*new* PAS 4Feb15
NYTimes: Lawsuit Seeks to Legalize Doctor-Assisted Suicide for Terminally Ill Patients in NY
Under New York State law, any doctor who helps a
terminally ill patient die by providing a fatal dose of medication can be
prosecuted under the manslaughter statute.
22Jan15
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia Dies
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/saudi-king-abdullah-dies/
--> see also funeral practices post on this blog for video of his funeral
20Jan15 Belgium's euthanasia law gives terminally ill children the right to die | PBS NewsHour
New law in Belgium allows terminally ill children the right to die
Story about a 17 year old who wants to refuse chemotherapy
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2015/01/08/375659085/can-connecticut-force-a-teenage-girl-to-undergo-chemotherapy
Q: What do you think should happen in this situation?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis story has its complexity of issues as you dive further into the story. First, being that she was taken away from her mother and placed in foster care just to make sure she gets the treatments is a decision I do not agree with. Her mother did not physically abuse her or deny her basic needs. Secondly, due to her age and that she will be legally and adult in 8 months the courts are buying time and using that against her. She does not have a mental health history that deems her incompetent from the article. Furthermore, being a teenager and placed in an unfamiliar atmosphere without her mother is just insane and uncalled for. Chemotherapy is not to be done alone without family support. The court has no place deeming the foster care agency capable of making medical choices for her. Ethics comes into play and there is a fine line between right and wrong. Clearly in my opinion this ethically is wrong. In correlation to the Facing Death video the emotions and opinions of others in this case the agency, are overriding the basic rights that we are given as humans to begin with.
ReplyDeleteI think this situation is complicated, but the state handled it completely wrong. With the girl being 17, the mother is the one to make the medical decisions for her. The mother followed her daughter’s decision to refuse the treatment, but the state stepped in. I feel that the state had no right to take the daughter from her mother and force the treatment against her will. I see that as unethical and immoral, especially in the hospital state of mind. In the hospital, we are not allowed to give medications or do surgery without the consent of the patient or the legal guardian. The mother had her daughter’s best interest in her mind when she decided to refuse the treatment and the state forced it upon the girl. In this situation, I think the state needs to back off and allow the minor and her mother make their own decisions. I could see the state stepping in if the daughter wanted treatment and the mother refused it, but this is not the case.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do not agree with the decision to not undergo chemotherapy, I believe it is completely up to Cassandra and her mother and that the court became involved unnecessarily. I do not think Cassandra and her mother would have made a very intelligent decision, considering Cassandra's chance of survival with treatment would be 85%. Although I have no kids of my own, I would assume that as a mother, you would want to give your 17 year old child the best chance that she had. I cannot really understand why treatment would not be a priority at this point. However, I do think that each person has a right to do what they choose with their own bodies. The decision should be up to Cassandra and her mother, not the Supreme Court. If no treatment is what Cassandra and her mother choose, then they should be left alone. I do think it should be reiterated and stressed to the family that she will most likely die without the treatment and let them make their choice with all the facts.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very complex situation that incorporates many factors. The first being the decision that Cassandra and her mother made to discontinue treatment. The fact that doctors gave her an 85% chance of living with treatment should be encouraging and a positive outlook to continue with treatment. I do not think they made a good decision since she would most likely die from the cancer without treatment. But on the other hand, I do not agree with what the state has done to "fix" the problem. Anyone going through chemotherapy should not have to go through it alone, especially that she has been removed from her mother's home when her mother did not do anything to abuse Cassandra, she simply honored her decision to not put her body through the therapy. I do not think the Supreme Court should have stepped into the issue; it is her life and she can decide what she wants to put her body. I do believe that the medical team should reinforce the consequences of discontinuing her treatment. Ultimately, it should be Cassandra and her mother's decision of what to do in this situation.
ReplyDeleteIn this situation, I feel that it is the girls right to refuse treatment, no matter how life-saving it can be. Her attorney is right in saying that maturity doesn’t simply develop the instant one turns a certain age. If this girl has researched what the treatment can do to her body, and she would rather live with what the cancer will do to her body, then more power to her. That is her decision to make, not a bunch of judges and lawmakers in Connecticut. In the end, when the dust settles, one’s body is their own, it is not a piece of property for the state to mandate upon. The girl should have the freedom to do what she chooses, who is the state to say she has to accept a treatment that may not even work?
ReplyDeleteThis story has many factors within it which can alter one's opinion of what they feel is the best thing to do. In this particular situation, I do not feel that the girl should refuse chemotherapy, but ultimately it is her decision. It's hard for me to understand why the girl feels like she should not undergo treatment, but regardless, it should not be up to anyone else but her. I feel that she is old enough to make her own decisions and that the court should not have the right to take her away from her mother because in the end, it is her body and her choice. On the other hand, I feel that because the doctors informed her that treatment would give her an 85% survival rate, they should go over with her what this means and other possible benefits of treatment. I feel that this would be a more beneficial approach than what the state has done.
ReplyDeleteThis situation is the perfect example of the grey area that many healthcare situations are in. Should treatment be continued or stopped? Each situation is different so it is hard to say what should be done in each instance. I feel that in this case, the daughter and her mother should have been allowed to decide what was best for their own situation. It is not fair that the state stepped in because the young woman and her mother were both in agreement to stop chemotherapy. In my opinion, she shouldn't have refused chemo, but I am not in her position nor am I in her mothers position so who is to say what I would do if I were in her position. I think that the state and other people in power need to take this into consideration more often and realize that they cannot control every outcome of each persons life.
ReplyDeleteIn this situation, I do not agree with the girl and her mother when it comes to whether or not she should undergo chemotherapy. Personally, I believe in the long run if she survives, the mother and daughter will be at least a bit thankful to the state for giving her chemo. HOWEVER, this does not mean that I think the state should have stepped in. In the long run it may help, but really it is the girl's decision. She is old enough to decide whether or not she wants chemo, so she should be able to make her own decision. I believe that the mother should be the one telling her she needs to go through treatment if anybody, not the state. But I do not think that she needed to be taken from her mother. The mother is not neglecting her daughter, rather trying to maker her happy. While I think that the chemo is a good idea, I think that the situation was handled completely wrong.
ReplyDeleteIn this situation, I think it was wrong for the state to get involved. Like her mother said, if her daughter can't make the decision herself, she would do it for her. The issue of deciding whether to accept treatment or not should be up to the patient and their family. The daughter is also 17 years old. Although she isn't an adult yet, age does not measure maturity. If she feels she does not need treatment or want it, she should be able to make that decision. If they won't let her, at least let the family. The family may agree with the child but it's respecting the child. I do think this situation was handled wrong because it should not be up to the state.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very tough question to answer however, In the case of the girl that was 17, I think she should have had the decision to stop taking chemo if she wanted to. She already close to the age of being an adult. I think if her mother was clearly okay with the decision, there shouldn't have been a debate about. If the girl was 8 months from being 18 she shouldn't be force to do anything that she doesn't feel comfortable with. If she is mature person that is clearly able to make sound decisions, there should be nothing wrong.
ReplyDeleteI agree, if she did have to take chemo though because she was forced to since she was 17, couldn't she stop once she turned 18 because then she is can decide what she wants to do since she would be an adult then?
Delete