Court Denies Teen’s Wish to Refuse Cancer Treatment

[Noomi]

I had breast cancer.
Doesn't matter. HER BODY, HER CHOICE. Her mother agrees with the daughter. They want to try other methods but the court is FORCING her to do chemo. At 17. Again, were YOU still a child in your own mind at 17?

I think not.

Other methods will kill her. She will die without chemo and I am not sure she understands that.

 

[Politico]

The issue here is the state FORCING someone to do something.

And besides, chemo is a failed treatment that seldom works, but it does generate lots of wealth for the medical establishment.

Ok if you want to go that route. Proving my point about clueless people spouting off..wrong. In this case chemo would give her an 85% chance of survival.

 

[gipper]

The issue here is the state FORCING someone to do something.

And besides, chemo is a failed treatment that seldom works, but it does generate lots of wealth for the medical establishment.

Ok if you want to go that route. Proving my point about clueless people spouting off..wrong. In this case chemo would give her an 85% chance of survival.

Wrong. Chemo likely kills her, if not now, later in life.

Chemo is poison. It drastically harms the immune system. It is very likely more cancer patients die from chemo treatments, than from cancer.

Please educate yourself and stop believing the lies from the medical establishment.
Chemotherapy myth shattered: toxic drugs cause more cancer than they prevent
New research funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) has shattered the prevailing myth that chemotherapy drugs actually fight cancer. To the contrary, researchers from Harvard University and the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, (UMA) found that these clinical poisons, though sometimes initially effective at stemming the growth and spread of existing tumor cells, eventually induce major stem cell damage that causes even more cancer.
Chemotherapy myth shattered toxic drugs cause more cancer than they prevent - NaturalNews.com

The Industry-Suppressed Budwig Protocol or How To Cure Cancer With Cottage Cheese

Cancer survivors have higher death risk for decades Reuters

75 of physicians in the world refuse chemotherapy for themselves - NaturalNews.com

Chemotherapy proven to cause long agonizing suffering death - NaturalNews.com

 

[Politico]

We're not arguing whether the medical establishment is full of shit. I have been saying doctors are clueless for years. If you want to discuss that start another thread.

 

[gipper]

We're not arguing whether the medical establishment is full of shit. I have been saying doctors are clueless for years. If you want to discuss that start another thread.

You posted that chemo would cure the girl. It most likely will not. It more than likely kills her.

 

[Coyote]

The issue here is the state FORCING someone to do something.

And besides, chemo is a failed treatment that seldom works, but it does generate lots of wealth for the medical establishment.

You are wrong. Chemo is VERY effective in treating Hodgkin's. I get a real kick out of you armchair physicians who have NO clue what you are talking about. Lol! Where did you get your medical degree, a Cracker Jack box?

Hodgkin Lymphoma Treatment Seattle Children s Hospital

Chemo generally has a success rate of about 5%...and the establishment considers success when one is cancer free for only 5 years after treatment.

It may be effective on Hodgkins, but on most cancers it not only does not work, it often kills the patient.

I tend not to believe any claims by establishment healthcare.

Please research the Budwig Protocol....Dr. Budwig had over 90% success rate on all types of cancers...of course the establishment silenced her. Her treatment involved improving the immune system rather than destroying it, which is what chemo does. She found that cancer can not thrive in a alkaline body, but thrives in an acidic body. Her treatment protocol is very inexpensive to implement...which is why they silenced her.

The success rate of chemo depends on the type and stage of cancer so to claim it's 5% is idiotic and misleading. Some cancers can be cured, others managed as a chronic condition with years of decent-quality of life. Many treatments go beyond just chemo to kill cancer, but chemo to stimulate immune system, or marshalling different aspects of the body organic to attack the cancer. Treatments are generally "silenced" (ie NOT validated) because they are snake oil. Medical treatments have very stiff protocols to pass before they are accepted as treatments. Snake oil treatments do not - they require only "testimonials" for evidence.

It's a person's free choice as to what they wish for treatment - but they at least ought to have accurate information in order to make an informed choice.

