ForumsWEPRState Gov. forces person to take chemo for cancer

24 2368
231terminator
offline
231terminator
88 posts
Peasant

idk the names or which state. the person has terminal cancer of sorts and the courts are forcing him to take chemotherapy. i just recently heard this so i don't know much other than that. What do you guys think about this?

  • 24 Replies
231terminator
offline
231terminator
88 posts
Peasant

@HahiHa well i guess we don't really have enough info, i was kinda basing my opinion off of what we did have but your right, we don't know the mothers motive to defending her daughter.We also don't know what the doctors have told them so far either. The daughter shouldn't die from a mother trying to make a point either. However as you said Hodgkins Lymphoma has a high cure rate, making both sides justifiable.

i think we should make a list real quick

The family:

Reasons: there right to refuse treatment, and wanting to preserve quality of life

mistakes: possilbly dies, and mother may be trying to make a point

The gov:

reasons: may save the girls life

mistakes: could draw out life to be painful and long

Ishtaron
offline
Ishtaron
359 posts
Jester

Quality of life is an important part the issue. Disregarding it on the grounds that lifespan is the only thing of any significance is exactly why it's an issue.

The government doesn't care about quality of life. This thread isn't a crusade for legal reform, so far it's a discussion on whether the DCF is legally within their purview to force a minor to receive chemotherapy. The only argument you could make to say that they're not depends entirely on whether or not Cassandra's mother has been deemed an unfit parent. Quality cannot be determined by any government standard, and even if it could her quality of life after treatment cannot be determined. I've shown that repeatedly in my posts and I strongly recommend you go back to read everything I've written before responding again.

I do not appeal to emotions. If you were at all emotionally moved by my statement, that's a fault of yours, not mine.

The content of your post disagrees with that claim.

What you are suggesting is that some people you've never met are justified in subjecting you to several rounds of torture from which you will never fully recover, provided that the outcome is probably going to turn out better for you, in their opinion, than it would otherwise be.

When I see something like that I hear hooves. You'll have to forgive me for thinking of horses instead of zebras. You even use the word torture, if comparing something to torture isn't an appeal to emotions then you'd have to actually be discussing torture.

They are straw men because they have nothing to do with my argument. If you think I have no objection to one or more of them, you are using them in an appeal to hypocrisy, as my condolence of a similar but unrelated scenario has no bearing upon this.

It doesn't matter whether you disagree with one or two of those situations, they're all cases in which it is culturally acceptable to allow other people to make decisions for you. This is a matter of the law and U.S. culture therefore the presence of similar situations is definitely relevant, especially given the post I was responding to.

No. I am arguing that the quantity of life, whether known or otherwise, does not inherently outweigh the quality of that life. At no point have I asserted that one is better than the other.

You're argument does nothing to prove that her quality of life would be worse though. In fact, you've done nothing to counter the multiple times I've stated that chemotherapy does not necessarily damage the quality of life after treatment. You also have made several statements that indicate quality of life is more important that quantity.

...so it certainly isn't a question of pure ignorance or "gut feeling", unless that feeling is chemotoxin-induced nausea.

...provided that the outcome is probably going to turn out better for you, in their opinion, than it would otherwise be.

Choosing an early grave over severe anguish and a slightly less early grave ≠> Being an idiot.

The opinion is that a longer life would be better (to the point of taking legal action to ensure it) regardless of the quality of that life.

It asserts that there is a tradeoff (which I think you will find very difficult to deny) between minimizing pain and extending life span.

Quality of life is an important part the issue.

That's 6 quotes all attached specifically to how important the quality of life is in her decision, some of which at least imply that her quality of life is guaranteed to diminish to the point of negating the benefit of any extra years she'd have with treatment.

My statement was an analogy of your straw man.

No, you're statement was an outright strawman that compared the personal experiences of a cancer survivor (whose young age indicates an extremely low tolerance to pain and was therefore important to the discussion) to a special ed class of second graders who don't know what colors are.

The opinion of one cancer survivor and the shared beliefs of a group of several 7-year-olds are equally relevant to the validity of someone else's decision about their own life.

That "opinion" is a real life example of someone surviving cancer and enjoying a post-treatment life with no pain. The longest term side effect she experienced was hair loss. It is real life proof that someone can receive chemotherapy and have a normal life afterwards. I can quote survival statistics all day but that won't prove quality of life. That child is proof of a quality of life after treatment.

No, actually, they haven't. I stated that the DCF is overstepping its authority and acting without sufficient grounds, and that choosing an early grave over severe anguish and a slightly less early grave does not imply being an idiot. As I only referred to rights in the paragraph you just quoted, I may have to conclude that you actually agree with me on this matter, but are confusing me with someone else.

You can play the semantics game all you want, but it doesn't change what you've said in this thread. Just because you don't use the word rights doesn't mean you're not discussing them. It's clear you think that the DCF is exceeding its authority and violating her rights. Namely, her right to choose to die over suffering. I've pointed out repeatedly that such a right doesn't exist, especially for minors. If you want to say that the DCF is overstepping its authority then at least be able to back up that statement rationally and with evidence. Otherwise you're statements are nothing more than reactionary rhetoric, and there are few things on the internet more vile than reactionary rhetoric.

stinkyjim
offline
stinkyjim
479 posts
Farmer

If the person isn't contagious then the government has no right to force someone to do a medical procedure / take medication. If that person wants to die a slow painful death, and the disease is unable to spread due to not taking medication, then let them. They're not harming anyone but themselves.

