{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by A84:
1/9/2015 12:45:34 AM
21
Thoughts on the Connecticut court ruling?
Today, a CT Supreme Court ruling upheld the state of Connecticut's decision to force a 17 year old girl by the name of Cassandra Calendar, who was diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma, to go through chemotherapy for treatment of the illness.
In the state's argument, they claimed that the girl did not understand the severity of her prognosis and that she lacked competency extended to maturity.
She already ran away from joke after undergoing two treatments, as she believes the chemo will cause more damage than the cancer.
So, Flood, what's your opinion?
EDIT:
The third option is "the state has an obligation to treat anyone with terminal illnesses".
-
1 ReplyYes. Because when you turn 18, age receptors in your brain turn on and cause your maturity gland to increase in size, meaning that you can now function as a normal person. Without the maturity gland, it is impossible to process information and to generate your own decisions. That's why you have to stay in school, or else you might die without someone telling you how to operate on a strict schedule. Ever wonder why dropouts don't usually make it? With their undeveloped maturity glands, they are highly prone to accidental death. Most of them just wander into traffic or forget how to eat. Good thing the government, and completely humanistic, nonprofit, medical industry helps keep those poor children in line. Don't forget chemo and radiation are highly successful cures with no immediate downside or risks for latent complications. [spoiler]My grandmother has osteoradionecrosis as a result of chemo and radiation from many years ago. It's generally a terminal illness, and there is a good chance she will bleed to death through her face sometime in the next few years. Many times, these treatments lead to other equally terrifying problems, and success rates are quite low. [/spoiler]
-
1 ReplyEdited by Obi Wan Cannoli: 1/10/2015 9:02:24 PMThe state has an obligation to give the option of treatment and all relevant information, but not to force it onto someone.
-
1 ReplyThat's appalling. If someone doesn't want something done to them that should be it. And at 17? Surely she's old enough to understand.
-
5 RepliesShe is a child. There is a reason why they don't let children vote or make major decisions. They tend to make very stupid and illogical decisions such as refusing treatment (and choosing suicide) of a disease that with treatment has a survival rate of 85%. If I was her parents I would man up and make a decision and not let my child lose her life because she's "scared of chemo". The fact that letting her refuse treatment as a minor was even considered makes me lose faith in humanity. I mean really, have these people ever had a conversation with a 17 year old? They are incredibly moody, indecisive, and more importantly they do not have the foresight to look past school the next day, or what they will be doing 3 years from not. Let alone giving them a major decision such as choosing an important treatment or eventual death.
-
2 RepliesI can't believe this country She wasn't rejecting treatment she was seeking alternative treatments As most know chemotherapy damages the body She's 17 and her statement sounds mature She should have control over her treatment
-
25 RepliesThe fact that our "justice" system can force someone to do something to their body that they are vehemently against is absolutely sickening. Maybe her judgment is misplaced, maybe it isn't, but that's for her and her family to work out, [i]not[/i] the government.
-
1 ReplyI can understand her reluctance for chemo as it left both of my grandfathers in terrible shape when they died (though they had leukemia and lung cancer, if I remember right) and I'd rather leave behind a decent-looking corpse than not. As a minor I don't think she really has the legal right to make that kind of decision though and I think there needs to be some more discussion within the family rather than with the courts and such. This is a domestic personal issue, not a legal one in my opinion. But a government that doesn't keep its citizens alive kind of fails as a government, doesn't it? But is it right for them to try and save a life at the cost of that life's free will? I don't really think we can say.
-
4 RepliesShe may also not really know how bad her cancer is and may not understand that chemo will prolong her life, or she may just not want to risk living sickly for awhile and then die which a very real possibility. I have minimal knowledge of the situation so I'm unsure about the case.
-
11 RepliesEdited by wpnott: 1/9/2015 3:59:14 AMTime to end this debate: Court rules that she will continue chemo treatment under [b]child welfare[/b] as she was tested and found immature and unable to make a decision of this magnitude. Doctors say with treatment she has a 80-85% survival rate and if she had not had the treatment she would have most likely died. The court added evidence of her missing appointments with the doctors which have been stated to be because of the mother. The mother is thought to have been coercing the 17 year old girl into this decision. "Really, the mother did all of the talking and sort of the fighting with the medical personnel. And so, really, the child stands in the shadow of her mother here. She's (the girl) not an independent decision maker." -from the article just to show how immature the girl is. Please read the full story: http://www.nbcnews.com/health/cancer/connecticut-teen-curable-cancer-must-continue-chemo-court-n282421
-
15 RepliesIt's her body, she is the only one who has a right to it.
-
5 RepliesA psychological examination is needed by a third party, let's find out if she's got the same competency as an adult.
-
7 RepliesAccording to various medical articles and journals the only way to help slow down and maybe remove this lymphoid cancer various forma of radiation or stem cells. Survival rate of patients after undergoing these treatments is ~85%. [spoiler]Feel free to read more about this on your own time.[/spoiler] If a 17 year old feel's she doesnt need to be treated and is willing to deal with a "~30% increase in the spleen and liver mass, and various pains accompanied with night sweats" well it's her own issue. I hope this isnt in incident of a young life being lost because they were too ignorant or didn't grasp the scope of the illness.
-
1 ReplyThe state shouldn't force anyone to do anything, especially a Damn 17 year old.
-
6 RepliesThe options are bit polarized
-
1 ReplyWhen she is of age, this would be grounds for viscous lawsuits
-
11 RepliesI don't really have enough details to make a proper decision.
-
1 ReplyForcing treatment on someone is bad, mmkay? You shouldnt force treatment on someone. Mmkay.
-
1 ReplyDon't care.
-
7 RepliesWhat stage was it caught? Because survival rates are very good for Hodgkin's if caught early. It really makes me think that she doesn't know the severity of the consequences here.
-
Dem poll results. Never change, flood.
-
