Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not understanding her not wanting chemo...but on the other hand, not understanding the state forcing her by law to do chemo."Cassandra C" reportedly believes chemotherapy will do her harm rather than save her life.
A 17-year-old cancer patient does not have the right to refuse treatment for her disease, the state of Connecticut’s highest court has ruled.
Cassandra was removed from Fortin’s care after the mother and daughter missed follow-up appointments and placed into the custody of child welfare officials, who forced her to undergo the cancer treatment. The teenager ran away from hospital after just two days of chemotherapy.
The court made its expedited decision Thursday following a 45-minute hearing, during which lawyers for Cassandra and her mother argued that even though Cassandra is a minor, she can make her own health decisions. Cassandra is months away from turning 18.
Connecticut Rules Cancer-Stricken Teen Must Undergo Chemotherapy
In one instance she is allowed to do what she wants with her body ( as in abortion) but in another instance she is not allowed to seek a medical alternative if she wants to.
because one is a matter of life and deathHer legal guardian is her parent in the state of Connecticut. So, when "Cassandra" and her mother did not follow through or missed the appointments it indicated that her mother was not denying her medical care. Connecticut is not going to do an Ohio.
But why does she have to take chemotherapy as her medical treatment what if she wants to do holistic healing or alternaitve medicine?
If she wanted to have an abortion which is a medical procedure the state would not step in and even in her mother's care the mom has no say about it, it is the girl's choice...her body her choide to undergo a medical procedure, but not in the other instance.
Because the 80-85% success rate is with chemo. Not with evil spirit removal spray or with acupuncture or any other "alternative" medicine. Connecticut, nor any state, should pull an Ohio. Ever.
Yep, no parental consent required for an abortion in Connecticut. I don't have a problem with that either. That one is more likely to be done anyway. It's safer to have it done in a clinic then in an alley.
But she is allowed to have a medical abortion procedure or refuse abortion because it is HER body and HER choice, and she should be allowed to refuse chemo if she doesn't want it.
In 3 months she will be 18 and can refuse chemo if she wants to.
The point to me is, why is she allowed to decide on a medical procedure for herself without anyones input in one instance but not the other ?
because one is a matter of life and deathHer legal guardian is her parent in the state of Connecticut. So, when "Cassandra" and her mother did not follow through or missed the appointments it indicated that her mother was not denying her medical care. Connecticut is not going to do an Ohio.
But why does she have to take chemotherapy as her medical treatment what if she wants to do holistic healing or alternaitve medicine?
If she wanted to have an abortion which is a medical procedure the state would not step in and even in her mother's care the mom has no say about it, it is the girl's choice...her body her choide to undergo a medical procedure, but not in the other instance.
Because the 80-85% success rate is with chemo. Not with evil spirit removal spray or with acupuncture or any other "alternative" medicine. Connecticut, nor any state, should pull an Ohio. Ever.
Yep, no parental consent required for an abortion in Connecticut. I don't have a problem with that either. That one is more likely to be done anyway. It's safer to have it done in a clinic then in an alley.
But she is allowed to have a medical abortion procedure or refuse abortion because it is HER body and HER choice, and she should be allowed to refuse chemo if she doesn't want it.
In 3 months she will be 18 and can refuse chemo if she wants to.
The point to me is, why is she allowed to decide on a medical procedure for herself without anyones input in one instance but not the other ?
the other is a medical procedure that poses little to no risk of death
This girl is the start of the government taking control of your body. If nobody sees wrong in this...beware. Your body could be next.
Not understanding her not wanting chemo...but on the other hand, not understanding the state forcing her by law to do chemo."Cassandra C" reportedly believes chemotherapy will do her harm rather than save her life.
A 17-year-old cancer patient does not have the right to refuse treatment for her disease, the state of Connecticut’s highest court has ruled.
Cassandra was removed from Fortin’s care after the mother and daughter missed follow-up appointments and placed into the custody of child welfare officials, who forced her to undergo the cancer treatment. The teenager ran away from hospital after just two days of chemotherapy.
The court made its expedited decision Thursday following a 45-minute hearing, during which lawyers for Cassandra and her mother argued that even though Cassandra is a minor, she can make her own health decisions. Cassandra is months away from turning 18.
Connecticut Rules Cancer-Stricken Teen Must Undergo Chemotherapy
In one instance she is allowed to do what she wants with her body ( as in abortion) but in another instance she is not allowed to seek a medical alternative if she wants to.
