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.
Mark's a lawyer. Maybe you missed that earlier. I do not believe you went to law school, did you?
Strange logic you have anyway. Without treatment she will die.
You just love to speak in absolutes of which you cannot prove. No one can. Each case is different. With treatment she could also die. She could die from the chemo itself while being treated. People do. They have reactions. She could die from the Cancer recurring in five, ten, twenty years. She could die from side effects from chemo in later years.
Could she live without the treatments? Maybe. No one knows what the future brings. What we can see is statistical data that based on prior cases similar to hers show her chances might be greater if she chooses the chemo. But if she chooses not to take those chances, it's her business not yours, mine, the courts or anyone else's but hers and her family's.
You just love to speak in absolutes of which you cannot prove. No one can. Each case is different. With treatment she could also die. She could die from the chemo itself while being treated. People do. They have reactions. She could die from the Cancer recurring in five, ten, twenty years. She could die from side effects from chemo in later years.
Could she live without the treatments? Maybe. No one knows what the future brings. What we can see is statistical data that based on prior cases similar to hers show her chances might be greater if she chooses the chemo. But if she chooses not to take those chances, it's her business not yours, mine, the courts or anyone else's but hers and her family's.
The five year survival of untreated Hodgkin disease is 5%, so the probability of dying from the disease is much greater than the risk of dying from the chemo. The cancer could recur. She could have an entirely different cancer. She could step in front of a bus and die instantly.
However, the court has determined she is not sufficiently capable of judging the benefits versus risks of treatment, and delaying treatment worsens the prognosis. Family? Absent father and clueless mother. Mom has deferred decision making to the daughter. That should tell you a lot about her parenting skills.
Exactly. I noticed that no one who claims that this girl is incompetent to decide for herself at age 17 responded to my observation about how the public usually demands that juveniles get tried as adults when they commit serious crimes. The reasoning behind this is that they are fully capable of understanding their actions, thus they need to be tried as adults. So how is it right for juvenile criminals to be held fully responsible for hurting other people, yet this teenage girl is not considered competent enough to determine what she can do to her own body? I'd love to hear from the attorney about this, if he/she is still reading this thread.
I suppose this is a reasonable point. The reality is that the legislature in each state sets different ages for maturity. Generally, you have to be 16 to hold a driver's license. You have to be 18 to vote. You have to be 21 to drink alcohol. Is the process a bit arbitrary? Of course it is. However, its the legislature in each state that gets to set these ages--not individuals.
I was pretty mature fifteen year old. I had friends who were far less dedicated students than I were and exhibited far more signs of immaturity than I did. Yet, they turned sixteen before I did and got to drive before I did. Was that right? I don't know. What I do know is that society can't have a different rule for every single person based on their perceived maturity. What's necessary is to have a bright line age at which minor's are able to exercise their rights. Anything else would lead to utter chaos.
Finally, in my own state the rules with respect to criminal law prohibit the vast majority of juveniles (anyone younger than 18) with being charged and tried for a crime in anything, but juvenile court. In rare cases, juveniles who commit murder and rape can be certified as adults, but the courts are reluctant to do it. Murder is the only crime where certification happens with any consistency (yes, they often refuse to certify juveniles charged with rape). No one under 14 can be certified to stand trial as an adult period.
I see these decisions as being made on the basis of public policy more than any other reason. There is a belief that when people commit a crime like homicide that the principal concern is protecting society.
Again, though, the legislature in each state gets to draw the lines when it comes to ages. Is the process difficult at times? I suppose so, but its essential that it be done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris123678
Perhaps the system is wrong? You said in a previous post that it is based of the assumption that minors are incompetent in making their own decisions.
I feel that we base to much off the age of 18. People reach maturity at their own rate. Some earlier than others, I've met young men and women who were younger than 17 who act more responsible and mature than those over 18.
Furthermore, it is her body and I believe she has the right to decide. This girl is not incompetent. Furthermore, I think it is incredibly inhumane to force something like this on anybody.
We cripple our children by allowing them to think that they need to be a certain age to make a decision.
No one is going to hold your hand and tell you what to do when you turn that "magical" age of 18.
There is no difference from being 17 with 364 days as oppose to 18 and 1 day.
