Fox News reports as follows: "A 17-year-old cancer patient and her mother are locked in an unprecedented legal battle with the Connecticut state government over the teen’s right to refuse chemotherapy treatment, Fox CT reported.
The girl, identified only as “Cassandra C." in court documents, was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma in September. At the time, doctors at Connecticut Children’s Medical Center (CCMC) recommended she receive chemotherapy. After she refused treatment— with her mother’s support— Connecticut’s Department of Children and Families (DCF) stepped in."
For more information on this case, please click on the link below:
I have listened to the reports on this story. What interests me is that the journalists don't tell you much about the nature of the cancer she has, how far it has progressed, whether the teen was considering getting a second opinion prior to embarking on treatment, not just rejecting all possible treatments. I am assuming there are various approaches to treatments that this young lady might have the right to consider. I was reading online that in some circumstances it may be possible to sit tight and not proceed with treatment until the condition gets worse. Under these circumstances, is it really necessary for DCF to bully this teenager into getting treatment she does not want. It is my understanding that attitude and level of cooperation plays an important role in the ability to recover or battle this condition. If DCF and the treatment team at CT Children's Hospital are unable to get this teenager to buy into the treatment plan by showing respect for her position, how do they think that they will obtain successful results for this young lady. Doesn't it make sense, if possible, and I'm reading that it is possible, to wait before proceeding with treatment until the teenager has been heard sufficiently to the point where she is ready to buy into what the doctors are planning in regard to her treatment. Shouldn't she have the opportunity to choose her doctors, choose the location of her treatment so that she can trust her health care providers. Who can be sure what is the source of this young lady's refusal to cooperate. However, if trauma is a factor, doesn't bullying this teenager into forced treatment make the situation worse? Did anyone consider mental health counseling in order to address this teenager's concerns, or did anyone consider working with her to address the issues she raised that troubled her about the proposed treatment? These are the pressing and urgent questions that apparent journalists who were reporting on this matter didn't appear to consider important.
ReplyDeleteToday the Supreme Court of CT sided with the DCF (with whom the trial court had already done so by forced-placing Cassandra under their "care") and the Children's Hospital, ruling from the Bench While we citizens surely do not know ALL the medical details of this young lady's case (being all of 9 mere months away from being legally out of their long am gestapo-like reach) it seems outrageous that on the one hand 16 and 17 year olds can be tried as ADULTS for egregious crimes (which presumes knowing right from wrong as well) as well as a host of other accorded 'personal rights and freedoms" yet has been stripped of her right to decide what toxic chemical treatments she does not wish to suffer through the effects of. Un- effing-believable. Connecticut judges - and Chase Rogers in particular, presiding - are so drunk with misplaced power over the rights of the Ct citizenry - parents (single mothers particularly) and children or near adult-children in particular - it's beyond shameful. It's scary as hell.
ReplyDelete