My boss has beat colon cancer twice through chemo and surgury and is now ten years out. Yes, the chemo left some permanent problems - neuropathy for example, but he does not regret it and every year cancer free is a gift. My mom was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2000, and including in a lymphnode. She opted to enroll in a study that was looking at different chemo/surgical/radiation protocols. 15 years later she is still cancer free. Again - it could come back and chemo has some permanent side effects, but she has no regrets and she made informed decisions. Every year is a gift. Quite often heart disease, diabetes, highblood pressure, immune mediated diseases and mental illness' - can't be "cured" but they can be managed for a long time with quality of life. Some cancers will fall into that category. Some cancers will be cured, but to claim that chemo is a "failed therapy" is just plain ignorant.

Wrong. The OVERALL success rate, using standard procedures, is less than 5%. Do not believe anything from the medical establishment. Doing no treatment would likely result in higher success rates.

You can not go with an "overall success rate" and lump cancers all as one disease because they are really a multitude of diseases with symptoms in common.

The focus of mainstream medicine and the pharmaceutical industry is not about finding effective treatments, it is about money.

Dr. Johanna Budwig left us in 2003, at the age of 95, after being nominated six times for the Nobel Prize in medicine. She cured cancers in "terminally ill" patients in her homeland of Germany; even patients that the establishment had surrendered to fate, and claimed were "untreatable". She did not just cure specific or rare cancers. She cured all types of cancer, and she did it relatively quickly, cheaply, easily, and permanently; using only non-toxic ingredients, which had no adverse effects. Her medicine actually made her patients stronger. Her cure rate was over 90%, including the worst terminal cases. Dr. Budwig's success greatly contrasts the fact that the life-long cure rate of standard procedures averages less than 4%, and that the standard therapies are known to fuel future cancers and other diseases.
The Industry-Suppressed Budwig Protocol or How To Cure Cancer With Cottage Cheese

What is the Budwig diet Cancer Research UK

There is no reliable scientific evidence to show that the Budwig diet (or any highly specific diet) helps people with cancer. It is important to make sure that you have a well balanced diet when you are ill, especially if you are undernourished. We know from research that a healthy, well balanced diet can reduce the risk of cancer.​

If people want to try it as a complimentary therapy - more power to them. There is some preliminary research that indicates things like flax may be beneficial in treating some forms of cancer but nothing stating "cures". To make false claims about it deliberately misleads people.

And if the chemo and radiation does not kill you, while they are giving it to you, it likely will later in life.
Cancer survivors have higher death risk for decades Reuters

People with cancer have choices to make depending on the cancer. With many cancers - chemo can add years to life. Even if they are at higher risk for other cancers later on - they have years that they would not have had and a better quality of life. It all depends on the type of cancer.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm ok with this.

On what basis?

 

[Disir]

I'm ok with this.

On what basis?

I have explained this repeatedly on this thread. Go back and read what I wrote.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's an 80-85 percent survival rate and she is 17. She is not 87.

So at what point does it become "her body, her choice"? If she wanted an abortion, the law would recognize her right to make the decision as young as twelve or thirteen, but when it comes to a brutally harsh medical treatment that doesn't involve dismembering fetuses, suddenly she's too young to have the right to decide? If she was in her 40s and wanted the doctor to help her off herself because she's depressed, THAT would be her right to "die with dignity", but in order to decide on alternative treatment to chemotherapy, she has to be 87?

Is there any consistency here at all?

 

[Cecilie1200]

If she were an adult, I would agree with her.

Needless to say, its really stupid to compare it to abortion. Instead of the usual derailing of a worthwhile discussion, start your own thread.

No, it's not "needless to say". Explain to us why you can trumpet, "Her body, her choice!" when it comes to scraping a baby out of the uterus, even if the female in question is in junior high school, but when it comes to any other medical procedure, suddenly she's "not an adult" and has no right to decide what she wants done to her body. SHE'S the one who's going to have to endure the pain and misery of chemotherapy treatments, not the judge or you or anyone else. Why doesn't she get to decide that she doesn't want that?

 

[Disir]

It's an 80-85 percent survival rate and she is 17. She is not 87.

