Chemo Forced on Connecticut Teen Against Her Will

Interesting story.

A 17-year old girl in Connecticut does not want chemo to treat her cancer. The mother agrees with her decision.

The State of Connecticut has other plans. A court order was issued by the Connecticut State Supreme Court taking custody of the girl, and forcing chemo treatments on her.

Source

"Cassandra currently is confined in a room at Connecticut Children's Medical Center in Hartford, where she is being forced to undergo chemotherapy, which doctors said would give her an 85 percent chance of survival. Without it, they said there was a near-certainty of death within two years.

The teen's mother, Jackie Fortin of Windsor Locks, said after the arguments Thursday that she wouldn't allow her daughter to die. The single mother said she and her daughter just want to seek alternative treatments that don't include putting the "poison" of chemotherapy into her daughter's body.

"This is her decision and her rights, which is what we are here fighting about," Fortin said. "We should have choices about what to do with our bodies."



What are your thoughts? My gut feeling is that the Roe V Wade decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 established that a woman's body is her body, and that outside forces, especially the State, have no right to tell her what to do with her body.

Here's what the chemo entails:

"Cassandra's treatment resumed Dec. 17, with surgery to install a port in her chest that would be used to administer the drugs. Chemotherapy began the next day and continues."

Interestingly, Connecticut is one of the states where minors do not need parental permission, nor are doctors required to notify parents, if an underage teen girl seeks an abortion.

Source

The states welfare agency issued what to me seems like a creepy, Orwellian like statement:

"Child welfare agency officials defended their treatment of Cassandra, saying they have a responsibility to protect the girl's life.

"This is a curable illness, and we will continue to ensure that Cassandra receives the treatment she needs to become a healthy and happy adult," the agency said in a statement."

Source

So the state's position is to force a 17-year old girl, against her will and her mother's, to have a port installed into her chest to receive chemo drugs... so the State can ensure the girl has a happy and healthy life.

This is what it's come to. The State believes it has the legal authority to force a 17-year old to undergo chemo to ensure she has a happy life.

WTF? I thought a woman's body was her body, not the State's?

Hopefully they win.


I'd never accept chemotherapy.


Disgusting that they think they can force people to endure chemo.

a reply to: Jamie1

Just the latest step in the Totalitarian Tiptoe. Somebody please wake me up from this Orwellian nightmare.

a reply to: Jamie1

WTF? I thought a woman's body was her body, not the State's?

When it suits them...

In a few years when she wants an abortion they'll happily take her money!

I have heard repeatedly that big pharmas treatment makes you want to die. I read no mention of the family attemptng to go a different route. I also read no mention of how much the state will be getting for child support or medical expense now that they decided they know what's best.

I want this young lady to live. I also want her to love with a good quality of life.

My mother died horribly from lung cancer and the chemo only continued her suffering for longer. They support the treatments so much let them suffer through it themselves. This wouldn't happen if it were any of their children.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Jamie1

WTF? I thought a woman's body was her body, not the State's?

When it suits them...

In a few years when she wants an abortion they'll happily take her money!

Wait!!! Check this out!!!

What if she gets pregnant now!?

The State would force her to get the chemo, but would have to abide by her wishes if she wanted the abortion. How would that work?

a reply to: Jamie1

Lol.


There's a paradox to behold!

a reply to: Jamie1

Also, Cannabis Oil, its not a miracle cure but it is a hell of a lot better than chemo. But I suppose allowing her to use this all natural treatment would be frowned upon.

a reply to: Jamie1

And what exactly are the medically recognized alternative treatments that she wants to undergo instead?

So, to increase her chances of living, the State is going to rob her of her chance to die with dignity and possibly make the process of passing even more painful.

I can't believe this. Well I can, but I don't want to. How can anyone think they have the right to tell a 17 year old what to do when it comes to their own health? I get that 17 is not an adult in the US, but I would think anyone in their right mind would understand that a 17 year old can (and should) be able to make their own decisions about something as serious as their own medical treatment, especially if the parent agrees.

Not that there are many places to run to, but my advice to all of my US friends is to find a way to emigrate ASAP. (I did, and I love it.)

Honestly? I'm torn.

She isn't an adult, the state has an obligation to children when their parents are unwilling to get them needed treatment. 80-85% chance is HUGE.

If this was a religious thing, and the Mother was denying treatment people would be pissed.

I don't think of this as overreaching government, I think of it as the state protecting a child from their parent.

17 year olds are stupid. It's lucky she's not 18, because the age is arbitrary, and 18 year olds are stupid too.

for this cancer type the chemo in question has an 85 percent or greater success rate for total total remission. without the chemo it is certain death.

i happen to believe that the mother poisoned the daughter's thinking WRT Chemotherapy. the fact is this girl does not have to die. and even though the State is being heavy handed here; i think it is justified in this case.

a reply to: Domo1

So what's the difference between an 80 year old that refuses chemo because they don't want to expose their body to chemicals and an 18 year old that refuses for the same reason?

Where do we draw the line? In this case the span of this being a non-issue is probably less than a year.

If being stupid is a reason for the government to start making our decisions for us then most of us should just hand over the reigns right now.

What's more, she is the one refusing the chemotherapy her parents are just supporting her choice. After all, its her body and NO ONE has the right to tell her she can't make her own choices regarding it.

a reply to: Domo1

You say 17 and 18 year old individuals are stupid. I don't disagree that MANY of them are, but I know of plenty of stupid people in all age brackets.

So, aside from the fact that I think any (stupid or intelligent) 17 year old should get to choose for themselves... let's go with the mother, who is an adult in the US. Why can she not choose what medical treatments her daughter will be subjected to? Religious objections or just objections? I don't see why one should need to hide behind a religion in order to be protected.... everyone should have the freedom to choose, religion or no religion.

a reply to: Jamie1

They are basically raping her, to make her happy.

Can I use that defense in CT?

Your honor she was not 18 so she had no say, I had to rape her in order for her to be a happy adult.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Jamie1

WTF? I thought a woman's body was her body, not the State's?

When it suits them...

In a few years when she wants an abortion they'll happily take her money!

This, This times a thousand.

a reply to: Domo1

Very well put.

I know everyone is against the big bad boogey man government and them involving themselves in other peoples lives.
But his might be a case of them saving a life that others have given up on.
Is she refusing treatment under her own will or are the parents the ones pushing that she dose not get it.


If it is the ladder then good for the state.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What the hell does rape have to do with anything??

Plenty of valid arguments to be used, why the need to go straight to comparing it to rape