Chemo Forced on Connecticut Teen Against Her Will

originally posted by: Sremmos80
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

They are forcefully putting foreign objects into her body, while she is screaming no, and they refuse to stop.

I don't just mean the chemo, they have to put a port into her body to pump it in.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
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.

The article makes it clean SHE doesn't want it done. It is not a case of the parents refusing and she wants it, she doesn't want it. The State has a responsibility to give her education on the subject, not to force their will on her while she says no.

She is 17, not 7. She is capable of making decisions. Imagine a world where the government decides your life for you until age 18, that's not a world I want anyone to live in.

a reply to: Sremmos80

While I agree that the metaphor was indeed brash, I understand the underlying sentiment OccamsRazor was attempting to express. The state is basically chemically raping her. They are forcing her to undergo a treatment she has refused vehemently. Why force that on her? They have to install a port just to administer the chemotherapy drugs. All against her will. No means no, right? Unless the state says yes, then they strap your ass down and pump you full of chemicals because its "in your best interest".

a reply to: CagliostroTheGreat

Exactly. This is not something where they put a cream on you, they are forcing her to be tied down and have objects forced into her body. Hence the rape analogy.

a reply to: CagliostroTheGreat

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?

About 60 years of living... I'm OK with people committing suicide, but not a 5 year old.

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

At 18.

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.

Perhaps stupid wasn't the right word, naive, lacking experience, manipulated

What's more, she is the one refusing the chemotherapy her parents are just supporting her choice.

Yeah, that's the story.

After all, its her body and NO ONE has the right to tell her she can't make her own choices regarding it.

You asked where the line should be drawn. Like it or not, it's drawn at 18. So a 17 is close enough to an 18 year old. A 16 year old is close to a 15 year old. At what point should the state step in? Should a 12 year old be allowed to decide they don't want treatment? A five year old? And if they don't, and the parent agrees, is that OK?

This is a terrible situation, and I probably shouldn't have commented. Again, I'm really torn. I wish her the absolute best.

No, rape is rape and nothing else comes close to being what rape is.
Simply an appeal to emotion to equate it to rape.
Lets keep it rational and leave rape out of this as it has NOTHING to do with it.

And yes she is saying she doesn't want it, don't see how that throws out the possibility that her parents or mom are the ones that hammered that idea into her head.

a reply to: Domo1

If you must draw a line on when the individual gets to decide, then (I assume you are US) that is 18 for you. Before then, the line should be the parents. Do you honestly just tow the line of "this is the treatment the establishment thinks is best so parents no longer have a voice"? How much do you know about chemotherapy?

originally posted by: Domo1
You asked where the line should be drawn. Like it or not, it's drawn at 18. So a 17 is close enough to an 18 year old. A 16 year old is close to a 15 year old. At what point should the state step in? Should a 12 year old be allowed to decide they don't want treatment? A five year old? And if they don't, and the parent agrees, is that OK?

This is a terrible situation, and I probably shouldn't have commented. Again, I'm really torn. I wish her the absolute best.

There are some 15yo who are far more mature than some 18yo, why does being 18 or not decide whether you and your family are able to make decisions about yourself?

The state should be able to force education, and decide whether or not the person being educated understands it. So someone who is MR may be deemed unfit, even at 20, while a 14yo is fit.

This is wrong, and there is no way scenario where this is right. The State may have an obligation to act, but not in this way, ever.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
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.

Quite strong but I agree, this is a form of rape, though it is more of the psychological variety.

I would make them kill me before they held me down and forced jack on me.

I would be gouging eyes ripping ears biting anything my mouth got close to.

They would never want to try it on me against my will again.

a reply to: Domo1

I wish her the absolute best.

Well, I don't think forcing her to undergo a soul shattering process such as chemotherapy is going to lead to anything she might consider the absolute best. That is just my perspective on the issue, however. I guess it is just my libertine spirit though. Its none of the states damn business in the first place.

Allowing this sort of thing to continue is just leaving the screen door open in my opinion, the bugs will get in and lay eggs. Next thing you know we'll be writing "down with big brother" in secret notebooks.

Like I said, another step in the totalitarian tiptoe.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

why does being 18 or not decide whether you and your family are able to make decisions about yourself?

Because there are freaking nutjobs that think it's OK to forgo life saving treatment to their dependents. Anyone under 18 is not legally an adult, and when the legal guardian completely fails in their duty, the state should step in.

a reply to: CagliostroTheGreat

Well, I don't think forcing her to undergo a soul shattering process such as chemotherapy is going to lead to anything she might consider the absolute best.

