Chemo Forced on Connecticut Teen Against Her Will

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

This is what I meant by you twisting my words.


I made a parallel. Explained how it was a parallel.

And I showed how it's not.
Court A (yours) said the Girl/Parents decide, the State did not decide.
Court B (OP's) said the Girl/Parents DON'T decide, the State decides.

There is no parallel, they are in fact complete opposites.

YOU tried to turn it into something else. You have been busy building a straw man to knock down and I haven't been playing your game.

We disagree that 17 is old enough to make such a decision. The courts have ruled and as hutch said. End of story.

It's only "End of Story" because you don't like the fact I destroyed your argument. Not to mention the court in your story is not in the same State, so it's pointless to use against the argument I made. Even if it was meaningful, the court you cite upheld the parents right to choose, how does that support this courts ruling parents do NOT have the right, the State does?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So then the State can force a young girl to get an abortion if they believe it will save her life.

Have they ruled that . Yes we disagree , you believe you are right ,i believe i am . People just died over these very ideals .

And for the record and i take my eye off the ball here . I despise abortion except for medical reasons . Before everyone starts .This stand is the reason why i now have my 3rd child sitting in the room with me .

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So then the State can force a young girl to get an abortion if they believe it will save her life.

Have they ruled that . Yes we disagree , you believe you are right ,i believe i am . People just died over these very ideals .

And for the record and i take my eye off the ball here . I despise abortion except for medical reasons . Before everyone starts .This stand is the reason why i now have my 3rd child sitting in the room with me .

I do as well, but my posts have nothing to do with whether abortion is morally right or wrong. It's whether the State can FORCE abortion on people. And yes, they just ruled that. This very ruling has ruled that. The State can force a 17yo girl to undergo medical procedures she does not want when her life is in danger by not having them.

Chemo and abortion, they are merely medical procedures from a medical and legal standpoint, there is no difference. In fact, chemo is far more invasive.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Did you just not read the rest of my post where I addressed that?

I get your principle of this is the state forcing something, but I don't agree with the ultimatum that if this happens the just substitute what ever you want in there and it is the same thing.

We are talking about a girl getting cancer treatment and nothing else.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Whatever... The only thing you are destroying is your credibility.

I have told you before to stop using logical fallacies and you have gotten better at it but you kept trying to build a straw man tonight and as I told you I wasn't going to play that game.

Keep going with your hypothetical case though you may get someone to bite. I was never arguing your hypothetical = strawman.

As far as the age goes we disagree just deal with it.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yes but at the moment we are still talking apples and oranges . They have ruled that they can force A medical procedure . Certainly not all .

So what happens if the chemo kills the girl? Is that ok? Will the state be held liable for forcing a procedure on a minor against her and her parents will?

The state, IMHO, went overboard on this one.

Cancer sucks, I've had 2 close family members deal with it.

That being said a 17 year old refusing Chemotherapy because she's afraid of the side effects and how it's going to make her look, when she has an 85% chance of survival is equal to suicide.

85% chance of survival with chemotherapy
100% chance of death without chemotherapy.

the way I see it is that the state is basically preventing this 17 year old from committing suicide.

a reply to: muse7

the way I see it is that the state is basically preventing this 17 year old from committing suicide

I really cannot see a logical argument against that .

originally posted by: muse7
Cancer sucks, I've had 2 close family members deal with it.

That being said a 17 year old refusing Chemotherapy because she's afraid of the side effects and how it's going to make her look, when she has an 85% chance of survival is equal to suicide.

85% chance of survival with chemotherapy
100% chance of death without chemotherapy.

the way I see it is that the state is basically preventing this 17 year old from committing suicide.

Since suicide is illegal regardless of age, everyone, 18+, should be forced to get treatment, right?

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yes but at the moment we are still talking apples and oranges . They have ruled that they can force A medical procedure . Certainly not all .

Can you explain the differences? You obviously do not understand how legal rulings go. They do not rule for A medical procedure, they rule whether the State has the authority to force a 17yo to get medical treatment they deem necessary. Since there is no difference in treatments, both are valid under this ruling. Your cognitive dissonance is what prevents you from seeing that.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Once you are 18 you can quite rightly tell the courts to eff of . Treatment is their legal choice then .

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

no difference in treatments,

Really .

This speaks to the heart of the matter ...

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 argued it's illogical for her to not want treatment, but be willing to do it to be back with her family. They claimed that was not rational.

I can't think of anything more rational than the desire to be with those you love while dealing with cancer.

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

no difference in treatments,

Really .

Yes. Really. If you believe different then show me exactly how this ruling differentiates the treatments. Because the default position is that it doesn't.

State has no place making medical decisions for others. Judges like that should be hung in town square for all to see.

And ...

Experts predict the case could have legal ramifications regarding the rights of minors in the state and the nation when it comes to major life decisions.

Notice how it's not limited to Cancer, but all major life decisions, exactly as I said.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04
And of course the state gets to decide what counts as a "major life decision". Bunch of control freak pigs they are.....

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?

originally posted by: mikelkhall
So what happens if the chemo kills the girl? Is that ok? Will the state be held liable for forcing a procedure on a minor against her and her parents will?

The state, IMHO, went overboard on this one.

this is a very good question and i would like to see it answered....the state apparently knows what is best for people ....what happens when that decision kills the person they are protecting ? who is at fault ? does the state have a disclaimer to allow them to make mistakes ?