Court Denies Teen’s Wish to Refuse Cancer Treatment

[ricechickie]

Strange world when the left promotes doctor assisted suicide but forces a young woman to endure a painful procedure that isn't guaranteed to prolong her life.

"The left" wants to force her to undergo treatment? And here I thought it was a court decision......

I'm generally considered on "the left" and I'm not in favor of this. She's just shy of 18, she's made her wishes known.

 

[ricechickie]

It would save taxpayers if they allowed that.

I am not a law breaker I just simply don't agree with the idea that in one instance something is allowed but not the other.

I've had the same argument with emily about pot and alcohol and the legal issues.

It just bothers me, because we all are socially constructing these stories behind why the law or rule has to be this way or that way but it seems people pick n choose.

They choose who can do what with there body and who can decide it, abortion fine, gender reassignment no, refuse medical treatment no,

Heteros marry and for the longest time gays no, and before that inter racial no

Which intoxicants a person can take legally ( prescription drugs and booze and tobacco) pot no

Within that context and over time those laws and rules changes to accommodate the people.

How do lobbyists or organized groups change laws they appeal to the emotions or mindset of the people.

The idea that in one instance something is allowed but not in another, is life. You are looking for life to be black and white, as emily seems to be. We as a polity get to say what our laws are. We can change the laws.

Yet so far you've avoided answering questions about what would you do -- lower the age of consent, age of full adulthood? How would you convince people of those? Would you go to court to force an issue? If so, would you whine if the law worked against you?

Nothing is so simple as emotional arguments

And yet advertisers and campaign handlers use emotions to influence conspicuous consumption and to vote changing laws and to vote in parties.

advertisers sell products. campaigns run candidates in elections. most laws do not come out of ad campaigns or political campaigns. And you were not really upset with any specific law, you were upset with the legal ruling.

You have not said you would do away with laws that allow and demand the state to step in to protect children

I said I would lower to the age that is able to decide medical procedures for themselves like an abortion. Whatever age that is and I would make the law be they can make decisions for themself.

If a young adult at 17 was able to make medical decisions, why not sign a mortgage? Why not a credit card?


agree or disagree, there are reasons abortions are treated differently and you have no considered them. you are saying you'd design law by feelings and emotion. a recipe for disaster on a grand scale

My brother joined the Army when he was still actually 17. If he could do that, I would think he could make his own medical decisions.

(BTW, I just checked, and he had parental permission. Still, he could do that, but couldn't drink alcohol, even with parental permission, until 21. Our guidelines for legal "maturity" are all kinds of fucked up.)

 

[koshergrl]

If she was fighting to commit suicide, the lefties would be howling to let her, that's what's so ironic.

If she wanted an abortion the courts would say her body her choice.

But if she wants to try alternative medicine it's not her body or choice?

It's a life and death situation. no? She's a minor, yes? The state has custody. this isn't about her.

When she turns older she can choose the stupid alternative that has very little chance to help her type of cancer

this case is about the state's responsibilities to minors in their custody. If she wanted an abortion the state could not stop her. jesus, don't get trapped into koshernut and whitewash diatribes

The state allows minors to commit doctor-assisted suicide.

How is this different again?

huh? a dying patient? huh?

put down the pipe

Assisted Suicide Not for Adults Only Patients Rights Council

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The idea that in one instance something is allowed but not in another, is life. You are looking for life to be black and white, as emily seems to be. We as a polity get to say what our laws are. We can change the laws.

Yet so far you've avoided answering questions about what would you do -- lower the age of consent, age of full adulthood? How would you convince people of those? Would you go to court to force an issue? If so, would you whine if the law worked against you?

Nothing is so simple as emotional arguments

And yet advertisers and campaign handlers use emotions to influence conspicuous consumption and to vote changing laws and to vote in parties.

advertisers sell products. campaigns run candidates in elections. most laws do not come out of ad campaigns or political campaigns. And you were not really upset with any specific law, you were upset with the legal ruling.