You know what I meant. If you don't, I meant I wished her a speedy and full recovery.

I guess it is just my libertine spirit though. Its none of the states damn business in the first place.

A child's welfare is very much the state's business. Should it be legal for a parent to kill a child because the child wants them to?

Like I said, another step in the totalitarian tiptoe.

That or protecting a child that recently ran away and needed medical attention.

Not only are they violating here right to self determination guaranteed by the constitution, they are poisoning her to within inches of her life with toxic chemicals. As if the cancer wasn't bad enough.

They don't know how sure the "therapy" is going to be. Everyone is different. They are making a ton of money from it, though.

a reply to: intrptr

They don't know how sure the "therapy" is going to be.

80-85% survival rate is a lot better than coffee enemas.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
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

What is rape, if not forcing your will on anothers body, intimately, violating the sanctity of their choice what you do to them?

It is a type of rape imho.

Would you not feel brutalized if I just walked in and snatched you up out of your home, strapped you down so you are defenseless, and inserted obvious things you didnt want into your body?

This is the situation.

I would not take chemo either. 4 people I know had cancer and went through chemo,3 died badly over around 2 to 3 years. The only survivor was my cousin who was 6.

He had it in his lymphatic system, after 2 years of chemo and 6 disfigiring surgeries he told his mom he didnt want to do it anymore, it hurts too bad all the time.

When he stopped chemo, the cancer went away.

30 years later he is still cancer free.

Not saying the chemo didnt help, just saying for a fact it spread the entire time he was on it, when he stopped it, it finally went into remission.

a reply to: Domo1

Domo1, do you know anyone that has gone through chemotherapy?

Also... coffee enemas? Really?

The ones providing the "treatment" (and yes I know it can work) are also the ones getting PAID to administer said treatment. So it's not like they don't have an incentive to force this (or provide the "statistics" of 80-85% survival rate.)

originally posted by: intrptr
Not only are they violating here right to self determination guaranteed by the constitution, they are poisoning her to within inches of her life with toxic chemicals. As if the cancer wasn't bad enough.

They don't know how sure the "therapy" is going to be. Everyone is different. They are making a ton of money from it, though.

originally posted by: TycoonBarnaby
a reply to: Domo1

Domo1, do you know anyone that has gone through chemotherapy?

Also... coffee enemas? Really?

The ones providing the "treatment" (and yes I know it can work) are also the ones getting PAID to administer said treatment. So it's not like they don't have an incentive to force this (or provide the "statistics" of 80-85% survival rate.)

No. This is one of the few types of cancer Chemo works, and it works amazingly well. Arguing effectiveness is not the point. Depending on how early they caught the cancer her 10yr survival rate is about 80%.

a reply to: infinityorder

Rape is sexual in nature.

I am done with this discussion, if you all want to seriously act like this is anything close to rape then have fun.
There are plenty of reasons and arguments we can go into about why this is or isn't wrong.
Comparing it to her being raped is not one of them if we want to talk about this rationally.

originally posted by: Domo1
You asked where the line should be drawn. Like it or not, it's drawn at 18. So a 17 is close enough to an 18 year old. A 16 year old is close to a 15 year old. At what point should the state step in? Should a 12 year old be allowed to decide they don't want treatment? A five year old? And if they don't, and the parent agrees, is that OK?

This is a terrible situation, and I probably shouldn't have commented. Again, I'm really torn. I wish her the absolute best.

Well, the State of Connecticut has already decided there is NO stupid line for children who want an abortion. That Stupid line was erased. The State can facilitate and abortion on a minor child and not even notify the parents.

Seems the Stupid line corresponds with somebody making money from doing medical procedures.

Yes, having a hole drilled into my body against my will and having chemicals pumped into me.... that's a form of rape. Just because the doctors make up "odds" that I'm going to live, doesn't make it right. Just my opinion.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I wasn't really arguing effectiveness, other than, as you even stated the "10yr survival rate is about 80%" so it's 10 more years at best, if you believe the stats (which most non-mathematically trained people instantly do for some reason...) of brutal chemo.... it wrecks people. I've seen it.

My point, is that it should be a choice for people (yes even someone who is 17.) If they want to endure that, try other things (not coffee enemas [and I know that wasn't your statement],) or just go with it and accept the life that happened to them... it should be their choice (which I think we agree on.)