will save her life, but cancer treatment is very painful. It causes terrible side effects. And although there is a good chance it can cure her, there is no guarantee. The numbers are merely estimates given by doctors; nothing more. It is her life. Now she wants the right to die with dignity, and she should have been given that chance.

Last edited by Scooby Snacks; 01-10-2015 at 05:59 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2015, 06:25 PM
 
Location: N of citrus, S of decent corn
34,531 posts, read 42,708,506 times
Reputation: 57184
Her brain is not mature enough to make life or death decisions. If she were my child she would have the chemo. I hope by the time she is 18 she would have enough improvement to be convinced.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2015, 06:49 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
84,960 posts, read 98,795,031 times
Reputation: 31371
Maybe she needs some role models:
Mario Lemieux - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mario Lemieux Foundation | Hodgkin
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2015, 08:15 PM
 
12,404 posts, read 9,199,643 times
Reputation: 8863
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post

Your analogy about suicide is beyond ridiculous. Some six and seven year old kids have committed suicide. No one in their right mind would argue that they have the ability to evaluate whether they should be the one to decide whether a complex medical procedure is done or not.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
Assault is some form of touching without consent. In this case, the consent of the party is not needed for the treatment because that consent is provided by a guardian appointed by the state after a hearing in court.
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.

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.

The laws governing medical care in no way supersede or render invalid the laws regarding assault.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
The "mature minor" doctrine is something that would require long analysis to really understand. It came into existence because it was believed that minors of a certain age ought to be give consent to minor medical procedures in an emergency room or physician's office. The exact circumstances of the medical problem and the minor's capacity to consent to treatment have to be weighed. In this case, it has held that the "mature minor" doctrine did not allow the minor to refuse the medical procedure because she had demonstrated irresponsibility including running away. Not every state recognizes this and most that do have recognized it in the limited situation of allowing a minor to authorize the minor medical procedures mentioned above.
Source please?

Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
I think some of these people believe children are simply possessions to be dealt with as parents wish. Its a power thing for them. I am grateful laws that prevent nut parents from destroying the lives of innocent children. Someone may have a belief that trauma victims shouldn't have blood transfusions or that those suffering from pneumonia shouldn't be given antibiotics. Those beliefs are unworthy of respect either individually or by the system. If the holder is older than 18, we have to go along. In other situations I would rapidly disregard them.
This is largely a separate issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2015, 08:19 PM
 
12,404 posts, read 9,199,643 times
Reputation: 8863
Quote:
Originally Posted by gentlearts View Post
Her brain is not mature enough to make life or death decisions. If she were my child she would have the chemo. I hope by the time she is 18 she would have enough improvement to be convinced.
Based on what? A surprising amount of research, such as that by Robert Epstein, actually supports the opposite conclusion.
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
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