You have not said you would do away with laws that allow and demand the state to step in to protect children

I said I would lower to the age that is able to decide medical procedures for themselves like an abortion. Whatever age that is and I would make the law be they can make decisions for themself.

If a young adult at 17 was able to make medical decisions, why not sign a mortgage? Why not a credit card?


agree or disagree, there are reasons abortions are treated differently and you have no considered them. you are saying you'd design law by feelings and emotion. a recipe for disaster on a grand scale

My brother joined the Army when he was still actually 17. If he could do that, I would think he could make his own medical decisions.

(BTW, I just checked, and he had parental permission. Still, he could do that, but couldn't drink alcohol, even with parental permission, until 21. Our guidelines for legal "maturity" are all kinds of fucked up.)

I've already addressed this and agree, but what I also said was there is always the law of unintended consequences as in lowering the age and what that entails, the unknown unknowns and more...

The court is asked to apply the law, not argue over what is fucked up. You either agree with the state having responsibility because it is the legal custodian or you don't. It's a legal question that raises some societal issues, but what about the law?

Dante also said he would if he could, make the age one is eligible to fight in wars the same age for full adulthood -- raise or lower it. But the custodian of your brother signed a legal document allowing him to enter military. In the medical case here the state is the parent

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If she was fighting to commit suicide, the lefties would be howling to let her, that's what's so ironic.

If she wanted an abortion the courts would say her body her choice.

But if she wants to try alternative medicine it's not her body or choice?

It's a life and death situation. no? She's a minor, yes? The state has custody. this isn't about her.

When she turns older she can choose the stupid alternative that has very little chance to help her type of cancer

this case is about the state's responsibilities to minors in their custody. If she wanted an abortion the state could not stop her. jesus, don't get trapped into koshernut and whitewash diatribes

The state allows minors to commit doctor-assisted suicide.

How is this different again?

huh? a dying patient? huh?

put down the pipe

Assisted Suicide Not for Adults Only Patients Rights Council

again, what are you talking about -- an advocacy group? that is not the state, as you claimed

 

[koshergrl]

Proposed legislation from the left states:

"A person 7 years of age or older but under 18 years of age shall notify his parents or guardian, whichever is applicable, prior to requesting another person to terminate the requestor’s life. Permission from such parents or guardian shall not be a condition precedent to making a valid request to die."

Assisted Suicide Not for Adults Only Patients Rights Council

So how do people who defend a child's right to euthanasia and assisted suicide also defend the right to force a girl to undergo painful therapy that she doesn't want?

 

[koshergrl]

If she wanted an abortion the courts would say her body her choice.

But if she wants to try alternative medicine it's not her body or choice?

It's a life and death situation. no? She's a minor, yes? The state has custody. this isn't about her.

When she turns older she can choose the stupid alternative that has very little chance to help her type of cancer

this case is about the state's responsibilities to minors in their custody. If she wanted an abortion the state could not stop her. jesus, don't get trapped into koshernut and whitewash diatribes

The state allows minors to commit doctor-assisted suicide.

How is this different again?

huh? a dying patient? huh?

put down the pipe

Assisted Suicide Not for Adults Only Patients Rights Council

again, what are you talking about -- an advocacy group? that is not the state, as you claimed

My point, again, is that why is it that progressives think they have the right to determine for this girl that she must undergo treatment...but the same people insist that the girl has the right to obtain assisted suicide, or to get an abortion, without any interference from her parents or anyone else?

I guess it's only okay for THEM to dictate what a girl may do with her own body.

Which has always been my understanding.

 

[koshergrl]

This might be a little too nuanced for you, dainty.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The age to drink was lowered in some states and then raised again. Why? The unintended rise in young adults involved in drunk driving accidents. Nothing is ever as simple as most people here and elsewhere have themselves believing

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It's a life and death situation. no? She's a minor, yes? The state has custody. this isn't about her.