"Cassandra C" reportedly believes chemotherapy will do her harm rather than save her life.
A 17-year-old cancer patient does not have the right to refuse treatment for her disease, the state of Connecticut’s highest court has ruled.
Cassandra was removed from Fortin’s care after the mother and daughter missed follow-up appointments and placed into the custody of child welfare officials, who forced her to undergo the cancer treatment. The teenager ran away from hospital after just two days of chemotherapy.
The court made its expedited decision Thursday following a 45-minute hearing, during which lawyers for Cassandra and her mother argued that even though Cassandra is a minor, she can make her own health decisions. Cassandra is months away from turning 18.
Connecticut Rules Cancer-Stricken Teen Must Undergo Chemotherapy
In one instance she is allowed to do what she wants with her body ( as in abortion) but in another instance she is not allowed to seek a medical alternative if she wants to.
question:
Can Connecticut Force A Teenage Girl To Undergo Chemotherapy?
Can Connecticut Force A Teenage Girl To Undergo Chemotherapy Shots - Health News NPR ..
..
Because the court gave the state Department of Children and Families temporary custody of Cassandra earlier, it os not the girl's choice to make -- by law.
"Cassandra's doctors say that without treatment, she will die. They testified in previous hearings that Hodgkin lymphoma, a cancer of the lymph system, is lethal without the recommended treatment. With treatment, she has an 85 percent chance of survival."
drifter
Don't you think the state would be remiss and even evil to deny it's responsibility here? Or are you advocating lowering the age for adulthood/legal consent and responsibility?
I am done with the thread since I already got the information I wanted from it. But since you tagged me I wil answer you.
I think the family should be allowed to choose their own medical treatment.
I am reminded of this case in 2003:It’s been 9 years since the Parker Jensen case gave us a chilling example of what happens when parental rights collide with the power of the state.
Parker, a then 12-year-old boy living in Sandy, Utah, was diagnosed with Ewing’s Sarcoma after a tiny growth was removed from beneath his tongue. His physician recommended that Parker be placed on chemotherapy immediately or face virtually no chance of surviving the cancer.
Upon learning that chemotherapy that would likely leave their son sterile—if he survived at all, Daren and Barbara Jensen insisted on getting more opinions and exploring other alternatives. Their doctor insisted that they begin treatment immediately or he would be forced to contact the Division of Child and Family Services to have Parker removed from their custody and forced to undergo chemo.
During the time that the case was battling in court, the boy lived and got better even when he was not receiving chemo.
Analysis Parker Jensen and the state as our parent St George News
Now when she does turn 18 she will have the legal right to choose for herself.
Whether I agree or you agree with her choice to not recieve treatment is really a moot point.
Anyway I mostly wanted to understand the difference of Her Body Her choice and Disir explained it.
So you can disagree with my opinion all you want about treatment, it changes nothing in regards to what I was interested in understanding about body rights.
because one is a matter of life and deathHer legal guardian is her parent in the state of Connecticut. So, when "Cassandra" and her mother did not follow through or missed the appointments it indicated that her mother was not denying her medical care. Connecticut is not going to do an Ohio.
But why does she have to take chemotherapy as her medical treatment what if she wants to do holistic healing or alternaitve medicine?
If she wanted to have an abortion which is a medical procedure the state would not step in and even in her mother's care the mom has no say about it, it is the girl's choice...her body her choide to undergo a medical procedure, but not in the other instance.
Because the 80-85% success rate is with chemo. Not with evil spirit removal spray or with acupuncture or any other "alternative" medicine. Connecticut, nor any state, should pull an Ohio. Ever.
Yep, no parental consent required for an abortion in Connecticut. I don't have a problem with that either. That one is more likely to be done anyway. It's safer to have it done in a clinic then in an alley.
But she is allowed to have a medical abortion procedure or refuse abortion because it is HER body and HER choice, and she should be allowed to refuse chemo if she doesn't want it.
In 3 months she will be 18 and can refuse chemo if she wants to.
The point to me is, why is she allowed to decide on a medical procedure for herself without anyones input in one instance but not the other ?
the other is a medical procedure that poses little to no risk of death
Well if that's the reason then shouldn't people be allowed at any age to choose to have gender reassignment surgery, or breast implants, or plastic surgery?
