[BackwoodsBert]

Does anyone really believe that in a few months she'll turn 18 and suddenly be mature enough to make this decision? Whether you agree with her, or think its suicide, or alternative medicine is junk, or suspect some weird religion, or 0% survival or 80% survival, all of that is irrelevant. That a 17 year old has no rights is disgusting. This state needs to stay out of our wallets, bedrooms, and doctors offices. Whats next here? Parental consent for abortions? I won't even take the position that she is making a stupid decision, it is hers to make not ours. I'm very tempted to leave this state but I'd prefer not to let the authoritarians win.

[suzy_q2010]

Originally Posted by BackwoodsBert

Does anyone really believe that in a few months she'll turn 18 and suddenly be mature enough to make this decision?

Honestly, no. That is why I suspect they will try to complete her treatment before then. I have some small hope, however, that by the time she has her birthday that she realizes the treatment was not as bad as she feared it would be, that hair grows back, and that there are alternatives if she is infertile.

[Rosalie89]

Originally Posted by 6.7traveler

It doesn't matter how old she is. Getting chemo against your will has to be very traumatic. This girl will suffer PTSD no matter how long she lives.

I wonder if the state is going to pay for the therapy she'll need if she survives.

That said, I vehemently disagree with the mother and daughter's decision and think it's very uninformed. I just also disagree that it's the government's job to strap down a screaming 17yo and cut her open against her will. It sets a frightening precedent.

[Mike 75]

I find it interesting that we can force a 17 year old to undergo chemo, yet we don't require all children to get vaccinated.

[6.7traveler]

Why would you worry if all children are vaccinated or not? As long as you and your family are vaccinated shouldn't you be immune? I am not against any and all vaccines and think vaccines like the polio and measles ones have done good things for humanity. But I refuse to get a flu vaccine , they are completely ineffective and not worth the risk for me personally, IMO. That should be my personal choice and no one is going to force me or my children to get one unless we decide it is in our best interests to do so.

Regardless of the safety and effectiveness of vaccines it should be a personal choice on the type and frequency of vaccines you or your child receives. If you want them then go ahead and get them, they are widely and easily available. Then you will be immune and shouldn't worry about others. But, if we lose our right to say no to what is injected into our bodies, then we have lost all of our rights completely. I, not you, nor the government controls what goes into mine and my children's body.

[suzy_q2010]

Originally Posted by 6.7traveler

Why would you worry if all children are vaccinated or not? As long as you and your family are vaccinated shouldn't you be immune? I am not against any and all vaccines and think vaccines like the polio and measles ones have done good things for humanity. But I refuse to get a flu vaccine , they are completely ineffective and not worth the risk for me personally, IMO. That should be my personal choice and no one is going to force me or my children to get one unless we decide it is in our best interests to do so.

Regardless of the safety and effectiveness of vaccines it should be a personal choice on the type and frequency of vaccines you or your child receives. If you want them then go ahead and get them, they are widely and easily available. Then you will be immune and shouldn't worry about others. But, if we lose our right to say no to what is injected into our bodies, then we have lost all of our rights completely. I, not you, nor the government controls what goes into mine and my children's body.

Flu vaccines are not "completely ineffective". You may choose not to use them, but the fact that they are not 100% effective does not mean they are not effective all.

Unvaccinated people are a hazard to people who cannot use vaccines because they are too young or have medical contraindications. Also, the vaccine does not protect everyone who takes it, precisely because it is not 100% effective. Folks in those situations can be protected by people who do take the vaccine and are protected. Fewer people overall getting sick reduces the exposure of everyone who is susceptible.

[6.7traveler]

I believe I said regardless of their safety and effectiveness... That could be a whole debate in and of itself. The point I was trying to make is about forcing and requiring mandatory vaccines. It should be a personal choice, not a mandate.

[JayCT]

Please return to the topic of the OP. JayCT, Moderator

[7express]

So a 13 year old can have an abortion on their own, but a 17 year old, who can legally drive and will be 18 in a few weeks is being FORCED by the government, against her free will, to undergo chemo?? WTF is going on here??

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by 7express

So a 13 year old can have an abortion on their own, but a 17 year old, who can legally drive and will be 18 in a few weeks is being FORCED by the government, against her free will, to undergo chemo?? WTF is going on here??

While I am pro choice, I think this is a good point.

Although she won't be 18 for months, she would be allowed to make her own choice about getting/not getting an abortion.

While I think parental consent would be a barrier for girls under 18 terminating a pregnancy, it is something the parents should know about-- A teenager only gets pregnant through risky behaviour.