Home› A Moving Train

17-year-old with cancer forced to undergo chemo

hedonisthedonist Posts: 24,524
in A Moving Train
https://www.yahoo.com/health/should-a-17-year-old-be-allowed-to-choose-death-107518648817.html

Thoughts?
«1

Comments

  • badbrainsbadbrains Posts: 10,255
    Tough call hedo, I honestly don't know where I stand. Part of me wants this young girl to make her own decision up and a part of me would like to see her live a long full life. This ones def a head scratcher.
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Posts: 12,845
    The important issue, which the article touches on, is whether or not she's competent to make this decision. It isn't so much a matter of age per se, especially as she's 17. It doesn't seem to go into her reasons not to have chemotherapy, which is the crucial thing. What does she mean by "poison"? What does she think will happen? Maybe her beliefs and fears aren't accurate.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • badbrainsbadbrains Posts: 10,255
    And wouldn't cancer itself be considered a poison in her body?
  • hedonisthedonist Posts: 24,524
    I think for her, it's about the brutal effects of chemo.

    Will she be more competent in nine months when she turns the magic number of 18? It's her choice, and her parents support her choice.

    Two thoughts came to me when I first heard about this. One, how frightening that someone can be forced to do something to their body they'd otherwise not choose for themselves. Second - and being pro-choice - teens can opt for abortion in many places. That's OK, but this other personal decision isn't?

    BB - it is a tough call, but I know of many people who chose quality of life over added but miserable time.

  • oftenreadingoftenreading Posts: 12,845
    Yes, her decision does seem to be about the effects of chemo, but what formed that decision, particularly as the family says she said years ago she would never want chemo? I would guess she saw a family member or friend having a tough time with chemo. However, "chemo" isn't one thing, it's a whole range of different medications for different situations. Perhaps her situation is different. Some courses of chemo have few side effects, and in any case her treatment for that type of cancer is likely to be fairly short, in the order of weeks.

    I agree she's not likely to be substantially more mature in a few months. In Canada we don't even have an age cut-off for medical decision making, for exactly this reason. The assessment of maturity and ability to make a reasoned decision is more important.

    It is hard to believe that, assuming she was successfully treated, she would look back on this time in 20 or 30 years and say she wished she had been allowed to die rather than given treatment. It must certainly be frightening all around for her right now.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • Last-12-ExitLast-12-Exit Posts: 8,661
    Her decision. 100%. 17 is old enough to make that choice.
  • badbrainsbadbrains Posts: 10,255
    edited January 2015
    I respect that Scott, knowing u as a father and having daughters as well. Pretty cool pops. :-c

    Edit-but you're still an asshole =))
  • Last-12-ExitLast-12-Exit Posts: 8,661
    badbrains wrote: »
    I respect that Scott, knowing u as a father and having daughters as well. Pretty cool pops. :-c

    Edit-but you're still an asshole =))

    Gracias! And I'll always be an asshole. I good with that.

    17 is legal age in some states, isn't it? My oldest is 13. I couldn't imagine her having to make a decision like that. Fuck cancer. Horrible disease.
  • Last-12-ExitLast-12-Exit Posts: 8,661
    hedonist wrote: »
    https://www.yahoo.com/health/should-a-17-year-old-be-allowed-to-choose-death-107518648817.html

    Thoughts?

    Who exactly is forcing her to get treated? The article just says state officials.
  • hedonisthedonist Posts: 24,524
    Last-12-Exit wrote: »
    hedonist wrote: »
    https://www.yahoo.com/health/should-a-17-year-old-be-allowed-to-choose-death-107518648817.html

    Thoughts?

    Who exactly is forcing her to get treated? The article just says state officials.
    I'm not sure.

    Was wondering, was she taken by force? What would the legal repercussions have been?

    The article didn't really touch on these things.
  • Last-12-ExitLast-12-Exit Posts: 8,661
    My guess is that when she recused treatment, and the family supported that decision, the hospital call social services.
  • AafkeAafke Posts: 1,219
    What do the officials think they can accomplice, by forcing her? How effective will this treatment be if the patient doesn't want it, and doesn't belief in its healing power? In a healing process, body and mind do work strongly together. If only one is on board, treatment will not be successful, in my experiences.

