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.

 

Judge Forces Hysterectomy on God-Loving Woman

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
thestir.cafemom.com...



A cancer patient in Montana -- identified only as L.K. -- refused to undergo a hysterectomy as treatment for her cancer on the grounds that she is deeply religious and wants to have children. That's sad enough in it's own right. But no one could have foreseen what happened next: A judge found her "mentally incompetent" based on her "delusional religious beliefs" and ruled she was to have the procedure.


(I wasn't too sure about the location on this one, if its in the wrong place feel free to move it - it just didn't feel like alternative news.)




posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Talk about a news article loaded with what divides ATS members! While I have a working relationship with my god, I can't believe this woman wouldn't accept the hysterectomy. But for a judge to force it on her! Unreal. Apparently your religious beliefs can get you labelled delusional.

Found another source:
helenair.com...

As a sidenote: I did not make this title up, its just what it was labelled.
edit on 7-3-2011 by JewelFlip because: Sidenot added



edit on 7-3-2011 by JewelFlip because: source added



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
I am curious as to what led the judge to overrule this woman on what is to become of her own body. While many disagree with her beliefs, it it her right to believe it and the law should not be able to push someone around based on what they feel is 'mental incompetence by belief'. How did she end up in court over this in the first place?



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   
This is a tough one. You have a woman who is going through an incredible tough time and I don't think any of us would be fully mentally competent if we went through that. However, as much as I hate forced medical treatment especially in a situation where it goes agains religious beliefs, the judge saved this woman's life. It's common sense, if you're not alive, then you can't have a baby. And the other choice is to not have a baby and be alive, pretty logical way of looking at it. Religious beliefs should not constitute mental incompetence, the judge should have ruled she was incompetent due to the mental stress of cancer and was unable to make a logical decision, not that she is incompetent because of her beliefs. Best luck to this woman.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLisMIND
 


Her physicians and psychiatrist said that "her “religious delusions” -- namely, that God had cured her -- interfered with her ability to make reasoned decisions about her care." She also wants to have children (which is hard to do when your dead). However, to force sterilization on a woman who may just need more convincing is a little bit heavy handed. They are apparently appealing it though.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by JewelFlip
 


I think the Judge did the right thing.

IF she had just refused the treatment on religious grounds, (ie; it is against my religion to alter my body in any way for any reason) I think he should have let her be. And I think he WOULD have let her be.

BUT the article indicates that she falsely believed herself to be cured. Which indicates delusional thinking, testified to by a psychiatrist, and a physician, and that puts the judge in a position to have to decide for her. Just like we dont shoot drunk people or people totally out of their minds on drugs because the scream, "Kill me!" We dont let the mentally ill do things to themselves that their sane selves might regret if they were to regain their faculties.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Can someone explain to me why she can't have her tubes tied for a period of time until after the cancer treatment is over? Then when she is back to being healthy, have the procedure reversed?

Or is this a reproductive cancer specifically?



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLisMIND
 


You have no right to your own body... unless it involves the killing of a fetus, apparently.. You can't use logic with Progressives.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


My guess is that it must be a reproductive cancer. Hysterectomy is not considered a means of birth control. Nowdays, even if there are problems with the uterus efforts are made to preserve it as it is increasingly recognized that it is more than just a place to hold a baby, but plays a role in hormone regulation.

So unless she is just unfortunate enough to be at the hands of some pretty backwards and barbaric doctors, which is possible, it is likely she has cancer in the general vicinity of her uterus, and they are trying to get it all out.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
You do know why they did this right? It is to set a precedent the precedent being if you try to use your religious beleifs to opt out of obamacare you can still be deemed mentally incompetent and be made to buy or pay the fine or go to jail. I am thinking. I may be wrong but this stinks to high heaven. Next you know you will be hearing this "you're 85 you need to go peacefully to the great beyond with our doctor's help" and if you say you don't beleive in that & in your religion it is an atrocity, they'll deem you mentally incompetent and send you to the gas chambers anyway under force! Dispicable.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by JewelFlip
 


I think it is also against the law for people to refuse medical treatment in cases of emergency for their children when they are Christian Scientists. It just makes sense. sometimes religious dogma takes things too far and when it jeopardizes the persons physical body someone has to step in and do the right thing for the sake of the individual so they ARE ABLE TO live a long life praying to the God of their choice.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
This is just ridiculous... how the hell could he do that... NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER!



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Hmmmmm.

If a parent is making the decision for their child to die when a life-saving treatment is available, that is one thing.

