Posted on 01/08/2015 11:55:21 AM PST by Nachum
HARTFORD — The state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a Windsor Locks teen is not legally mature enough to decide against life-saving chemotherapy. The unanimous decision, after a 75-minute hearing, upheld a lower court ruling that the state can force treatment for Hodgkin´s lymphoma on the girl, identified as Cassandra C. The state Department of Children and Families had been awarded custody of the child, who is "doing well" with chemotherapy at Connecticut Children´s Medical Center, a lawyer for the state told the justices. The court Thursday heard arguments from lawyers for Cassandra and her mother, Jackie Fortin, who supports
(Excerpt) Read more at courant.com ...
This should be appealed to SCOTUS. It’s utterly outrageous.
yes chemo can cause lots of nausa, and hair to fall out, but a 17 yr old is just getting started at life to opt out
She’ll be 18 in a few months. Then let’s see what happens since they took her away from her mother.
don’t do DU just asking a logical question
i have had a few family members go through chemo and one xMIL opted out. i don’t know what i would do if either one of my kids had do go through it at 17. but i would not have involved the county or state DCS.
Irony that courts also fight to kill someone through forced starvation and dehydration like Terri Shiavo.
Emmancipated minor and she can do whatever she wants.
How should the court decide if two doctors don't agree on the treatment? Is the FDA the arbiter now of what treatments are available and whether or not we may refuse such treatment?
The courts are exercising YOUR power over this young woman. Who made YOU the arbiter of what medical treatment should be forced on a patient?
I have a friend who is facing a treatment option which may increase 5-year-survival from 15% to 50%. Are you prepared to force this person to undergo such treatment?
She isn’t old enough to make the decision to refuse chemo which would probably end her life, but she is past old enough to have an abortion and end a baby’s life?
I would question just how "clearly" that line is drawn today, but I see no justification for denying the parent of such a "child" to make medical decisions on behalf of that child. The courts should be presuming that a mother will choose the best for her child and should defer to the mother without substantial evidence to question the mother's motives.
"Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves." Prince v. Massachusetts, 344 U.S. 158 (1944).
It’s not up to you...or the state.
The ruling is perverse in the face of that same court ruling a minor female IS mature enough to end a life.
The parents should emancipate her and make her a legal adult then the state can F off.
She is months shy of 18 and doesn’t want the treatment.
That should be the end of it.
Does the kid need money for a bus ticket out of Connecticut?
The question is whether or not she would be able to stop chemotherapy on any fetus that happened to be inside her?
That would be the "end" which would justify the "means" of using the courts to dictate medical decisions, wouldn't it?
And if she dies anyway, who will make the opposite argument?
I knew a woman in her thirties who survived cancer when she was eighteen. She was attractive, personable, and extremely intelligent. She was also single and walked with the aid of a cane due to the damage done by chemotherapy.
She seemed quite content with her life, but I can well imagine people who might feel that the sacrifices she has had to make in order to "survive" might not be worth it. She might be unable to have children and might never marry. She may well have extreme physical problems that are not visible to an observer.
I would never second-guess her decision to take the treatment and live her life as she sees fit and I would never dream of forcing her to undertake such treatment against her will if she preferred a 10% chance of surviving the cancer and living an otherwise "normal" life. It's her life and her medical treatment should be her choice.
I am sorry to hear that.
I have known a few people who recovered from this in their youth.
I wonder what this girl is thinking. This is a case where I would suggest the chemo to anyone asking. (No one has.) In this type of cancer, I think the complete success rate is outstanding.
That said, the girl should have the right to make the decision.
But, in the end, there is no good answer to this issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.