So at what point does it become "her body, her choice"? If she wanted an abortion, the law would recognize her right to make the decision as young as twelve or thirteen, but when it comes to a brutally harsh medical treatment that doesn't involve dismembering fetuses, suddenly she's too young to have the right to decide? If she was in her 40s and wanted the doctor to help her off herself because she's depressed, THAT would be her right to "die with dignity", but in order to decide on alternative treatment to chemotherapy, she has to be 87?

Is there any consistency here at all?

I've answered that. Go back and read what I wrote.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Her legal guardian is her parent in the state of Connecticut. So, when "Cassandra" and her mother did not follow through or missed the appointments it indicated that her mother was denying her medical care. Connecticut is not going to do an Ohio.

Sorry, but her mother isn't "denying her medical care". Her mother is acceding to her choice about her body. And the state is superceding BOTH Cassandra's choice AND that of her legal guardian to say it knows better for her.

 

[Disir]

Her legal guardian is her parent in the state of Connecticut. So, when "Cassandra" and her mother did not follow through or missed the appointments it indicated that her mother was denying her medical care. Connecticut is not going to do an Ohio.

Sorry, but her mother isn't "denying her medical care". Her mother is acceding to her choice about her body. And the state is superceding BOTH Cassandra's choice AND that of her legal guardian to say it knows better for her.

Reality check. Failure to show at appointments indicates medical neglect. But, hey.........thanks for playing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Her legal guardian is her parent in the state of Connecticut. So, when "Cassandra" and her mother did not follow through or missed the appointments it indicated that her mother was not denying her medical care. Connecticut is not going to do an Ohio.

But why does she have to take chemotherapy as her medical treatment what if she wants to do holistic healing or alternaitve medicine?

If she wanted to have an abortion which is a medical procedure the state would not step in and even in her mother's care the mom has no say about it, it is the girl's choice...her body her choide to undergo a medical procedure, but not in the other instance.

Because the 80-85% success rate is with chemo. Not with evil spirit removal spray or with acupuncture or any other "alternative" medicine. Connecticut, nor any state, should pull an Ohio. Ever.

Yep, no parental consent required for an abortion in Connecticut. I don't have a problem with that either. That one is more likely to be done anyway. It's safer to have it done in a clinic then in an alley.

But she is allowed to have a medical abortion procedure or refuse abortion because it is HER body and HER choice, and she should be allowed to refuse chemo if she doesn't want it.

In 3 months she will be 18 and can refuse chemo if she wants to.

The point to me is, why is she allowed to decide on a medical procedure for herself without anyones input in one instance but not the other ?

She has a higher success rate of living if she is able to acquire an abortion rather than the DIY version. That's why. When she turns 18, she can decide to stop the chemo.

So what? It's HER chance of living, not yours. The question isn't what is or isn't best for her. The question is who gets to make that decision. Why should it be you, or the state of Connecticut, or anyone else, when you would not support that same level of interference for abortion or doctor-assisted suicide?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Her legal guardian is her parent in the state of Connecticut. So, when "Cassandra" and her mother did not follow through or missed the appointments it indicated that her mother was denying her medical care. Connecticut is not going to do an Ohio.

Sorry, but her mother isn't "denying her medical care". Her mother is acceding to her choice about her body. And the state is superceding BOTH Cassandra's choice AND that of her legal guardian to say it knows better for her.

Reality check. Failure to show at appointments indicates medical neglect. But, hey.........thanks for playing.

Reality check. Failure to show at appointments indicates the patient's lack of desire fo rthe treatment. But hey, thanks for proudly waving your hypocrite flag.

 

[Disir]

Her legal guardian is her parent in the state of Connecticut. So, when "Cassandra" and her mother did not follow through or missed the appointments it indicated that her mother was not denying her medical care. Connecticut is not going to do an Ohio.

But why does she have to take chemotherapy as her medical treatment what if she wants to do holistic healing or alternaitve medicine?

If she wanted to have an abortion which is a medical procedure the state would not step in and even in her mother's care the mom has no say about it, it is the girl's choice...her body her choide to undergo a medical procedure, but not in the other instance.