Not understanding her not wanting chemo...but on the other hand, not understanding the state forcing her by law to do chemo."Cassandra C" reportedly believes chemotherapy will do her harm rather than save her life.
A 17-year-old cancer patient does not have the right to refuse treatment for her disease, the state of Connecticut’s highest court has ruled.
Cassandra was removed from Fortin’s care after the mother and daughter missed follow-up appointments and placed into the custody of child welfare officials, who forced her to undergo the cancer treatment. The teenager ran away from hospital after just two days of chemotherapy.
The court made its expedited decision Thursday following a 45-minute hearing, during which lawyers for Cassandra and her mother argued that even though Cassandra is a minor, she can make her own health decisions. Cassandra is months away from turning 18.
Connecticut Rules Cancer-Stricken Teen Must Undergo Chemotherapy
In one instance she is allowed to do what she wants with her body ( as in abortion) but in another instance she is not allowed to seek a medical alternative if she wants to.
because the state has custody
jesus! people at usmb get dumber very day
because one is a matter of life and deathBut why does she have to take chemotherapy as her medical treatment what if she wants to do holistic healing or alternaitve medicine?
If she wanted to have an abortion which is a medical procedure the state would not step in and even in her mother's care the mom has no say about it, it is the girl's choice...her body her choide to undergo a medical procedure, but not in the other instance.
Because the 80-85% success rate is with chemo. Not with evil spirit removal spray or with acupuncture or any other "alternative" medicine. Connecticut, nor any state, should pull an Ohio. Ever.
Yep, no parental consent required for an abortion in Connecticut. I don't have a problem with that either. That one is more likely to be done anyway. It's safer to have it done in a clinic then in an alley.
But she is allowed to have a medical abortion procedure or refuse abortion because it is HER body and HER choice, and she should be allowed to refuse chemo if she doesn't want it.
In 3 months she will be 18 and can refuse chemo if she wants to.
The point to me is, why is she allowed to decide on a medical procedure for herself without anyones input in one instance but not the other ?
the other is a medical procedure that poses little to no risk of death
Well if that's the reason then shouldn't people be allowed at any age to choose to have gender reassignment surgery, or breast implants, or plastic surgery?
what are you talking about? An abortion is so different than any of those things. It boggles the mind that you put forth such false choices
Her body, her choice is a separate issue than the state taking custody. She was taken to medical professionals. Her parent(s) alarmed the medical people so much they asked the state to step in.Not understanding her not wanting chemo...but on the other hand, not understanding the state forcing her by law to do chemo."Cassandra C" reportedly believes chemotherapy will do her harm rather than save her life.
A 17-year-old cancer patient does not have the right to refuse treatment for her disease, the state of Connecticut’s highest court has ruled.
Cassandra was removed from Fortin’s care after the mother and daughter missed follow-up appointments and placed into the custody of child welfare officials, who forced her to undergo the cancer treatment. The teenager ran away from hospital after just two days of chemotherapy.
The court made its expedited decision Thursday following a 45-minute hearing, during which lawyers for Cassandra and her mother argued that even though Cassandra is a minor, she can make her own health decisions. Cassandra is months away from turning 18.
Connecticut Rules Cancer-Stricken Teen Must Undergo Chemotherapy
In one instance she is allowed to do what she wants with her body ( as in abortion) but in another instance she is not allowed to seek a medical alternative if she wants to.
because the state has custody
jesus! people at usmb get dumber very day
I think it's wrong of the state to take custody.
It's her body and should be her choice, if they are going to allow her to make body choices in other instances.
I am not going to convince you otherwise and you won't convince me.
When thread discussions start to be redundant, I jump out.
Have a nice discussion.
Her body, her choice is a separate issue than the state taking custody. She was taken to medical professionals. Her parent(s) alarmed the medical people so much they asked the state to step in.Not understanding her not wanting chemo...but on the other hand, not understanding the state forcing her by law to do chemo."Cassandra C" reportedly believes chemotherapy will do her harm rather than save her life.
A 17-year-old cancer patient does not have the right to refuse treatment for her disease, the state of Connecticut’s highest court has ruled.
Cassandra was removed from Fortin’s care after the mother and daughter missed follow-up appointments and placed into the custody of child welfare officials, who forced her to undergo the cancer treatment. The teenager ran away from hospital after just two days of chemotherapy.
