What can you do with your own body?

[LogGrad98]

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/legal-battle-rages-force-17-year-cancer-patient/story?id=28014975

Cassandra underwent two chemotherapy treatments in November and then ran away from home and refused to continue treatments, according to the court summary.

A court hearing ensued in which Cassandra's doctors testified, and she was removed from her mother's home and placed in state custody so that the state could make medical decisions for her.

She has been has been living at Connecticut Children's Medical Center and forced to undergo chemotherapy for about three weeks.

Any thoughts on this?

It kind of made me think of some of the discussion we had here regarding suicide and whether or not someone should be allowed that ultimate control over their own body. In this case maybe it would be viewed as suicide as the likelihood of her dying without treatment is nearly certain, and article states that with treatment she has an 80% chance or so of beating it.

 

[MVP]

Your body - your choice. I am in full favor of self assisted medical suicide for terminally ill people. If we are ok with disfiguring, painting, piercing and altering our bodies in any way why we would have a saying if one wants to end his life and destroy his body completely?

 

[fishonjazz]

I think there should be legal assisted suicide. Maybe an age limit on it though

 

[LogGrad98]

When I had my first chemo treatment it was unlike anything I could possibly have imagined. It is almost otherworldly in what it does to your body, and it is very difficult to describe.

My chemo affected not just my digestive tract like most chemo does, but it also affected my hearing and vision. I felt like I was in a tunnel, and everything sounded like I was in the bottom of a tin can. The affect on the body is also something you just cannot be prepared for. It feels like the body aches from the worst flu you ever had. I remember that my hair hurt after that first round of chemo. Later of course it all fell out.

Then the nausea sets in as the chemo attacks the lining of your digestive tract. It is constant and unrelenting, almost no matter what anti-emetics you take. Vomit is involuntary and sudden. I remember sitting at the kitchen table trying to eat some soup, and suddenly out it all came, all over the table and on the floor. It was so unexpected and sudden that I just sat there kind of in shock. My wife was the best care-giver I could have and I will never be able to repay her for taking care of me during that time, which included cleaning up after my messes.

I get the desire, after having had a few rounds, to stop chemo. I almost did after that first round. It is horrible in every sense of the word. I am not sure if a minor should have that option however. As an adult I was able to finally step back and weigh the pros and cons and continued with my treatment, and I am now more than 15 years cancer free.

Not sure at what age someone has that ability to look at something so terrible objectively and choose the torture to hopefully save your own life. That is a tough question.

 

[moevillini]

Interesting question, difficult to answer...

I thought this thread was going to be about those body contortionists that periodically provide the half-time entertainment at NBA games


At any rate, a related issue is when a family whose religion forbids certain interventions (like Jehovah's Witnesses forbid blood transfusions) has a sick child and the courts require that the child is taken from the family to undergo necessary procedures. I lean towards sacrificing the child's life if the parents refuse to allow the procedure rather than having the courts step in and order the procedure be followed. But I'm not really sure how strongly I lean in that direction.

here's a link with some good information on this subject:
https://adc.bmj.com/content/90/7/715.full

 

[MVP]

I lean towards sacrificing the child's life if the parents refuse to allow the procedure rather than having the courts step in and order the procedure be followed.

Wow. I strongly disagree with you on that one. If state and religion is separated than a matter of human's life can't be based on religion and law needs to step in.

 

[LogGrad98]

There may be 2 ways to look at this. First, if the family is religious and you believe religion means anything then you should respect their rights and let things play out however they will. Second, if you do NOT believe religion means anything you should allow things to play out however they will to remove yet another stupid person from the gene pool. Isn't that a win-win?



That said doesn't this go beyond just religion. That girl was told by the state that she does not have the right to do with her body what she wants to, and not just that, but that the government does have the right to do what they deem "best" with her body. Is that a slippery slope?

 

[QuinSnydersHair]

I can do a lot to my own body. I do every day.

 

[NAOS]

I can do a lot to my own body. I do every day.

 

[♪alt13]

I think in this case I would probably say that we should leave the decision up to her and her parents. I think there can be certain situations where it may be necessary to step in for a childs welfare but I don't think this is one of them. I think that in cases like this that there needs to be a higher threshold for the medical confidence of a good outcome, less side effects of treatment, and the patient to have less of an understanding of the decision that they are making for me to be comfortable with the state/hospital making the decision for them. I think that here there is still sufficient risk even with the chemo and that the 17 year old and her parents do understand the consequences of their decision.

 

[moevillini]

Wow. I strongly disagree with you on that one. If state and religion is separated than a matter of human's life can't be based on religion and law needs to step in.

I see if a bit differently. If the state is to remove itself from religious affairs, then the state needs to proceed with extreme caution in situations where they may be dictating a course of action that is contrary to an individual's personal beliefs.

...doesn't this go beyond just religion? That girl was told by the state that she does not have the right to do with her body what she wants to, and not just that, but that the government does have the right to do what they deem "best" with her body. Is that a slippery slope?

this ^

As Log mentioned earlier, this is not the same as removing a child from an abusive home - - it is the state requiring an individual to undergo an invasive procedure that will have toxic effects and may or may not provide a lasting benefit.

 

[sahlensguy]

I think these decisions should be made before hand and not under duress. I wonder if LogGrad would agree that during your second chemo treatment isn't the wisest time to make a perhaps life or death decision.