Because the 80-85% success rate is with chemo. Not with evil spirit removal spray or with acupuncture or any other "alternative" medicine. Connecticut, nor any state, should pull an Ohio. Ever.

Yep, no parental consent required for an abortion in Connecticut. I don't have a problem with that either. That one is more likely to be done anyway. It's safer to have it done in a clinic then in an alley.

But she is allowed to have a medical abortion procedure or refuse abortion because it is HER body and HER choice, and she should be allowed to refuse chemo if she doesn't want it.

In 3 months she will be 18 and can refuse chemo if she wants to.

The point to me is, why is she allowed to decide on a medical procedure for herself without anyones input in one instance but not the other ?

She has a higher success rate of living if she is able to acquire an abortion rather than the DIY version. That's why. When she turns 18, she can decide to stop the chemo.

So what? It's HER chance of living, not yours. The question isn't what is or isn't best for her. The question is who gets to make that decision. Why should it be you, or the state of Connecticut, or anyone else, when you would not support that same level of interference for abortion or doctor-assisted suicide?

Ignorance at it's best. Yep, the question is what is the best. You don't have to like it but there it is.

 

[Disir]

Her legal guardian is her parent in the state of Connecticut. So, when "Cassandra" and her mother did not follow through or missed the appointments it indicated that her mother was denying her medical care. Connecticut is not going to do an Ohio.

Sorry, but her mother isn't "denying her medical care". Her mother is acceding to her choice about her body. And the state is superceding BOTH Cassandra's choice AND that of her legal guardian to say it knows better for her.

Reality check. Failure to show at appointments indicates medical neglect. But, hey.........thanks for playing.

Reality check. Failure to show at appointments indicates the patient's lack of desire fo rthe treatment. But hey, thanks for proudly waving your hypocrite flag.

It's called medical neglect. You don't have to like it but there it is.

 

[The Irish Ram]

It's called government over reach.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Some do, especially if they marry up

The reasons I am given is so they don't self harm.

No I am saying I would design the law to be consistent.

You just don't agree with the things I think would make it consistent shrug.

I listed them enough

prescription drugs, alcohol, tobacco legal: pot illegal why?

Right to choose for your own body, abortion, assisted suicide, boob job, face lift, gender reassignment, refuse medical treatment.

Age this should occur, personally 18 for all of it. But if that's not going to happen then reduce the age to be the exact age allowed to make a medical decision to have an abortion.

Anyway I'm tired so goodnight

While I personally do not agree with abortion. That is an entirely different scenario. This young woman is suffering from an illness that has a highly successful cure rate, if you only take the treatments! Abortion . . . well, while I'm personally against an abortion and would never have one myself, do we want a bunch of under 18 year old moms out there? As a person who had a child at a young age, I can attest to the fact that it is not an easy life, you make a lot of sacrifices and give up a lot of freedoms. IOW, childhood is over. The abortion question is a LOT more complicated IMO.

Ahh, so the question really is whether or not YOU think it's a good idea. You've decided that chemotherapy is good for her, and she's silly to not agree, therefore she should have no right to be "silly" with her own body. Oh, and having a horrific, life-threatening illness isn't an "end to childhood" - assuming one considers almost-18 to be childhood, anyway - the way getting pregnant and deciding to kill it does.

It's not a different scenario in any respect, except that in one case your busybody, know-it-all interference agrees, and in the other, it doesn't. In both cases, it's all about "allowing people the choice" to agree with you, or agree with you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Her legal guardian is her parent in the state of Connecticut. So, when "Cassandra" and her mother did not follow through or missed the appointments it indicated that her mother was denying her medical care. Connecticut is not going to do an Ohio.

Sorry, but her mother isn't "denying her medical care". Her mother is acceding to her choice about her body. And the state is superceding BOTH Cassandra's choice AND that of her legal guardian to say it knows better for her.

Reality check. Failure to show at appointments indicates medical neglect. But, hey.........thanks for playing.

Reality check. Failure to show at appointments indicates the patient's lack of desire fo rthe treatment. But hey, thanks for proudly waving your hypocrite flag.

It's called medical neglect. You don't have to like it but there it is.

It's called hypocrisy. You don't have to like it, but it's all over you, anyway.