The court made its expedited decision Thursday following a 45-minute hearing, during which lawyers for Cassandra and her mother argued that even though Cassandra is a minor, she can make her own health decisions. Cassandra is months away from turning 18.
Connecticut Rules Cancer-Stricken Teen Must Undergo Chemotherapy
In one instance she is allowed to do what she wants with her body ( as in abortion) but in another instance she is not allowed to seek a medical alternative if she wants to.
because the state has custody
jesus! people at usmb get dumber very day
I think it's wrong of the state to take custody.
It's her body and should be her choice, if they are going to allow her to make body choices in other instances.
I am not going to convince you otherwise and you won't convince me.
When thread discussions start to be redundant, I jump out.
Have a nice discussion.
Yet despite research from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the New England Journal of Medicine and other top-tier health journals that shows there is a significant risk of violence, abuse and rejection in families when parents are informed of a pregnancy, proponents of Proposition 4 insist there's no risk of harm to teens. But consider the young woman in Michigan, where there is a parental involvement law, who tried to self-induce an abortion by asking her teen boyfriend to hit her in the stomach with a baseball bat. We can't let those tragic stories happen in California.
Should doctors have to notify parents before a minor receives an abortion - LA Times
Should doctors have to notify parents before a minor receives an abortion - LA Timesbecause one is a matter of life and deathBecause the 80-85% success rate is with chemo. Not with evil spirit removal spray or with acupuncture or any other "alternative" medicine. Connecticut, nor any state, should pull an Ohio. Ever.
Yep, no parental consent required for an abortion in Connecticut. I don't have a problem with that either. That one is more likely to be done anyway. It's safer to have it done in a clinic then in an alley.
But she is allowed to have a medical abortion procedure or refuse abortion because it is HER body and HER choice, and she should be allowed to refuse chemo if she doesn't want it.
In 3 months she will be 18 and can refuse chemo if she wants to.
The point to me is, why is she allowed to decide on a medical procedure for herself without anyones input in one instance but not the other ?
the other is a medical procedure that poses little to no risk of death
Well if that's the reason then shouldn't people be allowed at any age to choose to have gender reassignment surgery, or breast implants, or plastic surgery?
what are you talking about? An abortion is so different than any of those things. It boggles the mind that you put forth such false choices
Dante abortion is a serious medical procedure just as any of the others mentioned.
Some people choose to do it and they have their own reasons for it, some people opt for alternative medicine ad have their own reasons for it, some people have gender re assignment surgery for their own reasons.
These are all serious medical procedures and they are personal individual choices to make.
I don't want anyone making choices for me, do you want people at usmb to decide what's right for you?
Maybe you do, and I don't.
IS there anything productive that can be said more on this or will the thread just go another ten pages with people saying over and over again how they disagree and then regurgitate the reasons why to every new reply.
Her body, her choice is a separate issue than the state taking custody. She was taken to medical professionals. Her parent(s) alarmed the medical people so much they asked the state to step in.Not understanding her not wanting chemo...but on the other hand, not understanding the state forcing her by law to do chemo.Connecticut Rules Cancer-Stricken Teen Must Undergo Chemotherapy
In one instance she is allowed to do what she wants with her body ( as in abortion) but in another instance she is not allowed to seek a medical alternative if she wants to.
because the state has custody
jesus! people at usmb get dumber very day
I think it's wrong of the state to take custody.
It's her body and should be her choice, if they are going to allow her to make body choices in other instances.
I am not going to convince you otherwise and you won't convince me.
When thread discussions start to be redundant, I jump out.
Have a nice discussion.
Which I already stated I disagreed with the state doing that.
We just disagree Dante.
Yet despite research from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the New England Journal of Medicine and other top-tier health journals that shows there is a significant risk of violence, abuse and rejection in families when parents are informed of a pregnancy, proponents of Proposition 4 insist there's no risk of harm to teens. But consider the young woman in Michigan, where there is a parental involvement law, who tried to self-induce an abortion by asking her teen boyfriend to hit her in the stomach with a baseball bat. We can't let those tragic stories happen in California.
Should doctors have to notify parents before a minor receives an abortion - LA Times
And if they have the right to choose a medical procedure they should have the right to refuse a medical procedure.
And if they have the right to choose a medical procedure they should have the right to refuse a medical procedure.
And if they have the right to choose a medical procedure they should have the right to refuse a medical procedure.
btw, this is an absolutist opinion. very dangerous. It is the world wingers and other misfits reside in
