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: 8
16
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 04:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

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


17 or 47, the best place to be while dealing with cancer is with loved ones.




posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 04:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

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


17 or 47, the best place to be while dealing with cancer is with loved ones.



damn straight it is



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 05:02 AM
link   
Well seeing many have recently said on another thread that at 17 she is still a child it should be up to her parents.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 05:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
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.


The teen, for example, was allowed to go home to undergo treatment in November but instead ran away for a week, according to court documents.

From the OP . Do i really nead to say more

Yes real rational .



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 05:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: hutch622

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
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.


The teen, for example, was allowed to go home to undergo treatment in November but instead ran away for a week, according to court documents.

From the OP . Do i really nead to say more

Yes real rational .

She was allowed to go home and get FORCED treatment she did not want. Isn't that what you do when someone violates your free will, run away? Seems rational to me.

That is not what the DA said was irrational. He said her not wanting to get the treatments for herself, but willing to do it to be with her family was irrational.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 05:13 AM
link   
And i might add superb parenting Wheres your daughter . Umm i guess i lost her .



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 05:16 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




He said her not wanting to get the treatments for herself, but willing to do it to be with her family was irrational.


Where do you get this from .



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 05:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




He said her not wanting to get the treatments for herself, but willing to do it to be with her family was irrational.


Where do you get this from .


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.


patch.com...



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 05:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: hutch622
And i might add superb parenting Wheres your daughter . Umm i guess i lost her .




just hazarding a guess here but you are not a parent are you ?



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 05:24 AM
link   
If I ever have a cancer that the doctors say require chemo ... I won't do it. What the law and the doctors are forcing this girl to do is wrong. She should have the right to refuse. Yes it means she most likely will be dead within two years, but thats HER CHOICE.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 05:38 AM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed




just hazarding a guess here but you are not a parent are you ?

\

Yes i am a parent as you should know if you read the whole thread . Yes i have lost TRACK of my children when they were young . Children are quick . Lost 2 in ten minutes when they were grounded and jumped out their bedroom window and went to the neighbours . I have never lost one . BTY my kids are 24 , 18 and 14 now .



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 05:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed




just hazarding a guess here but you are not a parent are you ?



Yes i am a parent as you should know if you read the whole thread . Yes i have lost TRACK of my children when they were young . Children are quick . Lost 2 in ten minutes when they were grounded and jumped out their bedroom window and went to the neighbours . I have never lost one . BTY my kids are 24 , 18 and 14 now .

You lost your children from your house. This 17yo (not a child) ran away from a hospital she was forced to go to by the State. You really should not be commenting on their parenting. Especially since she was under the care of the State and hospital when she ran.

ETA: Want to make it clear I am not commenting on your parenting.
edit on 9-1-2015 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 06:11 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Net troubles .



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 08:25 AM
link   
I have read the story, im appalled that the court systems are forcing her to receive treatment. In the world we live in that we "supposedly" have "free-will" forcing this child to endure something she has no desire to be a part of severely aggravates me. She stated that she knows with out the chemo she will most likely die. However to her the quality of life was more important than the quantity. I hope she finds a way to win.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: woodwardjnr

Success rates for different types of Cancer vary extremely...

Often its equivalent to hacking at your finger with a Butchers knife to remove a splinter...



So no, I'd rather go peacefully, than irradiated.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 10:24 AM
link   
My first thought is that it's just plain wrong that the state is doing this.... but to play devil's advocate.... what if the girl was significantly younger? To the state it doesn't matter if she's 7 or 17, either way she's considered a "minor".

It's not like someone magically turns into an adult when they hit 18. The abortion laws for that state seem to take that into account. I wonder what age would reasonably give a minor consent over potential life-saving medical operations performed on their own body? Perhaps there should be a classification between "minor" and "adult". What that age range should be is up for debate.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: circlemaker
My first thought is that it's just plain wrong that the state is doing this.... but to play devil's advocate.... what if the girl was significantly younger? To the state it doesn't matter if she's 7 or 17, either way she's considered a "minor".

It's not like someone magically turns into an adult when they hit 18. The abortion laws for that state seem to take that into account. I wonder what age would reasonably give a minor consent over potential life-saving medical operations performed on their own body? Perhaps there should be a classification between "minor" and "adult". What that age range should be is up for debate.

Well Said.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: woodwardjnr

Success rates for different types of Cancer vary extremely...

Often its equivalent to hacking at your finger with a Butchers knife to remove a splinter...



So no, I'd rather go peacefully, than irradiated.


Fair enough, I imagine your response would be different if God forbid you were ever diagnosed



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Jamie1
Yes, I can see both sides.... Sremmos80's perspective is valid too. Characterizing it as rape or not, a violation of her rights or not, the States' intent is, I believe, to serve her best interests. And the opposite side that this is appalling is valid as well.

Sometimes in real life you have to make a decision, like the judge did, and sleep at night feeling like it was your best intent, and decision, and that's all you can do.

I think they have her best interests at heart too, but the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. The State absolutely has a duty to the girl, they are simply exceeding their bounds.

What they should do is force mandatory education on both parents and child, and work with them to explain why chemo is the best option.


Yes the state has a duty to prevent anyone infringing her right to live and die as she chooses. They have abdicated that responsibility, in favor of a financial interest in her life. The state only looks out for the states interest.

Forced education? Are you nuts? I have see some chemo drugs being made, the people making then, they wouldn't be in the same room with then without PPE, let alone ingest them. You would have to find a moron to teach that this is not poison. Chemo killed my uncle and did it damn quick. I don't think you would have much trouble finding such a teacher today, unfortunately.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Jamie1
Yes, I can see both sides.... Sremmos80's perspective is valid too. Characterizing it as rape or not, a violation of her rights or not, the States' intent is, I believe, to serve her best interests. And the opposite side that this is appalling is valid as well.

Sometimes in real life you have to make a decision, like the judge did, and sleep at night feeling like it was your best intent, and decision, and that's all you can do.

I think they have her best interests at heart too, but the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. The State absolutely has a duty to the girl, they are simply exceeding their bounds.

What they should do is force mandatory education on both parents and child, and work with them to explain why chemo is the best option.


I did the proverbial sleeping on this and with a clear head, thought about both sides.

17-years old's are very impressionable, and in my experience, very idealistic and naive in their views. So let's take the girl out of the equation. Let's assume she's legally 7, not 17.

Now it's a question of the State deciding to take, by force of gun, a child away from a parent.

If the parent was abusing the child, or putting the child in danger proactively, then it's obvious. The State comes in and protects the child.

This is different.

The child is sick. The State is coming in, at the point of a gun, and kidnapping a child from a parent to force the child to receive treatment because the State chooses one form of treatment over what the parent wants.

The State's expert witnesses claims the treatment has an 80-85% chance of keeping her alive. But doesn't say for how long, or what the side effects may be. The State's witness also claims the girl has a 100% certainty of dying without the treatment.

If I'm the judge, I have to take custody of the girl based on that testimony, not from a legal perspective, from a human perspective.

The beauty of the whole process, whatever the outcome, is that we do have a legal system in place, however flawed, to resolve the situation. The girl's mother is now appealing the decision.

Keyboard warriors going thorough hours of mental masturbation aren't going to change it one way or the other.

All we can do is send our thoughts and prayers to the girl.




top topics



 
16
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join