It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chemo Forced on Connecticut Teen Against Her Will

page: 7
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 03:46 AM
link   
a reply to: mikelkhall

That is a valid point too. Also since they are forcing this treatment is it FREE? I'm sure the treatments will be very pricey and the health system will expect their bills to be paid. Everybody knows you could be bankrupted by medical bills in this fine country. Of course the real problem is the forcing of something upon one's body that one vehemently does not want done but I couldn't help thinking that they couldn't possibly CARE what happens to an individual in today's medical system. I see and have seen firsthand how the system really works and caring and compassion are rare. It's all about the $$.




posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 03:48 AM
link   
If she was lets say, 10, everyone would agree with this and condemn the parents as child abusers for letting her die of a curable illness. But since she is 17, it is a grey area. Certain autonomy at that age in medical decisions is not unthinkable.

I think we need a clearly established legal age for this, similar to age of consent laws for sex.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 03:52 AM
link   
a reply to: EveStreet




I see and have seen firsthand how the system really works and caring and compassion are rare. It's all about the $$.


Hopefully you are not talking about doctors and nurses here .



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 03:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Maslo




I think we need a clearly established legal age for this, similar to age of consent laws for sex.


I think it is now established .



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 03:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: woodwardjnr

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Hopefully they win.


I'd never accept chemotherapy.


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


Even if that chemo stopped you dying?

Should that not be your choice?



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 03:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Maslo
If she was lets say, 10, everyone would agree with this and condemn the parents as child abusers for letting her die of a curable illness. But since she is 17, it is a grey area. Certain autonomy at that age in medical decisions is not unthinkable.

I think we need a clearly established legal age for this, similar to age of consent laws for sex.

The parents actually seem to want her to get the treatment, so if she was 10 I think she'd be getting chemo. Their belief is she is not 10, she is 17, and she is capable to make her own decisions.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 04:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: Maslo




I think we need a clearly established legal age for this, similar to age of consent laws for sex.


I think it is now established .

You are right, it is, only not in the way you believe. The State did not argue that she can not consent at 17, they argued because she was willing to get treatment if it allowed her to remain with her parents that she was clearly not capable of logical thought and not mature enough to make that decision.

The judge agreed with that.

There are laws that allow minors to make these decisions if they are mature. In this case, the mature response (according to the State) was for her to refuse treatment even if it meant she never saw her family again.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 04:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: EveStreet




I see and have seen firsthand how the system really works and caring and compassion are rare. It's all about the $$.


Hopefully you are not talking about doctors and nurses here .



are you suggesting that all doctors and nurses get into the line of work with the sole motive being to help people and money has nothing to do with it ?



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 04:10 AM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed





are you suggesting that all doctors and nurses get into the line of work with the sole motive being to help people and money has nothing to do with it ?


Well they sure as hell aren't doing it for the overtime .



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 04:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed





are you suggesting that all doctors and nurses get into the line of work with the sole motive being to help people and money has nothing to do with it ?


Well they sure as hell aren't doing it for the overtime .

Working in healthcare I can tell you that there are a number of Dr's and nurses that get into the field for money, and to wield power over other people.

That does not mean all do, and this particular case has nothing to do with Dr's or nurses, so on this topic I am on your side.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 04:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed





are you suggesting that all doctors and nurses get into the line of work with the sole motive being to help people and money has nothing to do with it ?


Well they sure as hell aren't doing it for the overtime .




really....can you back that up ?

just so know where i am coming from my landlord is a doctor and his sole purpose for living is money and making more and more of it and screwing anyone he can through that process of making money.....he is calculated in how he does it...



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 04:20 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
Yeah it should be your choice, I certainly don't agree with forcing chemo. It has to be something the patient wants. I wanted it in 2004 and 2007 and I'm still here (just about)to tell the tale. I'm glad I did take it,I think I prefer being alive than dead.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 04:28 AM
link   
a reply to: hutch622

I was talking about healthcare basically being big business in this country and the bottom line is money. The insurance company and the hospital don't care whether you live or die, although they are VERY concerned when you can't pay your bill. Sure they'll save you from death and then you and your family will live in poverty, yay.
Doctors and nurses on an individual basis can be compassionate and caring OR sometimes not. I can't say they're all bad or good.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 04:29 AM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

And having lived with a doctor who shifted to a small country town so that she could give more quality time to her patients i would say that your case is in the minority . She would stay up at nights going over her books on the off chance that she had missed something . Do not say they dont care . She was an absolute saint and although we are no longer together she would be my first point of call if i was seriously ill .



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 04:34 AM
link   
a reply to: hutch622

Not that I am inferring my experience in any way is evidence that this is true everywhere, but most Dr's I know do have ego problems, and most are too interested in money. That has nothing to do with the topic though, which is the courts decided the State has the authority to force a 17yo to do what it wants, despite the 17yo and their parents wanting something else.

The argument used in court was anyone willing to undergo a procedure they do not want, because it will allow them to be with those they love, is immature and unable to make a rational decision.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 04:41 AM
link   
a reply to: hutch622

we are drifting of topic here...please do not get me wrong ...there are many good people in this world....occupation is not really relative...i am sure there are many doctors who have the right moral compass and are there to help and thats why they do it....

but really this has more to do with the fact that the state being a bunch of bureaucrats have a clue what is best for an individual going through a trauma...painting a section of society with one brush will never solve the problem
edit on 9-1-2015 by hopenotfeariswhatweneed because: me stupid



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 04:44 AM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Yes. This is the topic.


John E. Tucker, assistant attorney general, who represented DCF noted that Cassandra wasn’t willing to start treatment in order to save her life, but was willing to start so that she could return home to her mother.

“I don’t understand the thought process here, this child isn’t making rational decisions,” he said.


The State had the right to choose for her because she irrationally wanted to be with her family while dealing with cancer.

Clearly the girl was not in her right mind.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 04:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Yes. This is the topic.


John E. Tucker, assistant attorney general, who represented DCF noted that Cassandra wasn’t willing to start treatment in order to save her life, but was willing to start so that she could return home to her mother.

“I don’t understand the thought process here, this child isn’t making rational decisions,” he said.


The State had the right to choose for her because she irrationally wanted to be with her family while dealing with cancer.

Clearly the girl was not in her right mind.




maybe so.....have you ever been a 17 year old girl with cancer freaking out and not knowing what to do and just wanting to be close with those that you love and love you ?

clearly the people making these decisions have no idea what they are talking about



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 04:50 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Both yourself and myself have agreed to disagree . Who is right and who is wrong is pretty much something we could go on about forever . There is no right or wrong here as far as our thoughts are concerned . There is no winner . I hope and i really do hope that this girl gets over her cancer .
edit on 9-1-2015 by hutch622 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 04:56 AM
link   
a reply to: hutch622

As do I, and I think getting Chemo is the best thing for her.

As I have explained, and sourced, this ruling is not about cancer, or chemo. It's about the State's ability to force decisions on people. In this case the State acknowledged she can be a minor and be mature enough to make her own decisions.

Their reasoning was the fact she wanted to be with her family showed she was unable to be rational. I find it hard to believe you think that is true.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join