Pong Messiah Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 So, a teenage girl with a very treatable (but likely fatal if untreated) form of cancer who was taught by her mom that modern medicine is "poison" was refusing treatment. State decides she's not mature enough to control her own body: Connecticut Teen With Curable Cancer Must Continue Chemo: Court Pretty ugly! ------- I have a really hard time getting around the state forcing somebody to do something with their own body, even if it is for "their own good," but here you have a kid who will likely choose to die because of her mom's insanity, which is just tragic. Was the state right in telling the mother (and daughter) to sit down and take the damn chemo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burt Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 I have little patience for the anti-vaxxers and anti-modern medicine crowd. Their madness hurts other people, and these aren't opinions we should respectfully disagree with. Scream, yell, kick, bite, push, whatever until they are shamed into silence. They're wrong. Her mother is wrong, and it's going to kill her daughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pong Messiah Posted January 11, 2015 Author Share Posted January 11, 2015 Totally agree, Burt. I think it is 100% justified in this case. That being said, I do have a problem with the state telling a parent "I don't care what you/your kid says, you're having this done to you," so I'd be lying if I said it didn't also make me uncomfortable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 They could have changed the language a bit and equated the mother's stance to child abuse-- where there is a long history of the state taking charge of care over minors. Frankly, I consider it abuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cashmere Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Hmm. I read another article about this that stated her form of cancer is incurable. In that case I'd say she has the right to refuse chemo, since the decision purely effects her quality of life. Being that it's actually curable, I think the state made the right call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Choc Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Totally agree, Burt. I think it is 100% justified in this case. That being said, I do have a problem with the state telling a parent "I don't care what you/your kid says, you're having this done to you," so I'd be lying if I said it didn't also make me uncomfortable.This parent is literally killing their child. If a parent was beating the hell out of their kid and said "well it's how I was raised and what I believe in" no one could complain about the government taking the kid away. What this parent is doing is just as bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RelentlessMalice Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 What is the difference if the state orders a medical procedure done against the will of the patient and the federal gov mandating every American have health insurance? The right of the people to choose for themselves what they want medically is finished. I remember here in Florida years ago the Terry Schivo case being decided by the state after years of legal battles. A persons health should be between a patient, doctor and God. The state government, federal gov and insurance companies have no business there in medical decisions. As far as the mother is concerned it is abuse and she should be criminally prosecuted for negligence. The choice should be with the child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeygirl Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Dude, you're all OVER the road with that. Your medical rights are not finished. The ACA isn't analagous to a parent's will being imposed on a teenager, medically. The Terry Schiavo case was about living wills. And just a question-I've forgotten your stance on legal abortion? Just wondering the connection re; "A persons health should be between a patient, doctor and God." And if the choice should be with the child (to anyone-devil's advocate) at what age do we give children the right to make their own medical decisions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RelentlessMalice Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 All Im saying is that this isnt the first nor last time the government interferes with a medical decision so this case should come to no suprise. Also why do you always bring up abortion in medical threads? For the record I really dont give a shit.I dont think abortion is the best option for people because there are plenty of alternatives out there but if abortion is what they want then so be it. I mean obviously this child isnt mature enough to make this type of choice but I have come to the conclusion that the government should just stay the hell out of peoples lives especially medically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burt Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I'm just going to throw this in the mix:http://www.antivaccinebodycount.com/Anti-Vaccine_Body_Count/Home.html Pong, you raise a good point. If I had incurable cancer, maybe I would want to refuse treatment and just take a one-way hiking trip. I totally get the logic behind that. I would rather go out on my own terms than waste away. However, she's 17 and her mother is crazy. I don't know how the law treats brainwashed minors. Sticky precedent for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evolence Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I think this is a travesty for individual liberty. The state has no business mandating such an invasive, horrible procedure-- regardless of whether the parents/kid are whacked out in the head. Don't get me wrong, I hate the anti-vaccer crowd as much as anyone. But I am also an advocate of the right to die, no matter the age. So what if this girl was choosing death? Why is that such a "wrong" answer to the existential dilemma? