Should the state be allowed to force a cancer treatment?

Page 1 of 101234>Last »
Poll
5 votes (62.5%)
1 vote (12.5%)
2 votes (25%)

8 members have voted

January 8th, 2015 at 1:10:45 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
In a reverse from "death panels" The CT Supremes are forcing a 17 year old to undergo chemo treatment.

The girl and her mother both have decided she does not want the treatment, but the state says she can be forced.

Personally I think whoever brought the suit to force this should be fired from their job as they are clearly not qualified for said job. It seems the CT Department of Children and Families has the same overreaching philosophy that many CYS departments nationwide do, namely take the kid if there is any doubt as to if the should because "the state knows better."

Am I out of my mind or are the CT DCF and Supremes?
The President is a fink.
January 8th, 2015 at 1:17:26 PM permalink
DRich
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 51
Posts: 4942
I am okay with it only because she is still classified as a child. If she met the definition for adult, I think she should be able to decide for herself.
At my age a Life In Prison sentence is not much of a detrrent.
January 8th, 2015 at 2:21:39 PM permalink
petroglyph
Member since: Aug 3, 2014
Threads: 25
Posts: 6227
It's a matter of priorities.

She can get birth control at 13/14, without parents consent. Implying she is old enough to make the decisions that implies.

A teenager can have an abortion [age a little different per state] with a parents signature in Georgia [at 14] in 24 hours with a parents consent.

A 17 year old can join the Marines with certain qualifications.

Probably a lot more choices a 17 year old can make or be made with a parents consent but apparently not how to treat disease. If she were to go into spontaneous remission that might question who is the authority and threaten the multi-billion dollar cancer industry. Can't have that.

They can make all kinds of body disfiguring choices, tats, gauges etc. at a young age. Parents concede to disfigure their baby boys near their birth with circumcision and that seems ok with everybody. But don't dare challenge Big Pharma, that is sacrilegious.

IMO, whoever is forcing this person to undergo chemo should be forced to take some as well. Is anyone naive enough to think this battle is actually about the "welfare of the child"? The only accepted treatment for cancer is cut, burn or poison. The most promising treatments now in phase 3 trials are based on enhancing the bodies immune system, which I believe is what the naturopathic method has always been about.

Johns Hopkins has stated that diet is " A cancer treatment", http://www.livestrong.com/article/399812-johns-hopkins-cancer-diet/, so that is "a" treatment as is the others. I have read that the survival rate for cancers overall following the cut, burn, poison protocol is less than five years. So five years [or 3] is what they consider a cure. The quality of those five years doesn't get talked about much.

In fifty years people will look back and see chemo and radiation as the barbaric treatments they are.

People should realize that they are the "property" of the state, not the bosses.

@Am I out of my mind or are the CT DCF and Supremes? It isn't about whether or not the kid has a long happy life, it is about who owns the person. And, who contributes to campaign donations.
The last official act of any government is to loot the treasury. GW
January 8th, 2015 at 3:13:28 PM permalink
rxwine
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 188
Posts: 18631
It's the age thing that makes it tricky, because she right at a transition point. And truthfully, the age for being an adult is more individual than some particular point in years.

It's just easier for the law to pick an age and go with that, even if can't be a perfect fit for everyone.
You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really?
January 8th, 2015 at 3:30:27 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
Quote: rxwine
It's the age thing that makes it tricky, because she right at a transition point. And truthfully, the age for being an adult is more individual than some particular point in years.

It's just easier for the law to pick an age and go with that, even if can't be a perfect fit for everyone.


The law has to pick an age and said age has been remarkably constant for over 150 years. But it is why we were set up on a common law system with courts who can intervene in a borderline situation. What bothers me is on all levels as a society we are leaving common sense and throwing up our hands saying "dems da rules!"
The President is a fink.
January 8th, 2015 at 3:58:41 PM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 62
Posts: 7831
Children of around 12 or so are often given the choice of parent with whom they want to live.

But Medicine is the State Religion
January 8th, 2015 at 4:23:45 PM permalink
petroglyph
Member since: Aug 3, 2014
Threads: 25
Posts: 6227
January 8th, 2015 at 5:25:08 PM permalink
kenarman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 14
Posts: 4470
AZ the law likes an age because it makes it easy. Is 17 the right age for forced cancer treatment? We can debate that all day. Where do you stand when a 5 year old bleeds to death because the parents won't allow a transfusion on religious grounds? Same issue just a different age.

Of course cancer treatment brings in a lot of other issues. Much cancer treatment is not very nice and has life long side effects. The doctors that are part of the cancer industry will always side on treatment because that is what they do. The whole cancer testing and curing is a bit of a scam.

We are much better now at testing and finding non aggressive cancers that would never have killed someone. We treat these cancers and can add them to our cured patient statistics. So the percentage of people living after a cancer diagnosis has gone way up. We have not got a lot better at curing an aggressive cancer so unfortunately the number of people dieing from cancer has barely dropped.

It is these non aggressive/non fatal cancers that all the alternate treatment people also focus on. They don't actually have to do anything and can claim a cure just like traditional medicine.
"but if you make yourselves sheep, the wolves will eat you." Benjamin Franklin
January 8th, 2015 at 9:21:35 PM permalink
TheCesspit
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 1929
Quote: AZDuffman
In a reverse from "death panels" The CT Supremes are forcing a 17 year old to undergo chemo treatment.

The girl and her mother both have decided she does not want the treatment, but the state says she can be forced.

Personally I think whoever brought the suit to force this should be fired from their job as they are clearly not qualified for said job. It seems the CT Department of Children and Families has the same overreaching philosophy that many CYS departments nationwide do, namely take the kid if there is any doubt as to if the should because "the state knows better."

Am I out of my mind or are the CT DCF and Supremes?


I think the doctors and the lawyers are right that chemo is the best treatment for her. However, I think she has the absolute right to refuse treatment. Especially as she has parental support and she's almost old enough to vote.

Spend the dollars on someone who wants the treatment.
It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die.... it's called Life
January 9th, 2015 at 2:35:04 AM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
Quote: kenarman
AZ the law likes an age because it makes it easy. Is 17 the right age for forced cancer treatment? We can debate that all day. Where do you stand when a 5 year old bleeds to death because the parents won't allow a transfusion on religious grounds? Same issue just a different age.


It is not quite the same issue. The transfusion is emergency care and the 5 year old does not have the capacity to make a decision. A 17 year old does.

Quote:
Of course cancer treatment brings in a lot of other issues. Much cancer treatment is not very nice and has life long side effects. The doctors that are part of the cancer industry will always side on treatment because that is what they do. The whole cancer testing and curing is a bit of a scam.


I would quite probably refuse chemo treatment. I could deal with my hair falling out as I already wear it near-Marine short. But not being able to eat or even walk across a room? And in the process draining all of your savings so you are living in poverty? Put me among the guys like Doc Holiday who don't want to die that way.

And yes, I know Doc had TB not cancer and he died that way anyhow, point is include me out. If I had 2 years left I would rather take my chances and break bad than live sick in bed.
The President is a fink.
Page 1 of 101234>Last »