She has been ordered to continue treatment and remains in state custody. She says she knows she will die without treatment but would rather have quality of life than quantity. If she had been diagnosed 9 months from now, she would be 18 and could refuse treatment without court involvement.
I personally think she should have the treatment, and if I were her mother I would tell her she’s having it. The girl’s mom says she backs whatever decision the daughter wants to make.
We discuss a lot on these boards about kids taking on autonomy and independence when they reach college age (which is 17 for many people), but is this–pretty much making a choice to die–taking it too far? Should the girl have the right to make this decision? I mean, 18 is pretty arbitrary, it’s not like she’s going to be a wise old sage on her 18th birthday.
PS I know the decision has already been made, just interested to know what others think.
There must be much more to this story than what is in the article. What parent isn’t going to fight to have her child live? Yes, chemo must be the worst thing to live through but the 17 year old is not making a logical decision.
I saw the mom on TV. She supports what her daughter is doing.
I think the state did the right thing. When she is 18 she can make any choice she wants concerning her care & treatment.
I could understand if she had some incurable form of cancer and treatment would only extend her life a few months at best, but for this extremely curable form it’s just nuts.
I read that the mom doesn’t “believe” her daughter has cancer at all. She’s a nut job, and thank goodness the state is there to protect her daughter from her influence. It was a lucky thing indeed that the girl wasn’t 18 when diagnosed, or she’d be doomed.
I actually agree with forcing her to do it. Which is so unlike me. If it weren’t so curable I’d get it, but it makes me wonder what kind of nut job the mom is that she’d insist she didn’t have cancer. I hope the daughter will look back one day and be grateful someone stepped in for her.
I thought this quote from the article below (which has a lot more info) was telling:
“The mother took the front seat on this,” John E. Tucker, assistant Connecticut attorney general, testified before the panel. "She (Fortin) didn’t bring her to the first medical appointment.
“The child was very quiet, did not engage in conversations during the medical appointments. And for a 17-year-old, as you can imagine, that’s a little bit unusual,” Tucker added. "Really, the mother did all of the talking and sort of the fighting with the medical personnel. And so, really, the child stands in the shadow of her mother here. She’s not an independent decision maker.
I find it interesting that a lot of comments I’ve read on this story are very much for the daughter to make her own decision and against the state (often citing the fact that at 17 she can donate blood without permission, and also in the state of CT, get an abortion on her own).
The one piece I saw about the mother, included the mother stating that she’d wanted to look into “natural therapies”. Well, if she was serious about that, why didn’t she? And if she did, she would have found that they aren’t effective. Really now, this is the 21st century. If you don’t think you like what you find on a first visit to http://www.cancer.org/, it isn’t all that hard to go to http://www.cancer.gov/ or even on to https://scholar.google.com/ and get your hands on the most recent research.
I’ve written and deleted my response to this several times. This is precisely why, despite my love of bioethics, I didn’t pursue it as a graduate program.
To start, I absolutely 100% believe this young woman should get the chemo and I think her mom is an idiot- just like I think the vast majority of people who reject modern medicine in favor of “natural therapy” are idiots (there are, of course, exceptions but I’m talking about relatively tried and true things like vaccines and chemo). My heart breaks for this girl as she clearly has a nutjob mother who is literally killing her daughter with ignorance.
With all that said, I’m a little uneasy about the state taking control of her body like this. The reason I’m uneasy is because, as someone said upthread, she wouldn’t be able to get an abortion and I’m someone who strongly thinks minors should be able to get abortions, STI treatments, etc without parental notification.
It’s my own personal battle: where do I draw that line between what control over his/her body a 17 year old has and what control parents and the state have.
^i think what makes it less uncomfortable for me than I would have guessed is that I feel the girl has essentially been brainwashed by her mother. It does not sound like she is making a free and rational decision of her own volition (even if she believes she is.)
The inconsistency bothers me. She is a free and autonomous adult if she wants to abort her child, but if she doesn’t want chemo, she is still forced to comply by the state.
I pretty much have a problem with forcing medical treatment at all, and can imagine all sorts of sabotage that could occur. If it is worth doing, why can’t someone convince her?
Tranquilmind, serious question, have you ever taken a psychology or child/adolescent development class? Can you really not think of a reason why a child wouldn’t go against the wishes of her parent?
This sounds like a hugely complicated case. Nut mom and suppressed kid. The court has taken over as much as they can. In a good way for once. I’m usually against the state telling you how to live your life.
My views on stuff on this usually hang on
Curability—she has a great chance of recovering. Way different than going through chemo with little chance of recovery.
Age–she’s really young. There is a lot to live for even if she can’t see it for herself right now. Who knows how much of that is twisted up with mom’s views? And the fact that mom would let her die speaks volumes to me.
I feel the same way when religious views get mixed with medical stuff–blood transfusions? medical intervention? I’ve had friends saved from early death by court intervention. I can’t believe people would allow loved ones to die without a fight or based on religious views.
Romanigypsyeyes? I’ve taken a few, in pursuit of my degrees, and I’m the parent of multiple teens.
I get it. Believe me, Teens are happy to assert their independence almost all of the time.
I’m still bothered by the precedent of the state deciding ,medical issues in lieu of the patient (if old enough to make decisions) or the parents (where is dad here?).
@Tom1944, I believe her treatment would end in June and she turns 18 in September. I am not sure how long the state will retain custody–until the chemo is finished? Until she is 18?
Based on the fact that her mother was not good about getting her to doctor’s appointments, I would not have any faith in her mom taking her to follow-ups after chemo and before the age of 18.
I am also bothered by the inconsistencies in my own thinking—I am pro-choice, and I had no issues with Brittany Maynard choosing to end her life on her own terms before her brain tumor killed her. But Brittany was going to die no matter what, and this girl has such a great chance at living a long life if she takes the treatment. Based on the testimony in the article, I think the state is right to make her do the chemo; her thinking is short-term (it makes her feel bad) and I don’t think she realizes that dying of cancer is not like in the movies and it likely to be as painful, if not more, than the treatment.
One area where I am also inconsistent on choice is vaccines—I think people should be made to get them as a matter of public safety (barring other medical reasons where they should not be given to a specific individual).