It is completely irrelevant. We're not talking about a 7 year old, we're talking about someone who is a young adult and who knows what she wants for herself.
The system may be wrong, but until the legislature changes the law, someone must be eighteen years of age to make major medical decisions for themselves.
I am afraid there is a difference between being 17 years and 364 days old as compared to being 18 years old. The difference is the law requires one to be eighteen years of age to vote and make major medical decisions. You don't really expect that when someone comes to vote that the county clerk ought to conduct examine the person for maturity instead of simply checking their age do you? Because that's the implication of what you are saying. If minors should be evaluated based on their intelligence or maturity to make medical decisions, there is no reason it shouldn't apply to being able to vote as well. As I said above, if we didn't have this kind of "bright line" age restriction things would get chaotic in this country pretty fast.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48
Not quite. Graduation from high school gives a Minor a lot of rights. Can a HS graduate Minor be forced to attend school, as in College? No. Does a HS Graduate Minor need Mommy and Daddy's permisson to work full time "when school is in sssion" or at any other time? No.
If Mommy and Daddy gives permission for Minor to join the Military at 17 years old, Minor has no choice? No. Minor has to sign the paper saying THEY consent to join the Military.
I graduated HS at 17 and 7 months in 1966. My husband graduated HS at 16 and 8 months in 1965. Our daughter graduated HS at 17 and 4 months in 1996. We were ALL Minors as HS Graduates. I speak of these from my, my husband's, and our daughter's experiences.
Two factors here. First, she is still in school. Second, at the inital hearing she just sat quietly and didn't open her mouth and protest enough.
Excuse me but if our daughter could refuse to give her consent ("Give me guarantees or I won't sign")to join the Military at 17, which could potentially cause her bodily harm and death, a 17 year old should also be also to refuse her consent to any medical treatment which could cause the same.
Like I have said before, there is a difference between what you and some others think the law ought to be and what the law is. I know from prior discussions that you don't even think kids ought to be getting immunized. It doesn't surprise me that you think there ought to be an unreasonably high threshold for requiring anyone to get any medical treatment at all. The problem is that the majority in the community doesn't share your point of view, or else these laws would be changed.
If you are asking me what I think the law ought to be than I'll still go with the solid eighteen year rule. I remember when I was seventeen, even though I was pretty bright, I wasn't always very responsible. I did dumb stuff at times. I drank alcohol before I was 21 and used some other controlled substances. I literally had so much alcohol at a party one night that it was the beginning of two years of gastritis or stomach inflammation for me. Intelligence and responsibility aren't always close cousins and in this particular case, the girl in question has done little that would demonstrate real maturity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervah
You just love to speak in absolutes of which you cannot prove. No one can. Each case is different. With treatment she could also die. She could die from the chemo itself while being treated. People do. They have reactions. She could die from the Cancer recurring in five, ten, twenty years. She could die from side effects from chemo in later years.
Could she live without the treatments? Maybe. No one knows what the future brings. What we can see is statistical data that based on prior cases similar to hers show her chances might be greater if she chooses the chemo. But if she chooses not to take those chances, it's her business not yours, mine, the courts or anyone else's but hers and her family's.
Suzy and I have been involved in many debates and discussions that involve medical issues. FTR, while I generally agree with her, she would be the first to tell you there are some things we sharply disagree over.
What I believe we have in common though is a certain respect for those things that are rational. Rational things are those that can be proven through the scientific method. As such, properly conducted studies are going to carry a lot of weight with us. We are less interested in opinions, personal anecdotes, dogma, and single examples of people who seem to defy the statistical norm.
The scientific method is not perfect, but has carried both medicine and mankind to unprecedented levels. As a lawyer, I demand proof before I accept most statements. In this case, there is good scientific proof that the treatment that is proposed would cure this patient. There is good evidence she will die without the treatment.
IMO, that sort of thing should be the basis for making law and public policy. It justifies requiring a minor to get medical treatment in this instance.
Last edited by markg91359; 01-11-2015 at 10:01 PM..
Not quite. Graduation from high school gives a Minor a lot of rights. Can a HS graduate Minor be forced to attend school, as in College? No. Does a HS Graduate Minor need Mommy and Daddy's permisson to work full time "when school is in sssion" or at any other time? No….