 

[MVP]

So let me ask this. If parents are starving their kid and it dies from starvation - they can be prosecuted as they failed to provide nutrition ( basic need for human body to survive). If they leave unattended kid in the car during hot day and kid dies - they can be prosecuted as well. But if the kid dies from uncontrolled diabetes because parents think it is against religion to seek medical attention than it is fine? To me it is the same - basic needs of the child were consciously ignored by its parents - thus they need to be punished by law.

 

[QuinSnydersHair]

So let me ask this. If parents are starving their kid and it dies from starvation - they can be prosecuted as they failed to provide nutrition ( basic need for human body to survive). If they leave unattended kid in the car during hot day and kid dies - they can be prosecuted as well. But if the kid dies from uncontrolled diabetes because parents think it is against religion to seek medical attention than it is fine? To me it is the same - basic needs of the child were consciously ignored by its parents - thus they need to be punished by law.

IAWTP.

 

[LogGrad98]

So let me ask this. If parents are starving their kid and it dies from starvation - they can be prosecuted as they failed to provide nutrition ( basic need for human body to survive). If they leave unattended kid in the car during hot day and kid dies - they can be prosecuted as well. But if the kid dies from uncontrolled diabetes because parents think it is against religion to seek medical attention than it is fine? To me it is the same - basic needs of the child were consciously ignored by its parents - thus they need to be punished by law.

Read the story. This one adds another layer, in that the "child" is off an age where adulthood is just around the corner. This one is not a case of a parent starving their child or refusing a blood transfusion or something immediately life-threatening in and of itself. If you do not give a child food, who is not of an age to figure out how to get food or leave, then that is blatant abuse. But supporting an older and more mature child in a decision that affects their life, especially when the alternative is not a guarantee it will fix the condition, to me that is a different story.

Another asked if I felt that the child was more or less in their right mind after their second chemo treatment, and that is a tough one to answer. It is possible she was, depending on the severity of the chemo. Mine was very very severe, in fact it was the chemo that nearly killed me twice, not the cancer. But even then, every individual handles it differently. Again, another tough part of this subject to look at objectively.

 

[freakazoid]

At 18 years old, you're considered a responsible adult who can make the decision to join the military and die for your country, but if you want to drink a beer, you better hope you live another 3 years because you're not responsible enough for that until then.
-
When teenagers commit a serious crime in the U.S., they can be found competent to stand trial as an adult, but when it comes to their own life, nothin' doing.
-
This isn't a case where a child might need to be protected from stupid parents. This person is close enough to being an adult that she should be treated as such.

 

[moevillini]

Thanks Freak.

I was going to make that same point about children as young as 12 being charged and convicted as adults in the US judicial system.


I may be imagining this but I recall seeing a Broadway play some years back called "Whose Life is it Anyway" about the right to die,

Now I gotta google to be sure.

(yep https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whose_Life_Is_It_Anyway?_(play)

 

[babe]

Your body - your choice. I am in full favor of self assisted medical suicide for terminally ill people. If we are ok with disfiguring, painting, piercing and altering our bodies in any way why we would have a saying if one wants to end his life and destroy his body completely?

Troll/

I get so sick of you redneck knee jerk self-centered rich white dudes he'll-bent on having it all your own way at society's expense, blathering on and on about personal rights, freedom, liberty, God, and similarly stupid archaic notions from the Pandora's box of human delusions ages out of date. . . .

/troll

Seriously I agree completely.

And even with a perspective like Log's in view, I come down on the kid's right to refuse it, and the parents' right to trump their minor children's decision as much more proper than a legislature's or a court's . . . . Or a President's, or a government agency's. . . .penchant for control or power over her or her parents.

This from one who for maybe 15 years worked in cancer chemotherapy research believing we wre on the threshold of the magic ballet that would kill only cancer cells. . . . Forty years ago.

As things stand now, the chemotherapy doses are set to kill about a thousand healthy cells for every cancer cell because it only takes three to fifteen years for one cancer cell to re-establish diagnosable cancer. .. . .

I think the bottom line is nobody should have a say in a kid's life without a track record of love and personal sacrifice that the kid recognizes. . . .

And he'll no, no government official really gives a damn. Those judges and officials that intrude themselves in a child's choice and force her to suffer like that are state-sanctioned child a users.

And those "typos" are the iPad programmers', not mine.

OK, I'm ranting here. . . .the other side of the issue is the tax value of human life to authoritarian governments, and the consumer value of human life to corporate interests, like Walmart and Big Pharma.

Your value as a person figures out to be a liability to a government once you quit working, although you may be valuable to some politicians who think nothing of the public purse.

You can count on insurance companies wanting you alive as long as they are collecting money from you,and WallMart loving you as long as you have money yo spend whether it is from work or welfare. . . .

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I lean towards sacrificing the child's life if the parents refuse to allow the procedure rather than having the courts step in and order the procedure be followed. But I'm not really sure how strongly I lean in that direction.

here's a link with some good information on this subject:
https://adc.bmj.com/content/90/7/715.full

I rarely find reason to disagree with your posts, but this is one of them. While the state grants parents wide latitude (as it should) to pass on their beliefs, values etc. to their children, this latitude should have limits, and one clear limit has to do with ensuring that these beliefs, values etc. do not put children's lives at undue risk nor that the cause direct physical, life threatening harm to the children. If parents will not as a matter of belief provide their children basic health care that is available to them and necessary to protect the a child's life, then I believe that the state has every right to step in to ensure that it is provided to the child. I realize that there is a very fine line here, and I can't state definitively where it should be drawn, but 'sacrificing' a child's life to his/her parents' beliefs to me defines a clear demarcation place to draw the line.