When she turns older she can choose the stupid alternative that has very little chance to help her type of cancer

this case is about the state's responsibilities to minors in their custody. If she wanted an abortion the state could not stop her. jesus, don't get trapped into koshernut and whitewash diatribes

The state allows minors to commit doctor-assisted suicide.

How is this different again?

huh? a dying patient? huh?

put down the pipe

Assisted Suicide Not for Adults Only Patients Rights Council

again, what are you talking about -- an advocacy group? that is not the state, as you claimed

My point, again, is that why is it that progressives think they have the right to determine for this girl that she must undergo treatment...but the same people insist that the girl has the right to obtain assisted suicide, or to get an abortion, without any interference from her parents or anyone else?

I guess it's only okay for THEM to dictate what a girl may do with her own body.

Which has always been my understanding.

wrong again. It is the medical profession and the state (Connecticut) and the state Court deciding it, not progressives.

What progressives and others THINK about the two issues, and the nuances of it all (lost on you) are an ideological and political battle. This is a forum for legal issues. You seem a bit confused

 

[koshergrl]

I'm not confused at all.

Progressive douche bags think they should have the final say on who is allowed to live, and who should be killed. And they think they have the right to force people to accommodate whatever whim they are laboring under on that particular day.

In this case, on this day, progressives maintain that this girl should be forced to undergo painful and possibly ineffectual treatment that she has no desire to undergo.

Tomorrow, they will maintain that the same girl's parents have the right to kill her, if they determine she's useless or *too* unhappy to merit life.

And the day after THAT they will maintain that her parents and the state have zero authority over her, and she is the sole owner of her own body, and the sole determiner of whether or not she should risk her own life for the sake of aborting her child.

 

[ricechickie]

I'm not confused at all.

Progressive douche bags think they should have the final say on who is allowed to live, and who should be killed. And they think they have the right to force people to accommodate whatever whim they are laboring under on that particular day.

In this case, on this day, progressives maintain that this girl should be forced to undergo painful and possibly ineffectual treatment that she has no desire to undergo.

Tomorrow, they will maintain that the same girl's parents have the right to kill her, if they determine she's useless or *too* unhappy to merit life.

It's true. We call it the late-late-late-late-LATE-term abortion.

Geez, do you type your posts in sincerity?

 

[ricechickie]

I've already addressed this and agree, but what I also said was there is always the law of unintended consequences as in lowering the age and what that entails, the unknown unknowns and more...

The court is asked to apply the law, not argue over what is fucked up. You either agree with the state having responsibility because it is the legal custodian or you don't. It's a legal question that raises some societal issues, but what about the law?

Dante also said he would if he could, make the age one is eligible to fight in wars the same age for full adulthood -- raise or lower it. But the custodian of your brother signed a legal document allowing him to enter military. In the medical case here the state is the parent

The court applied the law, but the state was the girl's guardian because she was removed from her mother......because they weren't going to chemo.

There's such a thing as the spirit of the law vs. the letter.

I'm saying that the letter of the law is messed up, and while it might not be in the purview of these courts to discuss that in this case, this case is an example of why the age of legality needs to be more consistent for any and all activities.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'm not confused at all.

Progressive douche bags...

...

confused and not serious? why not hang out in the Rubber Room or Conspiracy Forums?

 

[koshergrl]

I'm not confused at all.

Progressive douche bags...

...

confused and not serious? why not hang out in the Rubber Room or Conspiracy Forums?

That's certainly where you should be, I'm surprised to see you out and about.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I've already addressed this and agree, but what I also said was there is always the law of unintended consequences as in lowering the age and what that entails, the unknown unknowns and more...

The court is asked to apply the law, not argue over what is fucked up. You either agree with the state having responsibility because it is the legal custodian or you don't. It's a legal question that raises some societal issues, but what about the law?

Dante also said he would if he could, make the age one is eligible to fight in wars the same age for full adulthood -- raise or lower it. But the custodian of your brother signed a legal document allowing him to enter military. In the medical case here the state is the parent

The court applied the law, but the state was the girl's guardian because she was removed from her mother......because they weren't going to chemo.

