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.
Anyway, are we on any kind of slippery slope? In 20 years (or X years) will this same forum be arguing over a case where an intelligent 30 year old who refused the same treatment for the same ailment is being forced into it?
Please assuage our fears.
There is nothing new about this kind of case. This has been going on for years. The courts won't stand idly by while a nutjob parent refuses medical care that has a strong likelihood of saving a child's life.
Here are a couple of cases involving both blood transfusions and cancer treatment from the past.
Sigh... I guess you use such inflammatory language because I used a similar type to describe "the law and "the state."
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
This isn't a "slippery slope".
Okay. Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
No one is talking about forcing adults to accept medical treatment. The only exception would be the adult who clearly is mentally incompetent.
Okay. It's just... there have been implications in this thread that if you aren't going along with mainstream medical treatment and accepting any ideas to keep the organism breathing and pumping blood, that that alone qualifies you as incompetent.
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.
You must deep down not really believe a six-year-old can have a full understanding or you wouldn't be saying this. For the record, I don't believe a six-year-old has such mental capacity either.
Human intuition tends to perform poorly when the assumptions are sufficiently unreal or unreasonable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
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.
Depends on the details of the court order. This is why I earlier said "unless the courts explicitly...".
Neither of us can know without actually reading what the court ruled in that specific case. Have you read it? I have not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
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.
Don't confuse "rational" with "legally accepted". Those are not necessarily the same thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
See above.
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.
Again, it depends on exactly what the court ruled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
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.
To the contrary - the poster I responded to made no such distinction, their augment was that people have a right to whatever they wish with their bodies, he did not specify an age at which that concept goes into effect.
So at what age does a person have a right to recklessly endanger their own body?
The legal age is 18. How young is old enough for complete autonomy?
I would argue that the law needs to be changed. Ultimately it is about consistency. No legal adult would ever be declared incompetent in a court of law, on strictly the basis of mental capacity alone, if they had the mental capacity of a 17-year-old, or a 15-year-old, or probably even a 13-year-old.
Incompetence cases are usually those with mental capacities of a 5-year-old, or a seven-year-old, or a ten-year old. Certainly less than about 13.
Therefore, in order to be consistent, the age of majority (and the age at which a person can work without parental consent) really should be lowered to 13. Because absent that, we have a double standard for what is a qualifying mental capacity to make one's own decisions, and such a double standard amounts not to a legitimate decision to protect those that cannot decide for themselves, but rather it amounts to unjust discrimination and selective deprivation of civil liberties.
To go back to OT, why didn't CPS and the state take custody of this 11 year old and force more treatments on him, despite what he and his parents wanted? My feeling is that this family had a very compassionate DOCTOR who was more concerned about QUALITY of life than QUANITY of life than that young woman's doctor did in Connecticut.
Because at the point that the child requested treatment be stopped, the doctor knew that further treatment was likely to be unsuccessful. That is an entirely different situation from refusing to even start treatment. Did the 11 year old have Hodgkin disease?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncole1
I would argue that the law needs to be changed. Ultimately it is about consistency. No legal adult would ever be declared incompetent in a court of law, on strictly the basis of mental capacity alone, if they had the mental capacity of a 17-year-old, or a 15-year-old, or probably even a 13-year-old.
Incompetence cases are usually those with mental capacities of a 5-year-old, or a seven-year-old, or a ten-year old. Certainly less than about 13.
Therefore, in order to be consistent, the age of majority (and the age at which a person can work without parental consent) really should be lowered to 13. Because absent that, we have a double standard for what is a qualifying mental capacity to make one's own decisions, and such a double standard amounts not to a legitimate decision to protect those that cannot decide for themselves, but rather it amounts to unjust discrimination and selective deprivation of civil liberties.
No, incompetence cases are not usually about young kids. They are more often adults, including older adults. My son did an evaluation on a boy when he reached age 18, wanted to manage his own money, and was clearly unable to do so even at that age.
Should a thirteen year old be allowed to drive, even get a commercial driver's license? Have you ever even been around teenagers? What you propose is scary.
I would argue that the law needs to be changed. Ultimately it is about consistency. No legal adult would ever be declared incompetent in a court of law, on strictly the basis of mental capacity alone, if they had the mental capacity of a 17-year-old, or a 15-year-old, or probably even a 13-year-old.
Incompetence cases are usually those with mental capacities of a 5-year-old, or a seven-year-old, or a ten-year old. Certainly less than about 13.
Therefore, in order to be consistent, the age of majority (and the age at which a person can work without parental consent) really should be lowered to 13. Because absent that, we have a double standard for what is a qualifying mental capacity to make one's own decisions, and such a double standard amounts not to a legitimate decision to protect those that cannot decide for themselves, but rather it amounts to unjust discrimination and selective deprivation of civil liberties.
Mental capacity is one thing, but mental capacity and maturity are two totally different things.
A thirteen year old may be intelligent enough and cognizant enough to make a decision, but without maturity, that decision is not completely and wholly informed.
I shudder at the thought of living amongst a bunch of fully emancipated 8th graders.
I have read some other articles about Cassandra, including some with comments from people claiming to know her that confirm my impression of the mom. I will not link to them because they are hearsay.
I had not really registered that the last hearing was before a panel of seven judges, who unanimously agreed that Cassandra was not mature enough to make medical decisions.
Other people have also noted that there has likely been a professional psychological evaluation, the results of which have not been, and should not be, released. However, if that report favored the mature minor theory, I strongly suspect the mother would have allowed it to be made public.
I would argue that the law needs to be changed. Ultimately it is about consistency. No legal adult would ever be declared incompetent in a court of law, on strictly the basis of mental capacity alone, if they had the mental capacity of a 17-year-old, or a 15-year-old, or probably even a 13-year-old.
Incompetence cases are usually those with mental capacities of a 5-year-old, or a seven-year-old, or a ten-year old. Certainly less than about 13.
Therefore, in order to be consistent, the age of majority (and the age at which a person can work without parental consent) really should be lowered to 13. Because absent that, we have a double standard for what is a qualifying mental capacity to make one's own decisions, and such a double standard amounts not to a legitimate decision to protect those that cannot decide for themselves, but rather it amounts to unjust discrimination and selective deprivation of civil liberties.
First of all, let me say I agree with suzy_q2010 and FinsterRufus in their responses to this post. Then, I will say that most societies do realize that kids become more capable around age 13. In many societies, this is the approximate age for a "coming of age" ceremony. In some churches, 13-14 is when kids get confirmed, Bar Mitzvahed, Bat Mitzvahed, etc. In my church, once kids are confirmed, they may vote in church elections. 8th grade graduation is sometimes celebrated; it's kind of "coming of age" for the secular. Piaget described it in his cognitive stages. Piaget Cognitive Stages of Development Generally though, even in the "olden days" kids still lived with their families after that until they took a spouse.
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.
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.
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.
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.
