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.