There's such a thing as the spirit of the law vs. the letter.

I'm saying that the letter of the law is messed up, and while it might not be in the purview of these courts to discuss that in this case, this case is an example of why the age of legality needs to be more consistent for any and all activities.

Medical professionals are required by law to report abuse. They considered this abuse. The state stepped in and agreed. This is WHY she was removed. You DO NOT disagree with the law. You disagree with the application and your disagreement lost a legal argument. The spirit of the law? What law-- name the law where you think the spirit of the specific law was violated? You cannot be abstract here, for all that would do is obfuscate an opinion based on feelings and emotion more than 'the law.'

You say "the age of legality needs to be more consistent for any and all activities" - so you know 16 is the cut off for juvenile records and such. Should all 16 year olds be allowed to sign contracts, get credit, drink, fight in wars? This is what you are advocating -- not the age but the requirement that one age be selected and the heck with consequences. It is what you are advocating.

Myself, I would do things differently, but with the knowledge that the law of unintended consequences would rear it's ugly head. I just wouldn't care as much as most people would. I'm not a moralist

 

[ricechickie]

I've already addressed this and agree, but what I also said was there is always the law of unintended consequences as in lowering the age and what that entails, the unknown unknowns and more...

The court is asked to apply the law, not argue over what is fucked up. You either agree with the state having responsibility because it is the legal custodian or you don't. It's a legal question that raises some societal issues, but what about the law?

Dante also said he would if he could, make the age one is eligible to fight in wars the same age for full adulthood -- raise or lower it. But the custodian of your brother signed a legal document allowing him to enter military. In the medical case here the state is the parent

The court applied the law, but the state was the girl's guardian because she was removed from her mother......because they weren't going to chemo.

There's such a thing as the spirit of the law vs. the letter.

I'm saying that the letter of the law is messed up, and while it might not be in the purview of these courts to discuss that in this case, this case is an example of why the age of legality needs to be more consistent for any and all activities.

Medical professionals are required by law to report abuse. They considered this abuse. The state stepped in and agreed. This is WHY she was removed. You DO NOT disagree with the law. You disagree with the application and your disagreement lost a legal argument. The spirit of the law? What law-- name the law where you think the spirit of the specific law was violated? You cannot be abstract here, for all that would do is obfuscate an opinion based on feelings and emotion more than 'the law.'

You say "the age of legality needs to be more consistent for any and all activities" - so you know 16 is the cut off for juvenile records and such. Should all 16 year olds be allowed to sign contracts, get credit, drink, fight in wars? This is what you are advocating -- not the age but the requirement that one age be selected and the heck with consequences. It is what you are advocating.

Myself, I would do things differently, but with the knowledge that the law of unintended consequences would rear it's ugly head. I just wouldn't care as much as most people would. I'm not a moralist

You're right. I disagree with the application of the law, that took a practically-grown person away from her home and forced medical procedures on her, on the premise that she was being "abused." These are obviously the girl's wishes.

Legality holds little interest for me, except when injustices are carried out in the name of legality.....which has happened in this case, in my opinion.

Oh, and don't tell me what I'm advocating. Try asking.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I've already addressed this and agree, but what I also said was there is always the law of unintended consequences as in lowering the age and what that entails, the unknown unknowns and more...

The court is asked to apply the law, not argue over what is fucked up. You either agree with the state having responsibility because it is the legal custodian or you don't. It's a legal question that raises some societal issues, but what about the law?

Dante also said he would if he could, make the age one is eligible to fight in wars the same age for full adulthood -- raise or lower it. But the custodian of your brother signed a legal document allowing him to enter military. In the medical case here the state is the parent

The court applied the law, but the state was the girl's guardian because she was removed from her mother......because they weren't going to chemo.

There's such a thing as the spirit of the law vs. the letter.

I'm saying that the letter of the law is messed up, and while it might not be in the purview of these courts to discuss that in this case, this case is an example of why the age of legality needs to be more consistent for any and all activities.