I graduated HS at 17 and 7 months in 1966. My husband graduated HS at 16 and 8 months in 1965. Our daughter graduated HS at 17 and 4 months in 1996. We were ALL Minors as HS Graduates.
I graduated at 16 years 11 months in 1971. Still couldn't buy a beer…for 4 more years!
I did, however, have the right to work, live apart from my parents, etc. - all reversible decisions. Refusing cancer treatment is not.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,498 posts, read 12,502,824 times
Reputation: 10450
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
The five year survival of untreated Hodgkin disease is 5%, so the probability of dying from the disease is much greater than the risk of dying from the chemo. The cancer could recur. She could have an entirely different cancer. She could step in front of a bus and die instantly.
However, the court has determined she is not sufficiently capable of judging the benefits versus risks of treatment, and delaying treatment worsens the prognosis. Family? Absent father and clueless mother. Mom has deferred decision making to the daughter. That should tell you a lot about her parenting skills.
I agree with what you'd been posting in here. After reading different media reports, and watching media videos, I have to wonder if the daughter is only parroting what the mom has been telling her.
The mom is in complete denial about the cancer - in saying "it's not a death sentence", and, "she's not going to die".
The mom is completely adamant in how 'she' feels that chemo is so harmful and devastating to a persons body.
The mom had refused to take the daughter in for oncology exams and had even tried, or succeeded in, stopping a biopsy from being done. I'm also wondering if even the court thinks the mom is the one that is influencing the daughter, since the court had decided that the mom is only allowed supervised visits a couple of times a week, and, that the phone from the daughters room be removed so that the daughter cannot call her mother.
Some media stories had mentioned that the mom and daughter had been researching alternative therapies, but in the videos with the mom, the mom stated that they had not done any research regarding alternative therapies, claiming they hadn't had time to do it because the state had taken the daughter in for 'forced treatment'. Hadn't had time? They'd known about the illness for months before the court ordered her to go into the hospital in Dec. - there was plenty of time to at least do some online research, and, probably to even consult alternative therapy doctors - but mom and daughter didn't do any of that during those months.
As for the side effects from the chemo, the daughter had recently written about the ordeal and stated "The side effects I’ve had are mild to none so far, besides hair loss, acne, and tiredness,” Teen opens up about forced chemotherapy, death
Based on reading this thread I hope the young woman has access to enough marijuana to relieve the nausea associated with chemo. MJ may help her overcome the cancer with or without the chemo.
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.
"I suppose this is a reasonable point. The reality is that the legislature in each state sets different ages for maturity. Generally, you have to be 16 to hold a driver's license. You have to be 18 to vote. You have to be 21 to drink alcohol. Is the process a bit arbitrary? Of course it is. However, its the legislature in each state that gets to set these ages--not individuals." (From markg91359)
I am glad to see an attorney say this. I have used this talking point before, on different subjects.
I must say I am surprised to see that people still feel that chemo is "poison" (yes, it kills cancer cells; the difference between it and poison is dose, etc) and that a diagnosis of cancer is a death sentence that modern medicine cannot treat. This was the prevailing attitude back in the early 70s when I was a young nurse; sad to see it so all these years later.
I have no problem with her being forced to be treated until she turns 18. Her reasoning is pretty devoid of logic and strongly appears to be influenced by her mother's beliefs rather than her own critical analysis of the situation.
She is not yet legally mature (and btw, I have huge problems with the decision to try many minor-age offenders as adults), and she's also not demonstrating a great deal of maturity. She's rejecting a cure that is almost as close as you're going to get to a guarantee in the medical world (80-85 percent!) in favor of treatments that are largely ineffective according to most research to avoid an increased risk (not a certainty - an increased risk) of largely nonfatal health problems later.
I have known many cancer survivors, and not one of them has regretted chosing chemo. And frankly, the only people I know who have rejected chemo were people who were essentially guaranteed to be terminal.
I wonder if there's any way to get a psych eval of the mother - if you could prove that this kid is being raised by someone who's not all mentally there and she's been the primary influence, I think there would be less debate over how correct it is for the government to intervene.
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.