If an adult is making the decision to live with cancer and die by it for their own self, I'd have to think that the bar for proving that this adult is incompetent needs to be VERY high.
edit on 2011/3/7 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


I feel like it was heavy handed though. While she may have religious objections, they could show her that in fact God hadn't cured her by showing her the mass. The other article I found said this:


“Tomorrow’s impending involuntary removal of L.K.’s reproductive organs both establishes that the district court is proceeding under a mistake of law and is causing a gross injustice and involves constitutional dignity and religious freedom issues of statewide importance,” the public defender’s office wrote on L.K.’s behalf.



“L.K. then testified on her own behalf that she did understand that she had been diagnosed with cancer and that she did understand the risks of dying if she did not have the hysterectomy procedure,” the petition said. She also said that she might change her mind later about following her doctors’ recommendations. “L.K.’s dignity and bodily integrity are at stake and,” the petition argued, “ ... under the Montana Constitution her dignity is inviolable, including when her life or health is potentially at risk.”


However, there is a time constraint so I can understand why they are pushing it. But I dunno it kind of gives me he creeps that someone else can make that call.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by mrjones7885
 


The judge is female apparently.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity
You do know why they did this right? It is to set a precedent the precedent being if you try to use your religious beleifs to opt out of obamacare you can still be deemed mentally incompetent and be made to buy or pay the fine or go to jail. I am thinking. I may be wrong but this stinks to high heaven. Next you know you will be hearing this "you're 85 you need to go peacefully to the great beyond with our doctor's help" and if you say you don't beleive in that & in your religion it is an atrocity, they'll deem you mentally incompetent and send you to the gas chambers anyway under force! Dispicable.


Personally I think if someone wants to do something that will ultimately prove to be a "death sentence" for themselves - what do I care?
Let them go ahead and do it.
There are too many people in the world as it is.
And the stupid ones should be allowed to drop out for whatever reason they want to. Don't hold them up for cripes sakes...they might reproduce.
Trouble is these damn doctors swear a vow or something and so they cannot make these clear cut simple, life or death decisions as easily and quickly as you and I can.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
What a tragic situation! I definitely can't agree with the sentiment that it's the judge's place to order invasive medical procedures that someone chooses not to have. And the fact that the judge dismissively labeled her beliefs as delusional says that the decision may have been much more based on *the judge's* beliefs than hers. Patients not only have the right to refuse treatments, they also have the right to investigate their treatment options. I hope she has the chance before this is done to her, to investigate whether there isn't something out there that might treat the cancer in a way that would both preserve her life and her fertility. I've been seeing a lot of commercials lately for a treatment called the cyber knife that seems to be minimally invasive and requires minimal recovery time. Of course, only a doctor would know whether that or any other treatment would be appropriate for this woman, but she should have the chance to investigate all her options. There has been a great deal of advancement in cancer treatment.


edit on 7-3-2011 by Ariel because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by rusethorcain
 


Another part of it that people are refusing to acknowledge is that of consent.

Legally, if you are insane or delusional, you cannot consent to all kinds of things. You cant form contracts, you cant agree to sex, you cant sign your property away, a lot of stuff. You cant if you are out of you mind on drugs or alcohol, or if you are out of you mind via mental illness or injury.

She, by believing something science can demonstrate is not true, (that her cancer is gone, when it is not) is not making a choice. She is suffering from a delusion. If she knew the cancer was still there, and she just didnt want the surgery, it should be her choice. But if she is out of her mind, no one is driving. No one is at the wheel making decisions, legally speaking, and therefore someone has to step up and take that responsibility.

Slightly above and beyond what we are discussing here, but worth noting for argument, is that more and more research into mental illness suggests that you really may be out of your mind. In the sense that your consciousness is in some way being hijacked by a virus, or other organism, (toxoplasmosis for instance) and that other organism has taken control of you.

Do you really think that a virus or other organism should be allowed to make decisions for you? I really dont. I personally would like to be restored to my default state and allowed to choose for myself, or if that is not medically possible, to have another human who is generally considered trustworthy choose for me.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
How can anyone side with the judge on this???? your telling me that i don't have a say about what goes on with my body? This is the most absurd thing i have ever heard. I don't care if she is religious or not, that has nothing to do with it. Its her body... therefore her choice!!!!



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by JewelFlip
 


All I can say is that it makes it pretty clear that a psychiatrist and a doctor are testifying to the fact that she is or was delusional in her belief she was cured of the cancer.

It really doesnt seem as if the judge is just randomly yanking out her organs so that she cannot have children, or because the judge feels ALL religious beliefs are delusional.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join