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest El Chalupacabra Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Religious freedom or not, I believe there is a point when either an action or lack of an action constitutes child endangerment. I think a case like this definitely qualifies as putting that kid in danger, so I agree with what was done here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Human Torch Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 I watched too much Star Trek, this feels like a Prime Directive problem. I personally believe not getting medical treatment is crazy and endangerment, but and perhaps conflictingly I don't agree with forcing someone into treatment. As a believer in God I think science is just another tool we're supposed to use. As with many issues we struggle with, it seems like education is again key here. Maybe with more information people would make different decisions. I'm not certain where the line is, but I know there is one. It's depressing when everyone can't agree on where it is, or stand with you, but it feels equally disturbing to force someone to stand on your side of the line. I'm not certain I could maintain this non-interference if the power to make the decision was soley on me, I don't envy those that had to do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms. Spam Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 I have little patience for the anti-vaxxers and anti-modern medicine crowd. Their madness hurts other people, and these aren't opinions we should respectfully disagree with. Scream, yell, kick, bite, push, whatever until they are shamed into silence. They're wrong. Her mother is wrong, and it's going to kill her daughter.There is currently an epidemic of people who's young children caught the measles at Disney World from anti-vaccination people visiting at the same time. As for this... Perhaps even though it is painful for people to consider the death of a child due to weird belief systems we should start adapting a Darwin-like survival of the fittest thing because people who clearly are stupid and believing in non-science medical cures should not be passing on their genes or beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cashmere Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Sadly, outbreaks of vaccine preventable illnesses don't only kill the children of people who refuse to vaccinate. Some of the children that contracted measles at Disney were too young to be vaccinated. I don't think any of them died, but this will keep happening, and it will eventually kill innocent children/babies. If some idiot killed my child due to choosing to allow their children to contract a vaccine preventable illness, I would want to kill them and their germ ridden spawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Copper Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Sadly, outbreaks of vaccine preventable illnesses don't only kill the children of people who refuse to vaccinate. Some of the children that contracted measles at Disney were too young to be vaccinated. I don't think any of them died, but this will keep happening, and it will eventually kill innocent children/babies. If some idiot killed my child due to choosing to allow their children to contract a vaccine preventable illness, I would want to kill them and their germ ridden spawn.Word, sister. It also endangers the immuno-suppressed. I've read articles about people whose kids are undergoing cancer treatments and they get calls from day cares and schools that say, "hey we're sorry but an anti-vaccer kid just got enrolled, so you have to keep your kid home." How the fuck is that right in any world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cashmere Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Thats just horrifying. In that situation, the kid with cancer didn't make any choices to cause the immunodeficiency, so I think the unvaccinated child should be prevented from enrolling. Sadly, that's not normally the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms. Spam Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 No shots, no school in my School District. My sister has to wear a mask in public because her immune system is compromised. I have no sympathy for people who don't vaccinate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kurgan Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 What is the difference if the state orders a medical procedure done against the will of the patient and the federal gov mandating every American have health insurance? The right of the people to choose for themselves what they want medically is finished. I live in a country where not only does the federal govt mandate health insurance for all citizens, but also provides it. Know what? That means that the entire population is insured for basic health care, at a lower cost per capita than is the case Stateside. Know what else? There are no death panels, no FEMA camps, no government bureaucrats telling you what you can and can't do, health insurance premiums do not rival rent for monthly expense, health insurence conglomerates do not write health care legislation and do not conjure up astroturf political movements like the tea party when their interests are threatened. It's not perfect, but hardly the socialist gulag you've been told it was. If you're so worried about overaching government trampling on civil liberties, you've got FAR bigger fish to fry than this - the NSA and militarization of the police, for starters. Requiring this girl to get chemo will not end up leading to some kind of New World Order surgical implanting of mind control devices, or the like. It will prevent her being murdered by her delusional, crazy mother. That's it. I don't see why it's such a big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pong Messiah Posted January 16, 2015 Author Share Posted January 16, 2015 Requiring this girl to get chemo will not end up leading to some kind of New World Order surgical implanting of mind control devices, or the like.but can u be sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RelentlessMalice Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Kurgan the government has no business telling anyone they have to have healthcare. It is nothing more than "implied power abuse" by the legislative and executive branch that should be deamed unconstitutional by the judicial branch one day. I am no tea party supporter either but rather an American tired of seeing the expansion of powers not expressed in the Constitution rather an interpretation of expanded implied powers that too many Americans allow to just happen today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms. Spam Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Americans are fat consumerist idiots that have to do things their own way, Kurgan. We are contrarian in everything, even logical arguments. There are people in the US that genuinely believe there are no successful national health plans out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 I remember when the Obamatroopers came to my door and MADE me sign up for health insurance. That was a crazy night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Weren't you working as an Obamatrooper before you got famous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RelentlessMalice Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Well I guess you guys have been lucky enough not to get sick or have any hospital visits lately because I have in my family and the amount of bueracratic red tape involved between a patient and their doctor sucks! Not to mention because of my healthcare through my employer changed because of Obamacare and my deductible ****ing went up. If you go to your doctor for a visit and they see a problem they used to take care of it in office but now you have to make another appointment and come back. Federal healthcare and government interference suck. The only piece I agree with is that people can no longer be denied because of pre existing medical conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts