Court Denies Teen’s Wish to Refuse Cancer Treatment

[Gracie]

This girl is the start of the government taking control of your body. If nobody sees wrong in this...beware. Your body could be next.

stop being an idiot. this is no different than if she were a ward of the state in foster care.

It's about the principle, not about her. The state has an obligation because it has custody

Bullshit. You would be screaming bloody murder if you were a ward of the state..like maybe in prison..and they decide they need your kidney.

They have done terrible experiments and testing on prisoners in history, I could see them stealing a kidney.

It's only a matter of time. Once the government starts owning a body...

Jesus Christ you're dense. We've always had wards of the state. Take your meds and go to bed

No! Am NOT going to bed. I wanna play.

 

[Dante]

We either agree to abide by the laws or we don't. We can try and change laws we don't like, but never forget the law of unintended consequences. You can refuse to debate or accept the findings and data behind the reasons the law treats minors consent to abortions differently, but refusal is not an argument.

There are reasons marriage is restricted to a contract between two individuals. You're actually using the logic of those who say if racially mixed marriages and same sex marriages are ok, why not multiple marriages

It would save taxpayers if they allowed that.

I am not a law breaker I just simply don't agree with the idea that in one instance something is allowed but not the other.

I've had the same argument with emily about pot and alcohol and the legal issues.

It just bothers me, because we all are socially constructing these stories behind why the law or rule has to be this way or that way but it seems people pick n choose.

They choose who can do what with there body and who can decide it, abortion fine, gender reassignment no, refuse medical treatment no,

Heteros marry and for the longest time gays no, and before that inter racial no

Which intoxicants a person can take legally ( prescription drugs and booze and tobacco) pot no

Within that context and over time those laws and rules changes to accommodate the people.

How do lobbyists or organized groups change laws they appeal to the emotions or mindset of the people.

The idea that in one instance something is allowed but not in another, is life. You are looking for life to be black and white, as emily seems to be. We as a polity get to say what our laws are. We can change the laws.

Yet so far you've avoided answering questions about what would you do -- lower the age of consent, age of full adulthood? How would you convince people of those? Would you go to court to force an issue? If so, would you whine if the law worked against you?

Nothing is so simple as emotional arguments

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

 

[Gracie]

Someday, YOU might be a ward of the state, Dante. Do holler for help when they decide what you can do with your body, m'kay? But nobody will listen cuz you have no say...so holler all you want.

 

[Michelle420]

It would save taxpayers if they allowed that.

I am not a law breaker I just simply don't agree with the idea that in one instance something is allowed but not the other.

I've had the same argument with emily about pot and alcohol and the legal issues.

It just bothers me, because we all are socially constructing these stories behind why the law or rule has to be this way or that way but it seems people pick n choose.

They choose who can do what with there body and who can decide it, abortion fine, gender reassignment no, refuse medical treatment no,

Heteros marry and for the longest time gays no, and before that inter racial no

Which intoxicants a person can take legally ( prescription drugs and booze and tobacco) pot no

Within that context and over time those laws and rules changes to accommodate the people.

How do lobbyists or organized groups change laws they appeal to the emotions or mindset of the people.

The idea that in one instance something is allowed but not in another, is life. You are looking for life to be black and white, as emily seems to be. We as a polity get to say what our laws are. We can change the laws.

Yet so far you've avoided answering questions about what would you do -- lower the age of consent, age of full adulthood? How would you convince people of those? Would you go to court to force an issue? If so, would you whine if the law worked against you?

Nothing is so simple as emotional arguments

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

Children, yes. IF the parent refuses to get medical help for that child. This girl is 17 years old. Were YOU a "child" at 17?

legally? It was mixed. 16 years old one thing, 17 another.

I was also capable of avoiding fruitcakes hawking alternative voodoo

Take over sweet darling

I am going to be, I am really tired, and I am out of this thread nobody tag me.

Hugs to Gracie and Dante

 

[Gracie]

Night drifter. I am heading to my recliner in a few, and some tv time. Dante is boring no fun at all.

