Just read about a teenager in Connecticut who was diagnosed with cancer. Her and her mother wanted to seek alternative ways of treatment, and therefore refused to undergo chemotherapy. However, despite making their wishes clear, they were eventually taken to court, and now the young lady is being forced to undergo the chemo.

 

Now, I know that this may seem like a touchy subject, but I just wanted to see other opinions on this. Some individuals are all for modern medicines/ treatments, but others feel that taking more natural approaches is better. What do you think? Should people be forced into having medical procedures they don't want? Please share your thoughts!

If her mother was forcing her to go with those "alternative" treatments I would say that this seems kinda justified. Since the girl herself stated she didn't want chemo, I don't think they should have forced her. Even though chemo's probably a lot more effective than whatever they were going to try. People can choose the natural approaches for themselves (not force it on anyone else, though, especially their own children - again not the case here), but all I'm saying is that back in the times when those "natural procedures" were all we had, life expectancy was considerably lower.

Yes and No

No and Yes

If her mother was forcing her to go with those "alternative" treatments I would say that this seems kinda justified. Since the girl herself stated she didn't want chemo, I don't think they should have forced her. Even though chemo's probably a lot more effective than whatever they were going to try. People can choose the natural approaches for themselves (not force it on anyone else, though, especially their own children - again not the case here), but all I'm saying is that back in the times when those "natural procedures" were all we had, life expectancy was considerably lower.

 

Hmmm......true. Although I have to be honest, I would certainly try the natural approaches first, before putting the chemo into my body. Mostly because it really does take such a harsh toll on the cells and system, ya know? But that' just me....what I can't understand though, is why a court got involved in the first place. How is it their business? It's not like their running around, hurting other people!

Hmmm......true. Although I have to be honest, I would certainly try the natural approaches first, before putting the chemo into my body. Mostly because it really does take such a harsh toll on the cells and system, ya know? But that' just me....what I can't understand though, is why a court got involved in the first place. How is it their business? It's not like their running around, hurting other people!

Yeah, I can see your point. I would personally be too scarred to try anything other than the most effective method (well, as far as I know chemo is the most effective). I too question why a court got involved. Were the doctors the one that took them to court? I can't say I've ever heard of something like this.

Yeah, I can see your point. I would personally be too scarred to try anything other than the most effective method (well, as far as I know chemo is the most effective). I too question why a court got involved. Were the doctors the one that took them to court? I can't say I've ever heard of something like this.

 

It truly is bizarre.....  http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/connecticut-court-rules-against-teen-who-didnt-want-chemo/ar-AA7W0Su?ocid=UP97DHP Apparently, they had started missing appointments after being diagnosed, so the doctors decided to step in themselves.

Honestly I think it depends on the circumstances. Sometimes parents brainwash their sick kids into whatever treatment they deem appropriate and it might not be the right thing for the kid and then the kid could die from that mistake. It's best someone step in and give that kid a fair shot at living with the best treatment for them. In this case it's hard to say - is this her personal decision or what her mom has put in her head? Does she have a proposed alternative treatment that she feels is better suited to her that gives her a fighting chance at this curable disease ? I think it depends on the given circumstances since she is a minor after all.

Just read about a teenager in Connecticut who was diagnosed with cancer. Her and her mother wanted to seek alternative ways of treatment, and therefore refused to undergo chemotherapy. However, despite making their wishes clear, they were eventually taken to court, and now the young lady is being forced to undergo the chemo.

 

Now, I know that this may seem like a touchy subject, but I just wanted to see other opinions on this. Some individuals are all for modern medicines/ treatments, but others feel that taking more natural approaches is better. What do you think? Should people be forced into having medical procedures they don't want? Please share your thoughts!

Personally, I would say that it was likely a good choice oh the government's part. Say these treatments were only doing so much, she began to suffer, then died of improper medical treatment, the mother could go to jail for child abuse due to this, as she was not treated by a doctor. The kid doesn't have to die and the mother go to jail this way. There is still a chance she may die, but medical advancements and proper, professional care increase the chance of survival, and so do treating it as quickly as possible. if it were a grown adult stating they did not want the treatment, then it's understandable to a degree, but with how our government works, if the person who has cancer is a minor with a legal guardian, and she wasn't treated professionally then died, the guardian would have been blamed and possibly taken to court: Something like that would be a far from happy ending, and thus I will say that (Personally) I think this is the right move.

Honestly I think it depends on the circumstances. Sometimes parents brainwash their sick kids into whatever treatment they deem appropriate and it might not be the right thing for the kid and then the kid could die from that mistake. It's best someone step in and give that kid a fair shot at living with the best treatment for them. In this case it's hard to say - is this her personal decision or what her mom has put in her head? Does she have a proposed alternative treatment that she feels is better suited to her that gives her a fighting chance at this curable disease ? I think it depends on the given circumstances since she is a minor after all.

 

Hmm....that's an interesting way of looking at it. I mean, despite how terrible it is, brainwashing is something that does happen between parents and children sometimes. I'd hate to think that this girl was coerced by her mother into making any harsh choices, but if the doctors are just taking precautions to be certain this isn't the case, I can undersand that...

In this case it's hard to make a call because I don't have the full story. First it depends on what "alternate" treatments they were seeking. If they were looking for an option that doesn't involve pumping chemicals into you that leave you bald and constantly sick, shit, I wouldn't stop 'em. At the same time, not everyone can determine what truly is the best option -- maybe their religious or spiritual beliefs think doctors or chemo are somehow wrong, even though from a medical standpoint their "alternatives" are a load of crap that'd just get the child killed. The fact that the government had to step in and force the child to get chemo raises a red flag. For all I know, the court saw a sick kid who probably doesn't even know what's best for her. Not forcing the kid into treatment would be utter negligence on the court's part.

 

Normally I don't think others should interfere with someone's personal beliefs, but sometimes those beliefs are just dangerous. Someone's gotta be the bad guy and make the call to save a life. But, like I said, I don't know the whole story in this specific situation.

I think it's a severe and intolerable infringement on personal freedom. They can force the mother to let the daughter decide on her own but not force someone into potentially poisonous therapy!

 

Government has no right to influence her own choice. Even if she decided to refusetreatment and die it's her own choice.

For minors it's a different situation but in general it's personal choice and freedom.

It's a tough one. Legally, it does sound like it's an infringement on their personal rights to choose how they receive healthcare. But morally, dunno. I'm usually for "trust the scientists because they didn't arrive at this conclusion via google searches".

I'm gonna kick this up a notch, and put in law issues

 

I've had this question in law class a few months back, and it all depends in many factors.

 

As surprising as it may seem, the religion of the pacient does count for this procedure. There are religions where they only accept natural methods of medicine.

Now, what's in a doctor's morale code? They have to heal the pacient. So what happens here? The religion of the pacient says that they only accept natural methods, while the doctor's morale code says that they have to heal the pacient. If the doctor says that only chemo works, we're in a standoff here.

 

(You may bash me for introducing religion into this discussion )

My moral code says do whatever you want but you accept the consequences. If they want to take treatment that is away from the norm but not tested in a lab environment, let them. It is their lives and let them live it even if their actions might shorten it.