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.
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
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.
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.
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 .
He said her not wanting to get the treatments for herself, but willing to do it to be with her family was irrational.
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.
\
just hazarding a guess here but you are not a parent are you ?
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 .
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.
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.
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.
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.