Society/Culture Forcing a Minor to Undergo Chemo Against Their Will

Remove this Banner Ad

PACatter

Club Legend
Dec 4, 2012
1,292
1,244
Amish Paradise
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Phila. Phillies, Eagles, Flyers
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/201...-force-a-teenage-girl-to-undergo-chemotherapy

Brings up a number of questions:
1) Can the state tell a minor what they can do with their body?
2) Should the state step in to prevent an ill-informed decision an adult makes for their child?
3) Why aren't people who do not believe in scientifically proven treatment of an illness treated with the same derision as climate-change deniers?

The Libertarian in me says to let her skip treatment and die. The humanitarian says she needs to be taken from her ignorant mother and offered a better life.
 
I read something on this the other day.

I can understand minors not having the final say, but as her mother is also supportive of her daughters decision I can't understand the problem.

Also worth noting that the 'minor' in question is 17.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Well, having supported and cared for someone all the way to the end, who chose not to have chemotherapy, I think i have an understanding of why she has chosen to do what she has done.

Sorry for your loss, but I come from the other side of it - having family that is happy, healthy, and most importantly, still alive because they chose to follow the doctors directions in having their lymphoma treated. So I do not have an understanding why she chooses to go against the doctor's suggestions.

I read something on this the other day.

I can understand minors not having the final say, but as her mother is also supportive of her daughters decision I can't understand the problem.

Also worth noting that the 'minor' in question is 17.

This brings up the arbitrary decision of what makes a minor. In a few months, when she turns 18, she can discontinue treatment and there is nothing the state can do about it. So why bother?

Frankly, I wouldn't consider that I was mature enough to make a life-and-death decision like this until I was 20 or 21.
 
Sorry for your loss, but I come from the other side of it - having family that is happy, healthy, and most importantly, still alive because they chose to follow the doctors directions in having their lymphoma treated. So I do not have an understanding why she chooses to go against the doctor's suggestions..

There are many doctors that get cancer that refuse chemo ...
 
Statistics on the success of chemo are skewed. They class it as a success if you die from chemo and not from the cancer. They do this because it helps sell thier therapy, if they can provide high survival rates. i think its 2 years after diagnoses, statistically you become a success, even though you might be in a coma from the blood cots chemo gave you.

More and more Australian are finding their way to places like in Germany who use hemp oil and are successfully treating lung cancers that australian oncologists said chemo could only slow down.
 
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/201...-force-a-teenage-girl-to-undergo-chemotherapy

Brings up a number of questions:
1) Can the state tell a minor what they can do with their body?
2) Should the state step in to prevent an ill-informed decision an adult makes for their child?
3) Why aren't people who do not believe in scientifically proven treatment of an illness treated with the same derision as climate-change deniers?

The Libertarian in me says to let her skip treatment and die. The humanitarian says she needs to be taken from her ignorant mother and offered a better life.

1) No, but in certain circumstances they do. i.e. Alcohol is illegal as is ice due to the harm it can do to growing bodies. So a free for all is not practical.

2) Yes. If you have a situation of teenage alcoholism, other avenues of harm the state can and does step in.

3) Because society is indcotrinated in certain things and people rarely think for themselves.

However in this case the minor is dead on the money imo. Chemo is absolute bulls^%, dangerous and has a low strike rate, no better than the 60s when it was first being used. The fact drug companies can have such a say in medical treatment, when they in essence depend on the sick is mind boggling. For the amount of money that goes to cancer research the outpit is negligible. The same treatment as the 70s are still used. Don't get me wrong if I ever cop an infection, disease or need surgery then Western Medicine is the first place I'd head. But cancer, obesity, diabetes or anything to do with the self regulation of the body or immune system forget it. The treatment success rate is shocking.

Statistics on the success of chemo are skewed. They class it as a success if you die from chemo and not from the cancer. They do this because it helps sell thier therapy, if they can provide high survival rates. i think its 2 years after diagnoses, statistically you become a success, even though you might be in a coma from the blood cots chemo gave you.

More and more Australian are finding their way to places like in Germany who use hemp oil and are successfully treating lung cancers that australian oncologists said chemo could only slow down.

Bang on. They are miles ahead. The fact that hemp is illegal when it is the ultimate renewable (not necessarily talking the marijuana effect) shows how backward we are.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Bang on. They aremiles ahead. The fact that hemp is illegal when it is the ultimate renewable (not necessarily talking the marijuana effect) shows how backward we are.

To me it shows how corrupt pharmaceuticals are and is just one of many examples they are only interest in profit/repeat business. It shows how corrupt our politicians are, maybe how powerless they're to these billion dollar companies?
 
source? sounds like complete nonsense - not unlike everything else you post.