    This decision can't have been an easy one, for this girl. Why can't authorities have some respect for that?
    I'm 100% for letting this girl decide for herself, if she exepts treatment or not!
    Waves_zps6b028461.jpg
    "The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
    "Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
  • hedonisthedonist Posts: 24,524
    Aafke wrote: »
    What do the officials think they can accomplice, by forcing her? How effective will this treatment be if the patient doesn't want it, and doesn't belief in its healing power? In a healing process, body and mind do work strongly together. If only one is on board, treatment will not be successful, in my experiences.

    This decision can't have been an easy one, for this girl. Why can't authorities have some respect for that?
    I'm 100% for letting this girl decide for herself, if she exepts treatment or not!
    Great points. The body-mind dependency is one of the tenets of the City of Hope, for whom my dad worked nearly 30 years. It's crucial.

    I read that child protective services were called, which had her removed from her home. HOW they actually administered treatment against her will, I don't know.

    By the way, good post in the Hebdo thread.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Posts: 49,954
    edited January 2015
    Well, she and her family will have egg on their faces of she is cured I guess.... But i believe that everyone who is sane should have 100% control over their own bodies and what is done to them probably by the age of 14 or so.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • hedonisthedonist Posts: 24,524
    With you on the body-control side, PJ.

    With so many other paths of non-traditional medicine and treatment available (and I'm not talking snake-oil stuff), to consider this the only way and then impose it upon her blows my fucking mind.
  • rr165892rr165892 Posts: 5,697
    I'm in on the you have control of your own body way of thinking.
    This issue,like right to die,and abortion should be made by the individual,and what's right for them.At 17 she is old enough to make this decision.
  • Tenzing N.Tenzing N. Posts: 466
    As someone who just got through with cancer and chemo, I have a different point of view than others I suppose. Regardless of any issues related to age and judgment I have a really hard time with her and her mother's belief of chemo. Yes it sucks, yes it's sort of like poison and there are some lasting side effects but the alternative is so much more painful and awful. Of course then there's the death part at the end but I don't think she is prepared for the last months she's alive. She would have been begging for some relief as I was and any source was welcome. Cancer is already so scary that most of the worst parts are kept out of the public view. I can honestly say that chemo was the very best thing that happened to me in the last year. And I'm also sick and tired of the misconception that chemo is some unnatural element that is designed to keep people alive long enough to bill them. One of my drugs was a very simple derivative of the Vinca flower. It was so close that it was basically just flower juice in concentrated form. Another was a derived from a bacteria that grows in damp soil. One was simply a modern form of nitrogen mustard which is essentially a natural product.

    But I digress. The state is correct, make her take it. Imagine if the tables were turned and they were withholding a treatment to a child.
  • hedonisthedonist Posts: 24,524
    As to your last comment - neither scenario is correct. To force or refuse isn't the point; it's not the state's place to make the call for her.

    I'm sorry you've had to walk that fucking road. I know many here have done the same either in their own shoes or attempting to, through those they / we love.

    No one right path is my point, I suppose.

    How the "state" knowing what's best more than the person going through it, or that person's family, makes no sense, in any sense.

  • rr165892rr165892 Posts: 5,697
    Tenzing,here's Hoping that fighting the good fight keeps you healthy for many years to come.
    You made choices you thought were best for you.So that was the best approach.This young lady should also be allowed the same decision making consideration and do what she THINKS is the best approach.Who knows she may change her mind at some point.
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Posts: 12,845
    rr165892 wrote: »
    Tenzing,here's Hoping that fighting the good fight keeps you healthy for many years to come.
    You made choices you thought were best for you.So that was the best approach.This young lady should also be allowed the same decision making consideration and do what she THINKS is the best approach.Who knows she may change her mind at some point.
    The problem is, she may not be able to change her mind. She's at an early stage of her cancer but without treatment it will progress and her chance of cure will be much lower. I think Tenzing has some very good points, as someone with far more experience in this area than the rest of us (presumably). It still comes back to the question of why this young woman has made this decision, since there must be some basis to it. The proposed course of chemo might be tough (might be, not a given) but dying of cancer is no walk in the park, either. She's going to go through some pretty significant stuff anyway, so why choose the path that has little to no chance of survival, when she hasn't even given the other option a chance?