However, if the disease is contagious, then the government has every right to quarantine/operate/medicate that person. Why should others suffer for the neglect to your own body? If you don't want to seek medical attention for that contagious blob on your shoulder that's spewing pus everywhere, then you have proven that you can't make rational decisions and deserve to be locked away in quarantine. Just because you don't care about your own safety, doesn't mean you should be able to put the safety of others at risk.

As for the chemo therapy, please read paragraph one. Cancer is not contagious, therefore nobody but the infected is at risk. The government stepping in is a waste of resources that could be spent on fighting contagious diseases such as HIV, Ebola, etc.. We should be encouraging the government to do more about those latter diseases.

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,057 posts
Archduke

The government doesn't care about quality of life.

Which is exactly why it's an issue.

This thread isn't a crusade for legal reform, so far it's a discussion on whether the DCF is legally within their purview to force a minor to receive chemotherapy.

Well, let's see. From the OP:
the person has terminal cancer of sorts and the courts are forcing him to take chemotherapy. i just recently heard this so i don't know much other than that. What do you guys think about this?

nicho:
Personally I feel that the government should not step in to armstrong someone into accepting medication...unless the disease he or she is refusing treatment for is contagious.

You:
All of that said, since the specific cancer mentioned in the article was Hodgkins Lymphoma, I do think she should be forced to recieve treatment.

Our personal opinions do not decide state laws. Therefore, on this matter, you are wrong.

The content of your post disagrees with that claim.

I could take an equally extreme slant and interpret the beginning of every other paragraph of your post from the next one on as a direct ad hominem. This, of course, means that your arguments are based on ad hominem, right?

You even use the word torture, if comparing something to torture isn't an appeal to emotions then you'd have to actually be discussing torture.

1.
the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2.
a method of inflicting such pain.
3.
Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4.
extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5.
a cause of severe pain or anguish.

Please note 2, 4, and 5.

It doesn't matter whether you disagree with one or two of those situations, they're all cases in which it is culturally acceptable to allow other people to make decisions for you. This is a matter of the law and U.S. culture therefore the presence of similar situations is definitely relevant, especially given the post I was responding to.

The post that you were responding to had nothing whatsoever to do with United States, law, or culture. Here it is again; see if you can find even one mention of any of those three things:
The effects of chemotherapy are not confined to the therapy period. Fibrosis and peripheral neuropathy are completely irreversible and can be quite debilitating. What you are suggesting is that some people you've never met are justified in subjecting you to several rounds of torture from which you will never fully recover, provided that the outcome is probably going to turn out better for you, in their opinion, than it would otherwise be.

You're argument does nothing to prove that her quality of life would be worse though.

This may surprise you, but... [conspiratorial tone]it isn't supposed to[/conspiratorial tone]. This is because that is not (pron. not) what I'm arguing. It never was. Stating that a longer life isn't inherently better does not imply that a shorter life is.

No, you're statement was an outright strawman that compared the personal experiences of a cancer survivor (whose young age indicates an extremely low tolerance to pain and was therefore important to the discussion) to a special ed class of second graders who don't know what colors are.

Exactly! So it makes an excellent analogy for your straw man which purports that the opinion of this one cancer survivor is of any relevance to the discussion.

That "opinion" is a real life example of someone surviving cancer and enjoying a post-treatment life with no pain.

Yes, and it isn't someone involved in the subject of this thread or any kind of authority on the mental soundness of someone who is. I really can't make it much clearer than this.

You can play the semantics game all you want, but it doesn't change what you've said in this thread. Just because you don't use the word rights doesn't mean you're not discussing them.

It doesn't need to change anything. Everything I said is completely valid and will remain so until the meaning of the words evolves into something else, or until this site goes extinct; whichever is sooner. The fact that I was not discussing rights is evidence enough that I wasn't discussing rights.

It's clear you think that the DCF is exceeding its authority and violating her rights.

Not at all. I think that the DCF is exceeding its authority by keeping her under confinement without an arrest warrant, order of quarantine, or proof of incompetence, but of course you already knew that, didn't you:
Generally, the only time the government can force treatment on someone is if they're mentally incompetent to make decisions. That means they have to be either very young or suffering from a mental illness. For certain contagious diseases or unknown illnesses the CDC, and globally WHO, are exempt from those standards so that they can quarantine and treat a disease for the public good. Otherwise the government has to prove legal incompetence to force someone into treatment which does make what Connecticut is doing illegal.

So, again, I must conclude that we are not actually in disagreement, at least on this particular matter.
231terminator
offline
231terminator
88 posts
Peasant

is this thread now about fishpreferred vs ishtaron? seriously each one of there post is intended to merely argue against the other. im placing my bets that fishpreferred will win though

WHDH
offline
WHDH
168 posts
Farmer

Well there is nothing wrong with that debate

about fishpreferred vs ishtaron
as long as it is about this thread.
SportShark
offline
SportShark
2,934 posts
Bard

is this thread now about fishpreferred vs ishtaron?

Well no, it's about him vs everyone else which is also the plot to every single thread in the WEPR.

seriously each one of there post is intended to merely argue against the other.

"You're wrong, I'm right! Nice strawman, poopoo face!"
"No, you are, you quack! Look at me, I can link to a Wikipedia article about a certain falacy, ha ha!"
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,869 posts
Viceroy

Discussions on the internet tend to just devolve into quibbling over individual points and pieces of evidence so.....

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
7,757 posts
Grand Duke

This thread had been necro'ed (already before SportShark's comment) and the recent posts don't seem to add anything to the topic, so locked. If anyone really wants to revive the original debate, please leave a comment on my Profile.

Showing 16-24 of 24