 

[Dante]

This girl is the start of the government taking control of your body. If nobody sees wrong in this...beware. Your body could be next.

stop being an idiot. this is no different than if she were a ward of the state in foster care.

It's about the principle, not about her. The state has an obligation because it has custody

Bullshit. You would be screaming bloody murder if you were a ward of the state..like maybe in prison..and they decide they need your kidney.

When my mom almost died and we had to go into Foster care one year, we were temporarily wards of the state

so

say good night gracie, and don't forget your meds

 

[Michelle420]

It would save taxpayers if they allowed that.

I am not a law breaker I just simply don't agree with the idea that in one instance something is allowed but not the other.

I've had the same argument with emily about pot and alcohol and the legal issues.

It just bothers me, because we all are socially constructing these stories behind why the law or rule has to be this way or that way but it seems people pick n choose.

They choose who can do what with there body and who can decide it, abortion fine, gender reassignment no, refuse medical treatment no,

Heteros marry and for the longest time gays no, and before that inter racial no

Which intoxicants a person can take legally ( prescription drugs and booze and tobacco) pot no

Within that context and over time those laws and rules changes to accommodate the people.

How do lobbyists or organized groups change laws they appeal to the emotions or mindset of the people.

The idea that in one instance something is allowed but not in another, is life. You are looking for life to be black and white, as emily seems to be. We as a polity get to say what our laws are. We can change the laws.

Yet so far you've avoided answering questions about what would you do -- lower the age of consent, age of full adulthood? How would you convince people of those? Would you go to court to force an issue? If so, would you whine if the law worked against you?

Nothing is so simple as emotional arguments

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

 

[Dante]

Someday, YOU might be a ward of the state, Dante. Do holler for help when they decide what you can do with your body, m'kay? But nobody will listen cuz you have no say...so holler all you want.

Gracie, I have no fear in killing myself. I have faced it before. No fun, but it's a viable option I'm prepared to use

 

[Michelle420]

Night drifter. I am heading to my recliner in a few, and some tv time. Dante is boring no fun at all.

I like Dante, he can be fun.

It doesn't bother me that we don't agree. Sometimes me and Emily disagree and it can get weird but we work through it.

They have the right to their opinions and who knows maybe they are right and I am wrong. But until I see that it's just dumb to keep arguing in circles.

Hugs Gracie, miss you.

 

[Michelle420]

Someday, YOU might be a ward of the state, Dante. Do holler for help when they decide what you can do with your body, m'kay? But nobody will listen cuz you have no say...so holler all you want.

Gracie, I have no fear in killing myself. I have faced it before. No fun, but it's a viable option I'm prepared to use

Dante never say that!

 

[Dante]

Someday, YOU might be a ward of the state, Dante. Do holler for help when they decide what you can do with your body, m'kay? But nobody will listen cuz you have no say...so holler all you want.

Gracie, I have no fear in killing myself. I have faced it before. No fun, but it's a viable option I'm prepared to use

Dante never say that!

When the end is near I will choose my own death. Until then. IT Lives!

sorry

 

[Dante]

it's just dumb to keep arguing in circles.

.

Why do you hate usmb?

 

[Politico]

If she was 18 or even if the state of Connecticut considered her to have reached the age of majority at 17 then it wouldn't be an issue.

The black market in Texas:
The Rise of the DIY Abortion in Texas - The Atlantic

Self induced abortion case:
The Back Alley Revisited Sepsis after Attempted Self-Induced Abortion

13 year old self induced abortion.
Girl performs at-home abortion Polk Township man 30 charged with rape concealing death of child - News - poconorecord.com - Stroudsburg PA

Your argument is not relevant.

Sorry but it is for me and you have not answered me why it is HER body HER choice in abortion but not in choosing her own medical care.

They are medical procedures why is she allowed to choose for herself under the right to choose because its her body but it's not ok in the next instance?