3 Medical Studies that Demonstrate Cannabis Can Treat Cancer
Brain Cancer
http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v95/n2/abs/6603236a.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11479216
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/21/17/6475.abstract
http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/308/3/838.abstract
http://mct.aacrjournals.org/content/10/1/90.abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17952650
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1576089/
http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37948
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/64/16/5617.full
Mouth and Throat Cancer
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20516734
Breast Cancer
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20859676
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18025276
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21915267
http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/early/2006/05/25/jpet.106.105247.full.pdf+html
http://www.molecular-cancer.com/content/9/1/196
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22776349
http://www.pnas.org/content/95/14/8375.full.pdf+html
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/66/13/6615.abstract
http://endo.endojournals.org/content/141/1/118.abstract#fn-1
Lung Cancer
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22198381
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21097714
http://www.nature.com/onc/journal/v27/n3/abs/1210641a.html
Uterine, Testicular, and Pancreatic Cancers
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/66/13/6748.abstract
Prostate Cancer
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12746841?dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3339795/?tool=pubmed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22594963
Colorectal Cancer
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22231745
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19442536
http://safeaccess.ca/research/pdf/MD_AndersonCancerStudy.pdf
http://gut.bmj.com/content/54/12/1741.abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25269802/
Ovarian Cancer
http://www.aacrmeetingabstracts.org/cgi/content/abstract/2006/1/1084
Blood Cancer
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12091357
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16908594
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.23584/abstract
http://molpharm.aspetjournals.org/content/70/5/1612.abstract
Skin Cancer
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12511587
Liver Cancer
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21475304
Biliary Tract Cancer
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19916793
Bladder Cancer
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/803983 (Sign-up required to view)
Other Cancers
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12514108
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15313899
 
"This is not about death," Fortin says. "My daughter is not going to die. This is about, 'This is my body, my choice, and let me decide.' " makes me think the 17yo's mum has filled her daughter's head with bullshit and that's why she doesn't want treatment, not because of a clear-headed assessment of what the doctors have told her aka do this or you're ****ed.

So in this case the court made the right decision.
 
Why shouldn't Doctors lie when the entire cancer industry is one gigantic fabrication from start to finish? Is it any wonder that cancer societies worldwide put a far greater financial initiative on chemotherapy and radiation research than disease prevention techniques? Preventing disease doesn't make money, but treating disease certainly does.

https://www.minds.com/blog/view/401...sing-healthy-people-with-cancer-to-make-money

Were his patients shocked? You bet they were. Who would ever suspect a Doctor of faking a diagnosis to collect money. It's unconscionable. Yet it happens with cancer and almost every disease that medical doctors can generate income through kickbacks and commissions based on the volume of patients treated with specific pharmaceuticals. Like anything people are used as a comodity.
 

Quoting Natural News for "facts" is just about the bottom of the barrel.

Also, almost every citation you provided talks about how Cannabis may help ease the cancer in mice for a variety of cancers (although I note that Hodgkins Lymphoma - the cancer in question - is nowhere in any of those studies, so congrats on missing the point of the article).

there seems to be numerous stories where weed oil has in fact 'cured cancer' ...

http://www.cureyourowncancer.org/how-cannabis-oil-works.html

There are also numerous stories where doing nothing at all has in fact 'cured cancer'.

But there are more numerous facts stating that chemo is the treatment that will present this specific person with this specific cancer with the best percentage opportunity to survive.

I'm all for legalization, but folks like you make me happy it hasn't happened yet. Get off the crusade and look at the facts of the case being discussed.
 
Statistics on the success of chemo are skewed. They class it as a success if you die from chemo and not from the cancer. They do this because it helps sell thier therapy, if they can provide high survival rates. i think its 2 years after diagnoses, statistically you become a success, even though you might be in a coma from the blood cots chemo gave you.

Also, funny enough, the same standards that are used for weighing success/failure in studies of all other treatments.

BBBBBUT BIG PHARMA! MONEY!

More and more Australian are finding their way to places like in Germany who use hemp oil and are successfully treating lung cancers that australian oncologists said chemo could only slow down.

Hey, hemp oil is legal in the U.S., any guesses why it is still not accepted as a proper treatment for cancer? Most likely because there is no hard evidence that proves it, just claims and stories. Also, cannabis oil? Just as big a money maker as chemo, so if you want to use "money making" as a reason why chemo is chosen, sorry, doesn't fly.

I get the whole idea of fightin' the man, I was like that for years, but after a while you just sound like a flog.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top