Medical professionals are required by law to report abuse. They considered this abuse. The state stepped in and agreed. This is WHY she was removed. You DO NOT disagree with the law. You disagree with the application and your disagreement lost a legal argument. The spirit of the law? What law-- name the law where you think the spirit of the specific law was violated? You cannot be abstract here, for all that would do is obfuscate an opinion based on feelings and emotion more than 'the law.'

You say "the age of legality needs to be more consistent for any and all activities" - so you know 16 is the cut off for juvenile records and such. Should all 16 year olds be allowed to sign contracts, get credit, drink, fight in wars? This is what you are advocating -- not the age but the requirement that one age be selected and the heck with consequences. It is what you are advocating.

Myself, I would do things differently, but with the knowledge that the law of unintended consequences would rear it's ugly head. I just wouldn't care as much as most people would. I'm not a moralist

You're right. I disagree with the application of the law, that took a practically-grown person away from her home and forced medical procedures on her, on the premise that she was being "abused." These are obviously the girl's wishes.

Legality holds little interest for me, except when injustices are carried out in the name of legality.....which has happened in this case, in my opinion.

Oh, and don't tell me what I'm advocating. Try asking.

If a minor decides they want to be abused, you say they should have that right? When you are advocating, you are advocating. People not always being truthful with themselves do not get a pass

You can hide behind silliness like "a practically-grown person" but what you are advocating is exceptions to the laws regarding minors based on YOUR notions of who is and who isn't "a practically-grown person"

maybe try this: Age of Majority Adulthood in the USA Abortions-Drinking-Contracts-Voting-Criminal Records US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Gracie]

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.

stop being an idiot. this is no different than if she were a ward of the state in foster care.

It's about the principle, not about her. The state has an obligation because it has custody

Bullshit. You would be screaming bloody murder if you were a ward of the state..like maybe in prison..and they decide they need your kidney.

They have done terrible experiments and testing on prisoners in history, I could see them stealing a kidney.

It's only a matter of time. Once the government starts owning a body...everyone needs to start worrying. And it is starting with this 17 year old girl AND her mother NOT wanting chemo but being forced to have it done.

Bet a shitload of folks here saying its all AOK would change their tune if the government decided alcohol was bad and therefore no more drinking because they may need a body part that is healthy. No more football, because it's too dangerous to the body. No more skiing. No more racing. No more sky diving. You get the drift.

Once our bodies are owned...we are fucked. Just remember that when it gets there.

And so it begins. Baby steps, but still rolling towards the final goal:

sledding to be banned on public property US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

stop being an idiot. this is no different than if she were a ward of the state in foster care.

It's about the principle, not about her. The state has an obligation because it has custody

Bullshit. You would be screaming bloody murder if you were a ward of the state..like maybe in prison..and they decide they need your kidney.

They have done terrible experiments and testing on prisoners in history, I could see them stealing a kidney.

It's only a matter of time. Once the government starts owning a body...everyone needs to start worrying. And it is starting with this 17 year old girl AND her mother NOT wanting chemo but being forced to have it done.

Bet a shitload of folks here saying its all AOK would change their tune if the government decided alcohol was bad and therefore no more drinking because they may need a body part that is healthy. No more football, because it's too dangerous to the body. No more skiing. No more racing. No more sky diving. You get the drift.

Once our bodies are owned...we are fucked. Just remember that when it gets there.

And so it begins. Baby steps, but still rolling towards the final goal:

sledding to be banned on public property US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

wonder how many of the parents suing were conservatives?

between 1997 and 2007, more than 20,000 children each year were treated at emergency rooms for sledding-related injuries.
In meetings leading up to the ban, Dubuque council members lamented the move but said it was the only responsible choice given liability concerns and demands from the city's insurance carrier. They pointed to judgments in sledding lawsuits in the past decade, such as a $2 million judgment against Omaha, Nebraska, after a 5-year-old girl was paralyzed when she hit a tree and a $2.75 million payment when a man in Sioux City, Iowa, slid into a sign and injured his spinal cord.​