Abortion Rights

• A teen in Connecticut does not have to get her parents’ permission to get an abortion.
• There is no mandatory waiting period in your state before a teen can get an abortion.
• Your state provides Medicaid coverage for medically necessary abortions. . If you need help paying for an abortion, call the National Abortion Federation Hotline at 1-800-772-9100, Monday–Friday, 7 a.m. to 11 p.m.; Saturday–Sunday, 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. (Eastern Daylight Time). The hotline can tell you where and how to get financial help for an abortion in the U.S.
• To learn about the process of adoption and the services available, visit the National Council for Adoption and the Independent Adoption Center. You can also call the National Adoption Information Clearinghouse at 1-888-251-0075 for more information.

Connecticut - Sex Etc.

Right to Refuse Medical Treatment
The Supreme Court has held that adults have the right to personal autonomy in matters relating to their own medical care. Adults, as long as they are competent to understand their decision, have the right to refuse medical treatment, even life-saving medical treatment, though a state may require clear and convincing evidence that a person wanted treatment ended before it allows termination. A state may restrict family members from terminating treatment for another, because this right belongs to each individual. The court has not extended this right to allow physician-assisted suicide.

Constitutional Law Privacy Rights and Personal Autonomy Justia

So in one instance she has a right ot terminate a pregnancy and have a medical procedure. But in the other instance when she personally does not want chemo , the hospital calls social services and has her remvoed from her home away from her mother and forces her to get chemo anyway.

What I am trying to understand here is why is not Her Body Her Choice in this instance.

Because she is a minor and mom didn't follow through. Her chance for survival is 80-85 percent with Chemo. Not with alternative medicine.

Not requiring parental consent helps make sure that a minor doesn't attempt a self induced abortion. You did see that 40% of unsafe abortions occur starting at age 15. Yes?

The chance of survival again is irrelevant of what I am asking, she doesn't want the treatment.

Ok so the reasoning of allowing her to chose a medical procedure is so she doesn't harm herself not because it's her body her choice, correct?

The chance of survival is relevant as she is a minor.
The reasoning behind allowing teens to acquire abortions without parental consent is about safety. It is exactly what I said.

To be honest it's irrelevant to me for what I was seeking out of the discussion because in 3 months when she is 18 she can stop treatment by her choice.

If you find it relevant for your discussion that's ok, but someone else will have to want to discuss it further with you then.

Thanks for clarifying for me what I was trying to understand about the Her Body Her Choice differences.

For all you clueless folks who don't actually fact check a ******* thing she will 18 in nine months. With that said she will be free to end her useless life as she fits. Good for her. She won't be remembered or missed.

 

[R.D.]

Nope if she has that right based on it being her body her choice, she should have the right to choose her medical care.

No way the left will understand the disgusting hypocrisy in this

I did start this thread.

the left?

It's about the law.

She is a minor. The state has custody. She can choose an abortion if she wants. She cannot refuse cancer treatment until she is of age. It is the law.

how do conservatives get so stupid?

Stupid is not being able to follow a thought process. The op framed the question as abortion rights ( left) vs choice to refuse certain medical treatment...."my body, my choice" schtick

 

[ChrisL]

The idea that in one instance something is allowed but not in another, is life. You are looking for life to be black and white, as emily seems to be. We as a polity get to say what our laws are. We can change the laws.

Yet so far you've avoided answering questions about what would you do -- lower the age of consent, age of full adulthood? How would you convince people of those? Would you go to court to force an issue? If so, would you whine if the law worked against you?

Nothing is so simple as emotional arguments

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.

 

[ChrisL]

^^^^

To add on to the above, not only are you now suddenly thrown into adulthood, but motherhood as well! There are PLENTY of young people (teenagers) who may not be able to handle that kind of stress given the way our world works. I don't really consider 18 to be an adult either. Rarely, I meet people that age who seem to have maturity on their side. More times than not, they are incredibly immature and, yes, still basically children.

I mean, just watch a group of 18-year-old boys or girls together in a group, and you can definitely see that they are NOT adults.

 

[koshergrl]

If she was fighting to commit suicide, the lefties would be howling to let her, that's what's so ironic.