    Whoever has assessed her around this decision seems to have thought she hasn't made a competent decision, or this step wouldn't have been taken. We just don't know enough about why this is.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon Posts: 36,987
    I completely disagree with this girl's decision, but it's HER decision. how can the government willfully force someone to undergo treatment? I could see if it was her parents saying no on her behalf, but it seems as though (SEEMS) this girl is making this choice all on her own. Maybe they can order a psych eval or some type of course that would show her exactly what she would be putting in her body, but beyond that, it is a complete violation of your human rights to be forced to take medication that you don't wish to have. I find it incredibly disturbing that this can be done.
    new album "Cigarettes" out Spring 2025!

    www.headstonesband.com




  • PJfanwillneverleave1PJfanwillneverleave1 Posts: 12,885
    edited January 2015
    hedonist wrote: »
    https://www.yahoo.com/health/should-a-17-year-old-be-allowed-to-choose-death-107518648817.html

    Thoughts?

    There is not enough to this article. It is broadly written and asking about a contentious issue.
    It is like asking "Do you walk to work or take your lunch"? You have an answer but can't articulate it.

    Click on the author of this article and it comes clear.

    Poor journalism. It is a blog. A good fit for AMT for sure she just didn't realize it.
  • hedonisthedonist Posts: 24,524
    True on how it's written and saw some details were omitted in this "coverage" vs. other articles I subsequently read.

    Still, the issue of a personal medical choice being made by someone/something else is a huge one.

    My answer (as I tried to articulate earlier, and I get it can be - IS - tough) is a firm NO.
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    if she were my daughter(I have a 16 year old) I would stand by her totally compus decision to refuse treatment. and then wed go live in the woods so that the authorities couldn't usurp her sovereignty over her own body.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Posts: 12,845
    catefrances wrote: »
    if she were my daughter(I have a 16 year old) I would stand by her totally compus decision to refuse treatment. and then wed go live in the woods so that the authorities couldn't usurp her sovereignty over her own body.

    What would you do if she was not making a "totally compus" decision?
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    edited January 2015
    oftenreading wrote: »
    catefrances wrote: »
    if she were my daughter(I have a 16 year old) I would stand by her totally compus decision to refuse treatment. and then wed go live in the woods so that the authorities couldn't usurp her sovereignty over her own body.

    What would you do if she was not making a "totally compus" decision?

    well knowing her as I do thered be no doubt in my mind after having everything laid out before her that the decision she made would be nothing but.

    Post edited by catefrances on
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • backseatLover12backseatLover12 Posts: 2,312
    She's a minor. I think that's what this is all about. The state couldn't pull this on an adult and get away with it.
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Posts: 12,845
    catefrances wrote: »
    oftenreading wrote: »
    catefrances wrote: »
    if she were my daughter(I have a 16 year old) I would stand by her totally compus decision to refuse treatment. and then wed go live in the woods so that the authorities couldn't usurp her sovereignty over her own body.

    What would you do if she was not making a "totally compus" decision?

    well knowing her as I do thered be no doubt in my mind after having everything laid out before her that the decision she made would be nothing but.

    Well, but the question wasn't really "do you think your child would make a competent decision?", it was "what would you do if she weren't?".

    There are a few different reasons why someone might not be competent to make that decision. Cognitive immaturity would be one potential reason, but 17 is also in the ballpark of prime age for development of serious mental illness.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • hedonisthedonist Posts: 24,524
    But how - assuming she may not be considered competent solely due to her age (and I'm not sure I'm on board with that) - can her and her parents' wishes be trumped by some outside authority?

    I guess I just feel for her.

    I can imagine being 17 again, then faced with cancer, forced to be away from family, sick from unwanted treatment. It sounds like a nightmare and can't imagine how that would contribute to healing.
  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    in Sept. she can do as she wishes right ?
    that aside..at the age of 17 even 21 we've made choices we now wish haddn't right ? if this were my child I don't believe I would let her refuse the treatment because there is so much she does not understand at that age, life has so much to offer..things she is not even aware of yet.
    are there any 17- 18 year olds out there ? or anybody with children that age ? what would you do ?

    Godfather.
Sign In or Register to comment.