If she wanted an abortion the courts would say her body her choice.

But if she wants to try alternative medicine it's not her body or choice?

It's a life and death situation. no? She's a minor, yes? The state has custody. this isn't about her.

When she turns older she can choose the stupid alternative that has very little chance to help her type of cancer

this case is about the state's responsibilities to minors in their custody. If she wanted an abortion the state could not stop her. jesus, don't get trapped into koshernut and whitewash diatribes

The state allows minors to commit doctor-assisted suicide.

How is this different again?

 

[Dante]

Sorry but it is for me and you have not answered me why it is HER body HER choice in abortion but not in choosing her own medical care.

They are medical procedures why is she allowed to choose for herself under the right to choose because its her body but it's not ok in the next instance?

Connecticut - Sex Etc.

Constitutional Law Privacy Rights and Personal Autonomy Justia

So in one instance she has a right ot terminate a pregnancy and have a medical procedure. But in the other instance when she personally does not want chemo , the hospital calls social services and has her remvoed from her home away from her mother and forces her to get chemo anyway.

What I am trying to understand here is why is not Her Body Her Choice in this instance.

Because she is a minor and mom didn't follow through. Her chance for survival is 80-85 percent with Chemo. Not with alternative medicine.

Not requiring parental consent helps make sure that a minor doesn't attempt a self induced abortion. You did see that 40% of unsafe abortions occur starting at age 15. Yes?

The chance of survival again is irrelevant of what I am asking, she doesn't want the treatment.

Ok so the reasoning of allowing her to chose a medical procedure is so she doesn't harm herself not because it's her body her choice, correct?

The chance of survival is relevant as she is a minor.
The reasoning behind allowing teens to acquire abortions without parental consent is about safety. It is exactly what I said.

To be honest it's irrelevant to me for what I was seeking out of the discussion because in 3 months when she is 18 she can stop treatment by her choice.

If you find it relevant for your discussion that's ok, but someone else will have to want to discuss it further with you then.

Thanks for clarifying for me what I was trying to understand about the Her Body Her Choice differences.

For all you clueless folks who don't actually fact check a ******* thing she will 18 in nine months. With that said she will be free to end her useless life as she fits. Good for her. She won't be remembered or missed.

Politico wtf does this have to do with the legal question(s)?

 

[Dante]

If she was fighting to commit suicide, the lefties would be howling to let her, that's what's so ironic.

If she wanted an abortion the courts would say her body her choice.

But if she wants to try alternative medicine it's not her body or choice?

It's a life and death situation. no? She's a minor, yes? The state has custody. this isn't about her.

When she turns older she can choose the stupid alternative that has very little chance to help her type of cancer

this case is about the state's responsibilities to minors in their custody. If she wanted an abortion the state could not stop her. jesus, don't get trapped into koshernut and whitewash diatribes

The state allows minors to commit doctor-assisted suicide.

How is this different again?

huh? a dying patient? huh?

put down the pipe

 

[Dante]

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.

Should doctors have to notify parents before a minor receives an abortion - LA Times

there are reasons abortion is treated differently

The answer, he says, is that most teens already talk to their parents when they face an unplanned pregnancy. He points to studies showing that more than 60% of teens (and more than 90% of teens 14 and under) already talk to parents when they consider this difficult decision. Among those adolescents who did not talk to their parents, about one-third had already experienced violence in the family and feared it would occur again. Almost all teens who don't involve a parent do involve another trusted adult, such as an aunt or grandmother. Forced parental notification will not improve family communication -- but it will put teenagers at risk.

Yet despite research from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the New England Journal of Medicine and other top-tier health journals that shows there is a significant risk of violence, abuse and rejection in families when parents are informed of a pregnancy, proponents of Proposition 4 insist there's no risk of harm to teens. But consider the young woman in Michigan, where there is a parental involvement law, who tried to self-induce an abortion by asking her teen boyfriend to hit her in the stomach with a baseball bat. We can't let those tragic stories happen in California.​